dagblog - Comments for "Bernie echoes Trump, blames Hillary, quotes fake news"

How could they? Same as

barefooted — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 03:55:09 +0000

In reply to Well, how in the world could

How could they? Same as before. He won't consider running as an Independent - why should the Democrats fuss? It will depend on whether they think he can win, and if they can afford to lose his votes since he caucuses with them and numbers matter. If the Dems pull off a miracle and take the Senate in 2018? All bets for Sanders are off.

Well, how in the world could

CVille Dem — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 02:02:31 +0000

In reply to Hal, Hillary Clinton lost the

Well, how in the world could Bernie even enter a Democratic Primary for 2020? He lied about being a Democrat in 2016. How could they let him do it again? Of course he would be all aggrieved and screaming about rigging, etc. But him running as a Democrat will never happen

Let’s see how well he fares as a Socialist. Especially since he has absolutely zero policies. Only BS without a single plan to accomplish anything.

The first step toward fixing

moat — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 23:59:54 +0000

In reply to Foreign nations attempt to

The first step toward fixing the problem is to separate the discussion of the legitimacy of our last election from measuring how much foreign influence had to do with the results.

To say that the motivation to address foreign influence is principally driven by a desire to misdirect attention from Clinton's alleged failures is an ad hominem argument. Since it deals with the intentions of other people, it cannot also be an argument about what happened. The results issue is complicated and highly subject to the butterfly effect. The legitimacy issue is grounded in processes deeply mortised into our Republic. To conflate the two matters can only lead to logical fallacies and ships passing in the night.

Hal, Hillary Clinton lost the

barefooted — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 23:08:23 +0000

In reply to AA - you claim that I spin.

Hal, Hillary Clinton lost the election and she's not running for anything. If you want to advocate for Bernie Sanders as our best hope for a win in 2020, then do that - just look forward and tell us why instead of backwards trying to explain why it didn't happen. Why is he likely to be the best two years from now if you think he'll run? Who will be his likely primary competitors and why is he the best choice? How can he beat the Republican candidate whether it be Trump or someone else - and what kind of difference would that make for his possible campaign?

If he's what you believe he is, and his ideas are as solid as you believe they are, then tell us why we should support a run in 2020. He lost the primary in 2016, so tell us why that shouldn't happen again.

What is credible evidence?

ocean-kat — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:52:53 +0000

In reply to AA - you claim that I spin.

What is credible evidence? Rarely is there absolutely irrefutable overwhelming evidence. There is credible evidence with varying degrees of strength on both sides. You offer credible evidence to support your opinions much of the time. Others offer credible evidence to support their opinions. You find their credible evidence when weighed against your credible evidence insufficient to change your mind. They find your credible evidence when weighed against their credible evidence insufficient to change their mind.

We can discuss, debate, argue and hash out which pieces of the credible evidence are strongest and weakest. Some might turn out to be incorrect, not credible evidence, and need to be discarded. Some to weak to be used as credible evidence. If we do that honestly, rationally, and reasonably we can have interesting and productive conversations. I'll leave it at that and not offer my opinions about how you and to a much greater degree rmrd treat your own and other people's credible evidence when we hash it out.

It seems clear to me that most of us edit our posts before we hit send. The quality is too high to be stream of consciousness. Unless I'm pissed at how the conversation is going I tend to edit by adding qualifiers, caveats, extended explanations, softening phrases like It seems, It appears, it might. The more I edit the less absolute my post gets and the more nuanced. Because truth is complex, nothing is as simple as it seems at first look, and I'm trying to get as close to the truth as I see it as possible. As you edit what types of changes do you generally make to your original post?

AA - you claim that I spin.

HSG — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 21:50:06 +0000

In reply to That you feel your blogging

AA - you claim that I spin. Previously, you accused me of exaggerating the degree to which Clinton is reviled. I provided very credible evidence that I was not. You haven't mentioned that incident. Nevertheless you now accuse me of spinning, fine set forth examples. If your examples are proven false, then admit it and stop with the accusations.

Lawyers take money from their clients and are duty-bound to argue on their behalf zealously. For my writings here, I get no money :-( Accordingly I argue zealously for what I believe to be the best solutions for our myriad problems. If the evidence demonstrates that I am wrong about how to solve these problems, then I'm happy to change my proposals because all I care about is solving the problems.

I believe Bernie's progressive populism was and is the best answer to the problems besetting our nation for a whole host of reasons. I also believe that Clinton's cautious corporate centrism has caused a great deal of harm to vulnerable citizens and empowered the right. If you disagree and set forth persuasive arguments, I'll reconsider. If you can't set forth a persuasive rebuttal, then why would you disagree?

That you feel your blogging

artappraiser — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:44:44 +0000

In reply to What you write is fair. But I

That you feel your blogging should be advocacy like in our legal system totally explains the animosity you get from news junkie types around here.

We don't look at the world as a courtroom where there are only two sides to a story.

And on a site like this, where most members care about figuring out the truth, are interested in more of a juror role, what that kind of blogging does is basically ask for a reader to instead volunteer to step up and present the other other side's case.

When they might not at all enjoy doing that, but they feel baited by the situation that the whole story is not being told. Then their blood pressure goes up because they feel they have been baited into an advocate role that they don't really support. And they feel crummy afterwards that they were once again baited into spending precious spare time on an activity that is not enervating but aggravating. Especially if the debate has happened before!

Some people do enjoy adversarial debate as a game, with points. It is traditional in politics. It's why so many like to rate presidential debates as to winner and loser, as if it is a sports contest between gladiators and what they actually said about policy doesn't matter. Most dagblog members seem to enjoy doing that for the big ones, with an "all in good fun" attitude. (There should be this reminder here, though: many feel with mass media that this has gotten to the stage that is very destructive: not just one political oration vs. another, but Fox vs. MSNBC 24/7.)

The news junkie vs. advocacy blogging, It's the difference between the role of the scholar and the role of a trial lawyer.

When someone with a large audience continually argues in an advocate's role, like an op-ed writer for a big paper, or a spinmeister for a candidate, news junkies accept what they are trying to do because it's very nature of their job. And our only role as readers is to decode what they are attempting to accomplish or point out something interesting they said or ignore them as is our wont.

When someone tries to do it with a small audience that is relatively well informed, though, the reaction is more like this: why are you trying to spin us? Thought we were friends? Do you think we are stupid?

The mystery to me is that in admitting this, why you think it is worthwhile to spend so much time spinning here were the reach is small and most people already know your argument. Is it to just hone and practice your argument for a bigger audience? If so, you should welcome constructive criticism! But you don't often seem to do so.

(Also, don't you realize that this is what makes so many people hate lawyers, that they argue one side of the story and purposely try to avoid or even hide any facts that are detrimental to their case? Same for politicians and their spinmeisters who practice the same game well. Advocacy technique is why people don't trust what lawyers and politicians say.)

All true. Homicides have

rmrd0000 — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:01:16 +0000

In reply to That article on Chicago was

All true. Homicides have decreased in multiple cities. One does wonder if cities with high degrees of police abuse leads to higher crime rates. Baltimore has a high homicide rate. There was celebration when the city went 11 days without a murder. During the homicide free streak Baltimore police officers were on trail for planting guns, stealing drugs and money.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43050024

That article on Chicago was

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:45:45 +0000

In reply to Unless we break dagblog rules

That article on Chicago was *after* the latest shooting, so the left's hiphopcrisy was in high relief - i.e. context was suddenly a bit different. I've supported #BLM from the beginning in terms of actual goals, not necessarily all their tactics, and I still find it amazing that people are able to rationalize all this killing away. That said, the police killings in context of the large number of non-police killings that get less publicity is also another bit of sad irony.

Unless we break dagblog rules

rmrd0000 — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:15:20 +0000

In reply to What you write is fair. But I

Unless we break dagblog rules, I think we are free to express opinions.I find it remarkable that some can read the articles in an “unbiased” fashion. To me the articles have context. I for example, can’t read about the positive responses to the teen survivors and not reflect on the negative responses to BlackLivesMatter. When I see a WaPo column by a white Conservative writing about Chicago homicides praised, I wonder how all the articles on the same topic by black activists and pundits were missed. I disagree with much of what you post, but I do agree that it is hard to be “unbiased”. People who post are giving opinions and spelling out what they believe what they believe. Out in the real world, I’m sure most are acting on theirs beliefs by being active in their communities.