The Trump 2024 thread...

[TSherbs]

This is going to be one wacky election cycle. I'm not seeing a lot of candidates that aren't the kind you hold you nose and vote for on either side.

It's still early. Very early. We'll see what develops, on both sides.

[Kgbenson]

This is going to be one wacky election cycle. I'm not seeing a lot of candidates that aren't the kind you hold you nose and vote for on either side.

It's still early. Very early. We'll see what develops, on both sides.

Fair point - but nothing would surprise me at this point.

[TSherbs]

I was thinking, dneal, about why we have disagreed so much, and from recent exchanges I came upon this idea (not as a full explanation, but as a possible piece): your background in your military work had you working with the machinations of large scale units and the dynamics of systems of machinery, supplies, military projects (etc). You seem interested in these large scale forces and patterns in politics, too. I, on the other hand, for decades worked on character development and the dynamics in play between individuals (in stories) and the interior elements that make them tick. I tend to view politics in terms of character and leadership. You often kept saying, "Let's talk about policy" and I kept saying "Trump is a disgrace." These are not "narratives," these are more like channels that our brains are used to operating in. My observation and thoughts, for what they are worth...

That's probably a lot of it, but it's also my disposition in general. Although I started out working on a psychology degree, I ended up majoring in philosophy and intended to go on to law. Life got in the way, I had an opportunity to go back on active duty as an officer, and the rest is what it is.

Psychology introduced statistics, the enormous complexity of variables, and Z variables. Keen lessons on correlation not equaling causality (which is not to say correlation isn't important).

Philosophy wasn't about trees falling in forests, but sentential logic, fallacies, and rhetoric - and a keen desire for truth, wherever that might lead.

Add all that to a military environment where a dispassionate attitude is essential (literally calculating potential casualties, and planning for the logistics of storing and transporting bodies, for example). As time went by, I progressed in rank, assignments and responsibility. I got closer to the bureaucracy, saw more of what went on behind the curtain, and got disgusted by the way the real world works.

So I suppose it's a matter of considering all that light of "channels that our brains are used to operating in". You're not wrong, and I would just add that given my background it is a subject that interests me. Channels my brain operates in, your (and other's) brains, but collective brains as well.

I'm always cognizant of Twain's maxim about people feeling and mistaking it for thinking, and check my own thinking and wonder if I'm feeling (or if my emotion is influencing my reason). I've got lots of opinions that intuitively feel right (Whitehead's: the final appeal is to intuition), but I try to weigh that against evidence. What I try not to do is get into those emotional arguments. I used the term "intelligent discussion" in the past, but on reflection it would be better to say "dispassionate discussion". Imagine a forum of two people, one a die-hard MAGA bubba and the other a purple-haired "wokenista". It would be both simply hurling accusations at each other. Aside from being unproductive, it's boring. There are a lot of smart people here that know more about things I'm completely ignorant of. I asked you in the lounge about poetry suggestions. I'm actually interested in Chip's experiences - greenhouses in particular.

The political/societal landscape has become so charged that people are quick to prove Twain's maxim. Blue and right echo-chambers with narratives reinforcing limited worldviews. Very little compassion or attempts to understand alternate points of view.

As an aside - once you get away from the specific characters and plot in Much Ado, it's what the title says. A bunch of Dogberry's and Don Pedro's wrapped up in their personal perspectives (or narratives). We (humans) seem to love drama and absurdity, but like Dogberry are completely unaware of our own.

Thanks for this reply.

"dispassionate attitude" seems a very apt phrase for what you have advocated on many occasions. It is, at times, a high-value and high-yield approach, and I see, especially now that you have elaborated, why it would be productive and valuable in your work for the military. Although very different, I used to beg my colleagues (and bosses) for access to data when they would begin to generalize (non-dispassionately) about policy decisions and changes in direction. ANd any time that I sensed reluctance to divulge, I became suspicious and even less cooperative. I even once had my boss give me the finger in a school lunch room (kind of comical, how the adults behave no better than the children, at times) because of how I had challenged him in an open meeting (he is also one of my best friends, I should note). He was very angry. Such is the nature of institutional power, at times.

I, too, sniffed around the philosophy department offerings. The ancient Greek philosophy was most intriguing to me, and I became friends with that professor (from England, but he moved on). The more modern stuff I did not enjoy as much; it became more abstract and pedntic, to my mind. And, by the way, one professor actually asked us to write an essay on the tree fell in the woods question. I was pissed that we got asked to write an answer to the most cliched question that I could think of. I dribbled out a reluctant (coerced) answer and got a C. I remember just thinking, "Well, fuck you. It was a grade D question." I was actually introduced to rhetorical logic and fallacies in a freshman English class (became friends with that guy and he influenced my decision to be an English major), and was really turned off by the formal logic I took via the math department (too mechanical, clearly oriented for the computer programmers). I do remember also recoiling a bit from the binary outlook of some of the philophical inquiries that pitted emotion versus reason (nearly always valuing the latter over the former). It felt artificial, and biased. This outlook was not suffiently unitive for me, although I did not know that term for what I wanted and did not fully understand what I was looking for. I also needed something more spiritual, more profound and resonant for me. Philosophy seemed to sharpen certain intellectual tools; they just weren't all rewarding for me.

I have tried, I know sometimes unsuccessfully, here to de-emphasize the polarity of the the middle of the bell-curve of the country's politics. We do not all live and work in echo chambers outside of the cocoons of our workplace or the internet fora that we frequent. Yes, we are tribal--generally--but not always specifically and not permananetly and not exclusively. We are other things, too. I come here and I vent about Trump and MAGA world, but that is not all I do in my larger life, and I have family members and aquaintances who are Trump supporters and I converse and behave differently around them. There are some matters that I have pledged to myself I will no longer be "dispassionate" about. I have started family fights now that I have come to understand that "agreement" is not the same as love (or compassion). I have been an invited guest at another aquantance's house, and when racist ignorance was spouted, I objected openly because silence was clearly going to be seen as tacit approval. I am done with that. Equanimity sometimes has negative consequences, but we must each choose for ourselves.

Wrapping up, I loved what you wrote about Much Ado: "Once you get away from the specific plot and characters..." What??? Why, it's no longer even a play once one does that! Of course we love drama and absurdity and tragedy and fun...we are "the story-telling animal," after all. Even our dreams have to do this with our brain cells while we sleep! I hope that you have watched the Branagh/Thompson film of that play. One of the best ever, in my opinion. Michael Keaton as Dogberry is THE BEST.

[dneal]

Some thoughts absent quotes, to avoid a wall of paragraphs...

No argument from me on modern philosophers (especially the French schools, although I give Voltaire and Rousseau a pass). Ambrose Bierce called it "a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing". He must have been reading Sartre...

I talk about the "why game". Toddlers ask why the sky is blue. They get a technical answer. They reply with why, and get another answer. That goes on to the limit of science, and we reach the final why. There is no answer. Maybe it's god. Maybe it's a big bang and and endless universe. Maybe it's an elephant standing on the back of a tortoise... That's uncomfortable, and "don't know" is insufficient for most; which is why human history is populated by fables and myths to explain the ultimate why. I'm ok with not knowing, and that's one of the points of philosophy - contemplating the unknowable. It's why doctorates are doctorates of philosophy in a given discipline (although I've noticed a trend to replace "Ph" with something else).

For me, the unknowing and wonder is the point, or the answer to "why". The point is to think, reflect, ponder, wonder, admire, etc... I read and re-read Emerson because he resonates with me, and I get something new out of it each time. I'd recommend him to anybody who can get past his ponderous prose and find the rhythm - the "song" that he's singing.

I think the main problem with human thinking is the tendency to false dichotomy, and framing things as such. My worldview tends to one multi-faceted thing (a gem metaphor). You can look through any given facet, believe you're seeing something different; but if you back off you're still seeing aspects of the same incredibly complex thing (or reality). Dichotomies frame it as only two facets, but when you see the connections - or the "facets" - and how they relate... it creates more Emersonian wonder and admiration (and respect) for our finite time.

Sorry for waxing philosophical and trying to put decades of pondering into a few paragraphs... but I'll continue anyway.

I often cite the "definition of christian" thread as an example of how this part of the forum used to be, and how I wish it were. That's a contentious issue, of course; but one I like contemplating. jar's knowledge of Christianity's history is a source of admiration and even envy, for me. Sure there is the person who comes in and proclaims some absolute truth, and I can cite Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" as a response (and probably did). So it is with politics. Hillary is the devil, Trump is literally Hitler, etc... Politics seems to be the new religion, of sorts. Brett Weinstein calls it a religion-shaped hole in society, that has to be filled with something. I think he's on to something, and I like the metaphor.

I've certainly played my part in the negative aspect of this place, usually with good intentions (to shock people out of their echo-chambers); doing probably more harm than good. Sometimes it's just to see what will happen, or to experiment, with hope of discerning the problem and helping to correct it. That's the past though (Heraclitus' can't stand in the same river twice...). Although I have a long memory, I don't hold grudges. I'm also willing to return to the shit-slinging, because I don't want to give up on this place and let the hyperbolic take over without a fight.

About "Much Ado"... I should have said "if you ignore some of the specifics...", or back away from those specific facets of characters, motives, etc... you see the story as a bunch of ants milling around consumed with irrelevant ant business. They take it all seriously, but it's just what the title says. We got rid of most of our DVD's, but kept our favorites for when the internet or streaming services fail; and Branagh's version is on the shelf. I thought Josh Whedon's version would be good, but I didn't like it. Keaton's Dogberry is indeed the man.

p.s.: My answer to the falling tree/sound paradox (which I also think is stupid) hinges on the definition of "sound". If it's movement of air, then yes. If it's an ear and brain processing it, then no. Definition of terms is the beginning of wisdom, and all that. The prof was "damn, why didn't I think of that...".

[TSherbs]

The Ukraine thread is one of the best ones going right now. I did not often post, but I read all the entries (although I had trouble understanding some of them). I love discussing religion--any of them--but it usually doesn't go well after about 2 pages. The topic, however, is fascinating and I read in it continually. Kaz and I did the best we could trying to discuss violence in the Bible, but we didn't get far. Perhaps I was too aggressive. I thought that if some others had added their thoughts on the matter, maybe that would have diffused the pressure on just Kaz and me to hold the thing going. I don't really remember the "definition" one, but I am curious now....


added after reading that thread: Ok, I really don't remember this one. I must have been avoiding it, or I don't know what. Also, it became apparent, that after a few pages, as usual, it devolved into poking, jabbing, and preaching....rather than answering the question. Welcome to the monkeyhouse....But it did have a good start.

[dneal]

Back on topic...

This fits in Chip's In Partibus Infidelium thread, but I'll post it here instead. Note the "Florida Man" headline at the bottom of the page, and the article is hilarious.

Right media (and apparently Rupert Murdoch) are already telling him "no".

NYP Cover.jpg

NYP Article.jpg

[Chip]

[I]Much Ado: I hope that you have watched the Branagh/Thompson film of that play. One of the best ever, in my opinion. Michael Keaton as Dogberry is THE BEST.

Too bloody right! One of my most-watched films. A 2013 version directed by Joss Whedon with a present-day suburban setting, is worth a look, just for comparison.

[Chip]

Back to the FG.

Just read that the Murdoch propaganda empire (Fox News, Wall Street Jounral, NY Post, etc.) is cutting Mr. T loose. Whether he gets back on Twitter is an open question, but the Musk-Rat surely knows that reinstating Trump will lead to a huge number of cancellations and loss of still more ad revenue. (He can count on Chick-Fil-A and MyPillow.)

Likewise, some of the big-gun GOP donors have said they won't support another Trump campaign.

Looks like he's bleeding to death from self-inflicted cuts.

[TSherbs]

[I]Much Ado: I hope that you have watched the Branagh/Thompson film of that play. One of the best ever, in my opinion. Michael Keaton as Dogberry is THE BEST.

Too bloody right! One of my most-watched films. A 2013 version directed by Joss Whedon with a present-day suburban setting, is worth a look, just for comparison.

yuk, I can't stand the Whedon version. I like updates, but that one is so self-conscious and stilted...I tried....

[TSherbs]

Back to the FG.

Just read that the Murdoch propaganda empire (Fox News, Wall Street Jounral, NY Post, etc.) is cutting Mr. T loose. Whether he gets back on Twitter is an open question, but the Musk-Rat surely knows that reinstating Trump will lead to a huge number of cancellations and loss of still more ad revenue. (He can count on Chick-Fil-A and MyPillow.)

Likewise, some of the big-gun GOP donors have said they won't support another Trump campaign.

Looks like he's bleeding to death from self-inflicted cuts.

It's going to be interesting. I am really going to try not to read or listen to what he says. If I ever hear that he is singing a new tune, then I might take him off ignore.

That the NY POST called him "Florida man" was an absolutely humiliating knife blade on their cover. It was shockingly, personally harsh. I was stunned, and I experienced some guilty pleasure in the slight.

[TSherbs]

That Post column is hilarious.

[dneal]

This will be entertaining. Results current as of this post.

Screenshot 2022-11-18 at 8.14.25 PM.png

[TSherbs]

That dude is wack (and an attention seeking hound). I would quit on him too. Twitter is no longer stable with him at helm.

[dneal]

Twitter is about who you follow and who you don’t. It’s as hellish or tame as you make it. For me, it’s easier to follow the narratives when they’re condensed to 128 characters; but there are also a lot of brilliant people sharing interesting articles. Bari Weiss, Jonathan Haidt, Eric Weinstein, Balaji Srinivasan, etc…. When they retweet other interesting and brilliant people, it gets even better.

Alternatively, people can follow Cernovich and Catturd and join in the shit flinging. That’s not for me though.

[dneal]

Oh yay!! Another special counsel for Trump!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/for...ng-2022-11-18/

[dneal]

Leans more into the trust thread, but why no special counsel for Hunter, his dad, Ukraine payments, Russian payments and Chinese payments. Did the big guy get 10% or not?

[TSherbs]

Beyond the *legality* of Trump's taking of those documents, what was his motivation? Why do you think he did it, dneal? I'm curious what you think. I can't wrap my head around his motivation.

[dneal]

No idea, but the thing that makes the most sense is that it was something damning to another politician (or organization). The ‘secrets’ are still in his head. The proof is what’s been taken in the raid.

It could also be that it’s a pretense to keep him from running again. He’s a threat to intrenched bureaucracy, and that means petty kommissars and billions of dollars.

[724Seney]

Leans more into the trust thread, but why no special counsel for Hunter, his dad, Ukraine payments, Russian payments and Chinese payments. Did the big guy get 10% or not?

The hypocrisy is utterly astounding.
I think Garland just cemented himself in the #1 position for an impeachment proceeding which will commence soon after the 118th Congress is convened on January 3, 2023.

[dneal]

Leans more into the trust thread, but why no special counsel for Hunter, his dad, Ukraine payments, Russian payments and Chinese payments. Did the big guy get 10% or not?

The hypocrisy is utterly astounding.
I think Garland just cemented himself in the #1 position for an impeachment proceeding which will commence soon after the 118th Congress is convened on January 3, 2023.

That would be a waste of time, since there aren't enough votes in the Senate.

The house, as the owner of the purse-strings, can #DefundTheDOJ... That's a threat probably more potent than impeachment.