US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[John Camp]

It appears that Trump is starting to paint himself as the "law and order" choice. If FOX keeps showing rioters and looters on high rotation, it's a strategy that might have legs.

A recent podcast from Sam Harris points this out, among many other things, https://samharris.org/podcasts/207-can-pull-back-brink/.

I don't actually believe that argument. You know why? Because people are simply tired of Trump's bullshit. And a lot of the people who are tired of it are Republican women. His ratings among them are crashing. In the last election, Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump, but Trump managed to squeak through by winning a crucial group of normally Democratic states by very narrow margins. If he'd lost them, he'd have lost the election in a landslide. The point being, that he can't afford to lose any voters -- and he is. Now, the Republicans are helping him to defeat by picking this moment to try to get rid of the Obamacare in a Supreme Court case. Twenty million people would lose their insurance. I almost hope they succeed, because then the November defeat will be truly crushing, and a Democratic Senate will replace the ACA with a much wider program and will Supreme-Court-proof it by paying attention to all the reasons the ACA went down. We might finally get a decent national insurance program out of it.

Americans are beginning to wise up to the awful news bias perpetrated by Fox and other rightwing outlets. They're not buying it anymore.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... some herds will appear which will put the end to it.

Some herds (aka mobs) did appear and that is causing the spike.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... a Democratic Senate...

USSA.

[Robert Roaldi]

I don't actually believe that argument. You know why? Because people are simply tired of Trump's bullshit. And a lot of the people who are tired of it are Republican women. His ratings among them are crashing. In the last election, Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump, but Trump managed to squeak through by winning a crucial group of normally Democratic states by very narrow margins. If he'd lost them, he'd have lost the election in a landslide. The point being, that he can't afford to lose any voters -- and he is. Now, the Republicans are helping him to defeat by picking this moment to try to get rid of the Obamacare in a Supreme Court case. Twenty million people would lose their insurance. I almost hope they succeed, because then the November defeat will be truly crushing, and a Democratic Senate will replace the ACA with a much wider program and will Supreme-Court-proof it by paying attention to all the reasons the ACA went down. We might finally get a decent national insurance program out of it.

Americans are beginning to wise up to the awful news bias perpetrated by Fox and other rightwing outlets. They're not buying it anymore.

I truly hope you're right.

[Frans Waterlander]

Americans are beginning to wise up to the awful news bias perpetrated by Fox and other rightwing outlets.

Scuse me? You had a straight face when you wrote that? ROTFL!

[hogloff]

Scuse me? You had a straight face when you wrote that? ROTFL!

He meant intelligent people.

[Frans Waterlander]

He meant intelligent people.

Oh, I get it now: intelligent people are beginning to wise up; they were not so wise in the past. Makes me wonder.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think we need a definition for "ad hominem" attack.

OK. The term is, properly, argumentum ad hominem. It means attacking an argument by attacking the person putting it forward; in sporting terms, playing the man and not the ball. It has nothing to do with feelings, or emotions, or perceptions.

Let's take an example. Suppose a forum member - let's call him 'Alan', because it's short and easy to type - makes an obviously ludicrous assertion in a post, such as "chemotherapeutic agents are made from nuclear waste". Suppose there are those who might want to respond. There are at least three approaches.

1. Engage in rational argument. "Chemotherapy agents are derived from a variety of sources. Some are natural and some, synthetic. But none is radioactive, at least above background levels (radioactivity is used in radiotherapy, not chemotherapy), and none is derived from nuclear waste".

2. Abuse 'Alan' in an irrelevant fashion: "Your mother was a hamster and your father, 'Alan', smelled of elderberries".

3. Abuse 'Alan' in a relevant fashion: "You are an ignoramus who knows nothing of medicine or cancer treatment, 'Alan', and so anything you say on the subject must be false".

The third of those is argumentum ad hominem. The first is a reasoned response, but experience suggests it is unlikely to bear fruit; and the second is merely abuse.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

How about, 4. None of the above.

[Chris Kern]

OK. The term is, properly, argumentum ad hominem. It means attacking an argument by attacking the person putting it forward; in sporting terms, playing the man and not the ball. It has nothing to do with feelings, or emotions, or perceptions.

Let's take an example. Suppose a forum member - let's call him 'Alan', because it's short and easy to type - makes an obviously ludicrous assertion in a post, such as "chemotherapeutic agents are made from nuclear waste". Suppose there are those who might want to respond. There are at least three approaches. . . .

A fourth possible response, assuming you don't think an utterly baseless claim is worthy of a counter-argument or deserving of abuse (rational or otherwise) but interrupts an otherwise sensible conversation or debate, is to ask the poster to move his made-up facts to the "playpen" thread, where they are not only always welcome but, for those brave enough to look in every now and then, actually often amusing and—I say this with no condescension intended—sometimes quite instructive because they offer insight into an approach to understanding reality that is shared by many of his countrymen.  (And, I daresay, many nationals of other countries.)

[Alan Klein]

A fourth possible response, assuming you don't think an utterly baseless claim is worthy of a counter-argument or deserving of abuse (rational or otherwise) but interrupts an otherwise sensible conversation or debate, is to ask the poster to move his made-up facts to the "playpen" thread, where they are not only always welcome but, for those brave enough to look in every now and then, actually often amusing and—I say this with no condescension intended—sometimes quite instructive because they offer insight into an approach to understanding reality that is shared by many of his countrymen.  (And, I daresay, many nationals of other countries.)

If you cut through the legalese, that sounds a little ad hominem.

[Peter McLennan]

Thanks for that, Jeremy. 

At the top of the list of the "types of ad hominem attacks" listed in the link I previously provided was:

Abusive - This is where the person is directly attacked. (i.e. This is why a woman shouldn’t do a man's job.)

Unfortunately, it was immediately attacked as typically leftist.

Here's the link I provided:
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html


An alternative fourth choice of argument is to ask for proof.  That puts the onus back on the original assertion maker where IMHO, it rightfully belongs.

"Otherwise, it's just all lies and bullshit"

[BernardLanguillier]

The most reasonable approach would be for true Republicans believing in democracy to come up with an independent candidate by-passing the republican party if they cannot make it happen within the party.

Bolton has been hinting strongly at the possibility of another Republican candidate.

This would be a unique opportunity for them to have their agenda accepted by many people who would normally have had mode moderate views. I believe that the "anybody but Trump" opens interesting possibilities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Camp]

The most reasonable approach would be for true Republicans believing in democracy to come up with an independent candidate by-passing the republican party if they cannot make it happen within the party.

Bolton has been hinting strongly at the possibility of another Republican candidate.

This would be a unique opportunity for them to have their agenda accepted by many people who would normally have had mode moderate views. I believe that the "anybody but Trump" opens interesting possibilities.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not this year, Bernard. The Republicans, unfortunately, have rolled over and played dead -- they are now the Trump party, at least for the time being. I sincerely believe in our two party system, the liberal party providing new ideas and testing new directions, the conservatives, reining in the over-enthusiasm and trying to maintain some sense of fiscal sanity. Unfortunately, at the present time the two parties are both plagued by goofy fringes on the far left and far right. The Republicans have it the worst with the Tea Party and the Trumpers, who are not quite the same; so far, the Democrats have been able to fend off the goofiest of the leftists, and keep a finger hold on the center. Which is good, because that's the only way they're ever going to win anything. Both parties need to get rid of the extremes. The extremes shouldn't be banished, but should be encouraged to start their own parties, Socialists on the left, Fascists on the right. They should not be allowed to infiltrate and take over the center parties, because those two ideological groups, socialists and fascists, are responsible for most of the political calamities of the past hundred years. We need to know who they are so we can stay away from them. IMHO.

[TechTalk]

Not this year, Bernard. The Republicans, unfortunately, have rolled over and played dead -- they are now the Trump party, at least for the time being. I sincerely believe in our two party system, the liberal party providing new ideas and testing new directions, the conservatives, reining in the over-enthusiasm and trying to maintain some sense of fiscal sanity. Unfortunately, at the present time the two parties are both plagued by goofy fringes on the far left and far right. The Republicans have it the worst with the Tea Party and the Trumpers, who are not quite the same; so far, the Democrats have been able to fend off the goofiest of the leftists, and keep a finger hold on the center. Which is good, because that's the only way they're ever going to win anything. Both parties need to get rid of the extremes. The extremes shouldn't be banished, but should be encouraged to start their own parties, Socialists on the left, Fascists on the right. They should not be allowed to infiltrate and take over the center parties, because those two ideological groups, socialists and fascists, are responsible for most of the political calamities of the past hundred years. We need to know who they are so we can stay away from them. IMHO.

I've generally found that the easiest way for me to distinguish between the extreme tunnel-visioned ideologues, of any type, and the more balanced and pragmatic is their display of empathy or lack of it. Those that are able to recognize and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of people that they don't agree with on policy and politics are the people I want to listen to most often.

[TechTalk]

That just reminded me of a quotation from one of the Federalist Papers that I have always found memorable. After the text of the US Constitution itself, the Federalist Papers are the most referenced set of documents for interpreting the intentions and meaning of the Constitution. They are often referred to in court rulings on constitutional issues. This is from Federalist #1 and written by Alexander Hamilton.

"And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

Here is a link to the complete set of Federalist Paper essays from the Library of Congress along with a brief introduction of their history... https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

[TechTalk]

This is how James Madison expressed his views on the same subject in Federalist #10

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[Jeremy Roussak]

How about, 4. None of the above.

Yes, that's another option. My use of the words "at least" indicated that I didn't consider my list to be exhaustive.

Thanks for that, Jeremy. 

At the top of the list of the "types of ad hominem attacks" listed in the link I previously provided was:

Abusive - This is where the person is directly attacked. (i.e. This is why a woman shouldn’t do a man's job.)

Unfortunately, it was immediately attacked as typically leftist.

The writer's political views are of no interest. However, I find the article poorly argued. The example you quote above is simply not argumentum ad hominem and, along with most of the others he cites, makes it clear that the author doesn't understand what the phrase actually means.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

Not this year, Bernard. The Republicans, unfortunately, have rolled over and played dead -- they are now the Trump party, at least for the time being. I sincerely believe in our two party system, the liberal party providing new ideas and testing new directions, the conservatives, reining in the over-enthusiasm and trying to maintain some sense of fiscal sanity. Unfortunately, at the present time the two parties are both plagued by goofy fringes on the far left and far right. The Republicans have it the worst with the Tea Party and the Trumpers, who are not quite the same; so far, the Democrats have been able to fend off the goofiest of the leftists, and keep a finger hold on the center. Which is good, because that's the only way they're ever going to win anything. Both parties need to get rid of the extremes. The extremes shouldn't be banished, but should be encouraged to start their own parties, Socialists on the left, Fascists on the right. They should not be allowed to infiltrate and take over the center parties, because those two ideological groups, socialists and fascists, are responsible for most of the political calamities of the past hundred years. We need to know who they are so we can stay away from them. IMHO.

Each of the two parties draw extremes because of the electoral system in America.  Unlike a parliamentary system, the requirement for 50% of the electoral vote to win causes the unlikelihood you can win if a third party draws away votes from your main party's candidate.  This has happened a number of times recently.  For example, third-party candidate Perot's run caused Republican Bush to lose to Clinton in 1992.  It's claimed that Nader's run in 2000 caused Democrat Gore to lose against the second Bush. 

Of course, each party encourages third party candidates to run - in the opposition party. 

[Alan Klein]

That just reminded me of a quotation from one of the Federalist Papers that I have always found memorable. After the text of the US Constitution itself, the Federalist Papers are the most referenced set of documents for interpreting the intentions and meaning of the Constitution. They are often referred to in court rulings on constitutional issues. This is from Federalist #1 and written by Alexander Hamilton.

"And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

Here is a link to the complete set of Federalist Paper essays from the Library of Congress along with a brief introduction of their history... https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

This is how James Madison expressed his views on the same subject in Federalist #10

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

Their writings are why the Constitution has a Bill of Rights and a divided government with checks and balances.  What they feared the most, frankly, were the people.  Democracy would be the part that would destroy it all.  It's why they set up the Electoral system and had State legislatures selecting Senators, the latter being changed in the last century to direct vote. The people in their greed would demand from government more than it could do.  We're seeing it now as the Fed prints money to satisfy the demands of the people that will destroy our economy taking the world with us.  The Europeans, Japanese, and others are just as bad.  The Republicans and Tea Party threw in the towel.  And the Democrats have been a lost cause for fiscal responsibility for decades.