The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
We've talked a lot about Trump's daunting electoral math.
Apparently strategists on both sides agree that there is basically one "Trump victory" scenario: he has to win all three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and has to keep North Carolina red.
I agree with this analysis, but with the proviso that if Trump wins the national electoral vote by anything like a significant margin the electoral math won't be a problem as all of those states should drop into his column in that scenario. However, in a tied, or close-to-tied race, he has a far more narrow and difficult path than Clinton does.
Harris would most certainly be viewed as a "troll" by large swaths of the regressive left. The Cenks of the world. He's certainly viewed as a troll by Reza and Greenwald. Probably by the likes of Fareed, and other non Classical Liberal liberals. Have you seen how much abuse Sam gets?
Hardly. None of the people you mention would consider Harris a troll. All of these people are very much for intellectual debate. While they may disagree with Harris on certain issues, they would not consider him a troll by any stretch of the imagination. You, on the other hand, full on troll.
Quote:
He also generally agrees with my proposition on Trump: much of his public speaking is baiting the left into the wrong type of discussion. And so many here fall for it so easily. His comments on labeling Trump and being a racist should be enlightening for many here - at least his view has some nuance on the topic. Or the obvious and deliberate baiting of the Democrats by asking Russia to find the missing emails.
No, he does not agree with you, in any shape or form. And you should be the last person to speak of nuance. As someone else mentioned in this thread, you are the text book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 07-30-2016 at 07:01 PM.
You actually honestly believe that one of the most powerful political families in the world would not be able to control how much access or 'digging' could be done into their 'foundation?'
Hillary won't even release what she says during the speeches she gives to Wall Street.
I recommend you read the posts you are quoting.
As I said, wouldn't surprise me.
However, being able to do something is not the same as being automatically succesful in it. Something being possible does not mean it has happened.
The Clintons have been under scrutiny for decades, and they've ultimately been caught from very little. At some point I think it's time to consider the possibility that maybe they actually are not "the most corrupt politicians ever".
Maybe the reason they haven't been caught of much is because they actually have not done that much wrong.
That too is a possibility.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
All of these people are very much for intellectual debate. While they may disagree with Harris on certain issues, they would not consider him a troll by any stretch of the imagination.
You're wrong about this. Zakaria is generally honest, if misguided. In contrast, Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are, simply put, liars who are perfectly content to slander people to win an argument and have done the same to Harris on multiple occasions. Cenk is a simpleton who's perfectly content to follow along with them.
You also don't seem to know what a troll is or at least are mistaken here... It requires that the person in question be disingenuous. Buster's not a troll. I've no doubt that his positions are earnestly held.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 07-30-2016 at 08:39 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Cenk is a simpleton who's perfectly content to follow along with them.
Haha. Yeah, he would be awkwardly out of his league against Sam Harris if it wasn't for him just happily arguing along at a kindergarten level, completely oblivious to the grand canyon sitting between their level of intellect . The awkwardness remains for everyone watching, however.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
You're wrong about this. Zakaria is generally honest, if misguided. In contrast, Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are, simply put, liars who are perfectly content to slander people to win an argument and have done the same to Harris on multiple occasions. Cenk is a simpleton who's perfectly content to follow along with them.
Not going to disagree on Cenk Uygur's bad behavior, but he is far from a simpleton. I don't agree with his politics, to say he is a simpleton is weak. He's an above average guy discussing issues with subject matter experts and academics. He's going to look weak.
Now, Fareed Zakaria is misguided? A National Magazine Award winner, a Peabody Award winner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a Trustee at Yale, is misguided? Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are liars and slanderers? Again, a well respected academic who has won multiple awards for excellence in his field of study, and an award winning journalist, who also just happens to be a lawyer, are liars and a slanderers? This discussion just keeps getting stranger and stranger.
Quote:
You also don't seem to know what a troll is or at least are mistaken here... It requires that the person in question be disingenuous. Buster's not a troll. I've no doubt that his positions are earnestly held.
If you believe that I have some beach front property in Nevada to sell you. Seriously, go back and look at his argument. It's been more free floating than the barrel on a Browning X-bolt. I don't buy it.
Not going to disagree on Cenk Uygur's bad behavior, but he is far from a simpleton. I don't agree with his politics, to say he is a simpleton is weak. He's an above average guy discussing issues with subject matter experts and academics. He's going to look weak.
Now, Fareed Zakaria is misguided? A National Magazine Award winner, a Peabody Award winner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a Trustee at Yale, is misguided? Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are liars and slanderers? Again, a well respected academic who has won multiple awards for excellence in his field of study, and an award winning journalist, who also just happens to be a lawyer, are liars and a slanderers? This discussion just keeps getting stranger and stranger.
If you believe that I have some beach front property in Nevada to sell you. Seriously, go back and look at his argument. It's been more free floating than the barrel on a Browning X-bolt. I don't buy it.
You're wrong about this. Zakaria is generally honest, if misguided. In contrast, Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are, simply put, liars who are perfectly content to slander people to win an argument and have done the same to Harris on multiple occasions. Cenk is a simpleton who's perfectly content to follow along with them.
So, you've now deteriorated to a point where you're just calling people names and declaring your views as The Right Ones without even a hint of anything to back your claims up.
It's actually kind of funny, considering how hard you've tried to pose yourself as a rational, neutral, objective and fact-oriented person.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Guys like Sam Harris can criticise Trump for anti-intellectualism all they want, but in this election especially I don't think those criticisms will matter very much. It is not an intellectual election and attacking Trump in an intellectual way is not persuasive to the voters who will decide the election. Harris is only speaking to the people who already agree with him and otherwise is just sending intellectual noise into empty space.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
. In contrast, Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are, simply put, liars who are perfectly content to slander people to win an argument and have done the same to Harris on multiple occasions. Cenk is a simpleton who's perfectly content to follow along with them.
.
You haven't even attempted to substantiate your claims of lies and slander with examples. Therefore, your post strikes me as incredibly ironic.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Resla and Greenwald constantly misrepresent Harris and his views in order to paint him as a bigot and other nastier things when it comes to his critiques of Islam.
Harris wen't in to detail about how they play there game, there is obvious intent in both of them at least to paint Harris a certain way. Its been like this for years now.
No matter how completely opposed I may have been to another person’s views, I have not behaved like that. I have never knowingly distorted the positions I criticize, whether they are the doctrines of a religion or the personal beliefs of Francis Collins, Eben Alexander, Deepak Chopra, Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, or any other writer or public figure with whom I’ve collided. The crucial boundary between hard-hitting criticism and defamation is knowing that you are misrepresenting your target.
Resla and Greenwald constantly misrepresent Harris and his views in order to paint him as a bigot and other nastier things when it comes to his critiques of Islam.
It might have to do with Harris' views on Islam displaying bordeline bigotry. Harris is a very smart guy, but his commentary can become politically charged. His take on Islam is extreme, simply because he applies a brush to it that he does not to other religions. This is why Harris comes away being accused of some nasty things, and rightly so. Harris in anti-religion, and has been critical of all Abrahamic religions, but he's saved his greatest critiques and negative comments for Islam. I would love to see him apply the brush to Christianity and couch his comments with the same historical significance he places on Islam as he discusses that religion. It's very sad because Harris' academic work goes a long way to explaining why religion is bogus, all religion, and why we maintain faith in something that requires a suspension of disbelief.
I won't go into a lot of details, but I became a Harris follower not because he is a great speaker, but because of his academic work. His studies as a cognitive neuroscientist at UCLA, while earning his PhD, were key to my field of study. His fMRI data showed that our religious convictions were a result of how our brains are wired more than anything. This is where Harris fails in his arguments in my eyes, as he should fall back in his discussions of religion, especially when discussing the subject matter with expert theologians, to the information where he can prove his point. Harris, like almost anyone, will never be able to take on a subject matter expert in their field of study or experience, and come away with a victory without explaining why the persons perceptions are the way they are. You can not defeat faith and belief by arguing from the position of your own faith or belief. You must present the science behind it. This is Harris' wheelhouse and where he should kick ass, yet he doesn't. He tries to argue his personal convictions against that of others, and he does so with a level of inconsistency that hurts his argument. I still love to hear his arguments, and he makes some incredibly strong arguments, but he is not this rhetorical giant that does not misstep and does not make bad arguments. He has spent more than enough time stepping on his own genitals speaking on issues where he allows activation of those same neurological regions he argues drive his opponents to believe silly things.
Quote:
Harris wen't in to detail about how they play there game, there is obvious intent in both of them at least to paint Harris a certain way. Its been like this for years now.
Harris has a lot of detractors because he is perceived to be inconsistent in application of logic at times. List to Harris talk about gun ownership to see what I mean. He also has a lot of detractors because he will not provide the level of respect that academics from other fields likely deserve. I'm sure that Harris fans will need not be reminded of the Chomsky exchange. Right or wrong, Harris has his haters out there, and he has earned them. I still love the guy's work, love to hear him speak, and think he's a righteous dude for the most part. But Sam Harris is just like everyone else. He has his weaknesses and he has his blind spots. Like most academics his biggest blind spot is his own hubris.
Any way, back to American politics, what do people think of the Koch brothers and their network refusing to back Trump? What are the probable outcomes from that? Will that money, $898M, find its way to state elections and further sway the balance at the state level, where an issue may be drive to a constitutional convention for amendment?
Not going to disagree on Cenk Uygur's bad behavior, but he is far from a simpleton. I don't agree with his politics, to say he is a simpleton is weak. He's an above average guy discussing issues with subject matter experts and academics. He's going to look weak.
Now, Fareed Zakaria is misguided? A National Magazine Award winner, a Peabody Award winner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a Trustee at Yale, is misguided? Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald are liars and slanderers? Again, a well respected academic who has won multiple awards for excellence in his field of study, and an award winning journalist, who also just happens to be a lawyer, are liars and a slanderers? This discussion just keeps getting stranger and stranger.
If you believe that I have some beach front property in Nevada to sell you. Seriously, go back and look at his argument. It's been more free floating than the barrel on a Browning X-bolt. I don't buy it.
Reza Aslan is respected in his field of study?: He has a master of fine arts. In fiction. And a Sociology degree.
Greenwald? Greenwald was a fringe/wacko blogger writing for his own little blog, and then Salon, which would let me write for them if I asked. Then Snowden dropped a story on his lap for some mysterious reason.
But keep going. Defend Greenwald and Aslan, because that always works out well for people.
Reza Aslan is respected in his field of study?: He has a master of fine arts. In fiction. And a Sociology degree.
Greenwald? Greenwald was a fringe/wacko blogger writing for his own little blog, and then Salon, which would let me write for them if I asked. Then Snowden dropped a story on his lap for some mysterious reason.
But keep going. Defend Greenwald and Aslan, because that always works out well for people.
Reza Aslan has been awarded 4 academic degrees:
B.A in religion, Santa Clara University
M.T.S in theology, Harvard
M.F.A in fiction, University of Iowa
Ph.D in sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
Aslan is recognized as one of the top scholars in his field, especially on Islam.
Glenn Greenwald has been awarded 2 academic degrees:
B.A in philosphy, George Washington University
Juris Doctorate, New York University School of Law
Greenwald practiced law and litigated constitutional law cases. This is was drove him to journalism and to become of the most trusted journalists in the business. His tenure with Salon, then The Guardian lead to him becoming one of the founding members of First Look Media and The Intercept, along with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill.
You can't even get facts right.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
