IFG Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 5 hours ago, JL said: The sign of a great critical thinker; consider all points of view. With the greatest respect to Don, he has not in this instance done any thinking at all, JL, just relayed another's. If we're going to seek the mantle of "critical thinker", then hey! let's do some. I'll invite any of the Trump advocates here to do a short critique of Scott Adams's piece. Or another 'credible' supporting argument of their choice. (IMHO, Adams's piece is an easily disposed of POS, which is a huge disappointment to a long-time Dilbert fan - and a POS on its weakness of argument, not by the fact that I don't agree with him!). Critical thought is indeed productive and useful, because bad supporting argument weakens one's own case. I'll go first The anti-Trump advocates are falling all over themselves itself right now over some old tax info (that "bombshell" NYT expose!) indicating that Mr. Trump took a billion-dollar right-off on investment losses which may have allowed him to avoid paying any tax on subsequent income for several years. This is being presented as some sort of unfair 'dodge'. Assuming the losses are honestly counted (another Q altogether), it's a curious take. I've certainly taken similar relief (if we move the decimal point a bit ). Now there are of course some useful arguments to make, based on these 'revelations', but Ms. Clinton and her surrogates don't seem to be making them yet; still, that's not the thrust of this little exercise. Their current line either assumes people are fools, or so tarnishes themselves. Cheers (& looking forward hopefully for some critical thought ) - IFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 IFG - I agree with your remarks on critical thinking. I think there are abundant reasons demonstrated by the candidate himself as to why Donald Trump is wholly, utterly, unfit to hold political office of any kind let alone the Presidency. He is a confidence-man and the con is working. The con is working not because he is a slick candidate but, I believe, because people love tough talk and braggadocio, with "PC" being cited as a reasonable reason for behaving thus. The case against PC is entirely emotive and irrational but that is another thread entirely. My "gut-metric" always has been, I would not want a person like Donald Trump in the cockpit of an airliner, in any seat. That view translates easily to any position in which high authority, high responsibility, and to any position where incompetency, incapacity and hubris have serious widespread consequences, (like Commander-in-Chief...). I also agree with your observations on the billion-dollar write-down - if the laws provide such opportunity then the argument is with Congress, not Donald Trump. It's a form of displacing/diverting others' anger from something "outrageous", (much of it demonstrably caused by the Republican obstructionism over the past eight years), to one's real target - in this, Hillary and the media have failed their responsibilities. It works as we can see, but as I said above, the shrillness of the arguments, [on both sides] has reached the level of histrionics. As you said earlier in the thread, we are entitled to our opinions but not our own facts. The back-and-forth over someone's writing is the essence of reasoned discussion, and the introduction of ideas which oppose one's own is an invitation to critical thought. My views of Dilbert and Scott Adams changed instantly as I read his piece. The challenge is slightly greater with Black's OpEds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 IFG Adam's has offered an intelligent, reasoned argument favouring the candidate you abhor. It's only my opinion of course, but you too are an obviously intelligent character with opinions that are the product of thoughtful reason. If I'm getting your message right, you consider Hilary and the DNC to be the lesser of two evils. You're now challenging AEF'ers to participate in critical analysis, in this case, to debate the legitimacy of Trump 's business dealings & tax filings. As I'm sure you know, I brought a similar, but opposite sided challenge forward the other day, which has gone unaddressed? Do any of us possess the technical background, or data necessary to sort the chaff from the wheat, or do we engage in spite of our inadequacies and end up back where we started? I think both candidates are completely obvious, shallow ponds if you will, who's strengths and weaknesses are now well known to us all. If the reader wasn't already aware, your post above makes your deep disdain for Trump patently clear; I feel the same sense of revulsion when it comes to Clinton btw. So then, the individual perspective seems to be a matter of and dependant on one's ideological position. There doesn't appear to be any middle, high, or morally dry ground this time around either, which is probably a consequence of the guttural passion both Presidential wannabe's have been able to elicit from their followers etc.. It's getting late in the game IFG. Both sides appear to be entrenched, which means speculative logic isn't likely to result in a reversal of belief. It would seem that any outcome is possible, so long as nothing truly dramatic pops up. I'm thinking Wikileak's 'October Surprise', which is supposed to be released today, might be the catalyst that propels Trump forward to victory, but that may be wishful thinking on my part and so, we'll just have to wait and see? This election cycle is proving to be the modern day version of 'The Greatest Show On Earth', a fitting analogy to describe the political circus unfolding before us ... I think. I sincerely hope we're all here and able to debate the relative wisdom and consequences of the electorate's and their College's ultimate choice four years on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I'm left wondering how some of your opinions would be if the gender of the two mainstream candidates was reversed. Lets just say history gives me reason to feel thus. There's an awful lot of tongue biting going on when Hillary's faults are aired, but I can hear the "b" word lingering just below the surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share Posted October 4, 2016 Jump to the 3 minute mark if you get impatient... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFG Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Don Hudson said: .... As you said earlier in the thread, we are entitled to our opinions but not our own facts .... That aphorism was just one bon mot from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's substantial legacy in pursuit of "reasoned' discussion, Don. And I too was surprized when I learned that Adams was a 'Trumpeter'. I guess, and this has to be true for all of us, that for all the power of reason, we are all somewhat prisoner of other, sometimes greater angels and demons within us (speaking figuratively, of course!) 31 minutes ago, DEFCON said: .... If I'm getting your message right, you consider Hilary and the DNC to be the lesser of two evils. You're now challenging AEF'ers to participate in critical analysis, in this case, to debate the legitimacy of Trump 's business dealings & tax filings .... Not quite right on either count, Defcon. I guess I just haven't been clear enough. On the first point, I've been trying repeatedly to say that the danger facing us here comes not from either of the candidates, but from the electorate. Making this point of course examines what candidates are saying, and even speculates on their character, but thru' a prism of the electorate's handling of all that. It's a fine distinction, perhaps, but important. As such, I'm not focussing on any despicabilities I may personally attach to either one, but the willful ignorance of it. I'm worried about the lack of any check or filter, the sense of "no matter what they say or do ...". I'm worried about the rampant traffic in utter falsehood. I'm worried that 'hard times' seems to be an excuse for, even to dignify all that. To me, it's banal that the candidates are flawed (regardless that I believe Trump far, far more so). Voters get what they elect/deserve. I am more concerned than ever before at the atrociously low quality of collective judgement. On the second point, you completely misconstrue my little challenge. Reasoned dialogue requires that weak or invalid supporting arguments be discarded, no matter how much they may resonate with our preconceptions. Making your opponent's case to yourself is a standard debater's exercise for good reasons. The challenge for folks like you, Defcon, was to dissect an argument close to your heart. There's plenty of picking there. As for that earlier, "opposite" challenge (I believe the one about internists treating neurological issues?), I'm loathe to retrace junk from the RW echo-chamber. Pneumonia does not require the attention of a neurologist, which can well await actual evidence of "neurological issues" stronger than the strident TV observations of unbridled partisans. Cheers, IFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Where they say Trump made a lot of money, he didn't. He used loopholes not available to 'average' citizens to mitigate the fact that he failed in his business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 13 minutes ago, deicer said: loopholes not available to 'average' citizens What 'loopholes' would those be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 This article explains it better than I can... http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/10/the_real_scandal_of_donald_trump_s_massive_potential_tax_deductions.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Hi IFG, getting back to the critical thinker comment, I threw it out there somewhat hastily as it jumped the topic of the thread. I was enjoying the thread (terrifc banter!) and liked Don's Dilbert submission; interpreting it as an alternative perspective worthy of consideration or a sign of being a good critical thinker. To quote a snippet from Michael Scriven and Richard Paul of what critical thinking is: " It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference". Anyhoo, sorry for the interruption - carry on with the great debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 No matter who you support, this one is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 11 hours ago, deicer said: This article explains it better than I can... http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/10/the_real_scandal_of_donald_trump_s_massive_potential_tax_deductions.html That article is not "informative"; it is simply more supporting advocacy for one party. I hope that everyone at least considers engaging in that "critical thought" which is invited. We collectively learn by considering ALL information weighing for cogency by considering the interests of the source. For example, in Canada, a taxpayer depreciates capital assets that are used to generate income. There are different rates of depreciation for different asset classes but the principle is the same both here and in the US. No....it is correct that this is not available as a deduction for the "wage earner" but the "wage earner" presumably isn't acquiring and utilizing capital assets to generate a revenue stream. Trump is not "smart" because he used accrued losses to offset earned income. There is nothing at all unique in what ALLEGEDLY (only a few pages of a return were produced) was done and whatever was filed was no doubt prepared by tax accountants. Engaging in a Twitter rant at 3:00 am. THAT is deserving of criticism. That is completely on him. Talking about the use of losses to offset income? That's a red herring being used to confuse and upset the hoi polloi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 JO Come on now, you'll have to do better than throwing hand-grenades into discussions and hoping for a response. Your Jerry Springer modelled approach to debate is getting old. Don " a squeaking victory for Clinton will be very bad for the country - possibly violent but certainly not silent." Remembering of course that every incident of violence we've witnessed since the beginning of the election cycle, including protests by the racist BLM movement, has been initiated by individuals that identify with the Democrats. Experience shows us that unrest isn't likely unless the silent majority surprises and that 'landslide' victory runs in favour of Trump. IFG Whew ... the dictionary was needed to get through that one. Regardless, no matter how eloquent, at the end of the day, like anyone else that expresses their thoughts on the subject, you have an opinion. If I may; modelling thoughts & information in support of one's ideology may in fact be a form of critical thinking, but it doesn't mean the presenter's position is necessarily the right, or only one. "Pneumonia does not require the attention of a neurologist, which can well await actual evidence of "neurological issues" stronger than the strident TV observations of unbridled partisans" If you were to ask ANY competent physician how a pneumonia patient would be treated if they were to collapse in public, the process wouldn't begin by hoisting the patient into a vehicle and end in a photo-op at her daughter's apartment a short time later. I call BS on Hilary and her followers and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible that you would buy into and lend support to team Hilary's charade. Here's to a blue sky IFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 Gee, I wonder if the intellectuals among Trump's supporters are engaged in any similar discussions regarding critical thought? For my own part, with most 'A or B' style questions, I guess I tend to take all the information I collect and things I observe and sort of chuck them on a scale in my head... over time the scale tends to lead me in one direction or another..... In some cases, it takes magnification and a vernier scale to make a decision... In other cases, such as Trump vs. Clinton... before I've even had my first cup of coffee in the morning, and from a long distance, I can still see Clinton's half of that scale resting on the ground while Trump's is swinging wildly, way up high in the breeze. I can't even imagine where one has to look, or - something? - in order to find something that bears the slightest resemblance to 'reason' for concluding Trump would be the better choice!? ..... maybe if he was running against that **bleep** who just trippled the price of the Epi-Pen?.... or Larry, Darryl and Darryl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Morning Upper Deck What is being glossed over here in my opinion is the fact that if Mr. Trump was as successful businessman as he wants us to believe, he wouldn't have to take such massive tax deductions. He would be paying his contractors, who would be paying taxes, and he would be paying his own income tax. As it is, he is gaming the system, not supporting any of the social structure of the United States, yet taking all the benefits that come with being a citizen. That's why I cannot believe in the man..... P.S. If he was complaining about having to pay too much tax, then he might be believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I think we're way beyond the point that anyone's going to be convinced to change their position Mitch; the candidates are who they are. If we were to wash away the mud and be honest with ourselves, we'd accept the current debate for what it is, a clash of ideologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Deicer I guess you'd agree that AC should have been parted out when bankruptcy was declared, which would have left you and countless others fighting for positions elsewhere? And what about the well-being of all those little people that took a shellacking so you could return to what still stands as the highest remunerated group in the Canadian aviation industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Like my view of the banking system, AC's bankruptcy was a manufactured situation. And who took the shellacking? Milton? Cerberus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 hour ago, DEFCON said: JO Come on now, you'll have to do better than throwing hand-grenades into discussions and hoping for a response. Your Jerry Springer modelled approach to debate is getting old. Oh take a pill. It was just as much of a poke at the Clintons as it was at Trump, but in typical right wing fashion, you selectively focus on the part that makes your guy look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I was addressing your sexist suspicions above, not the poster, which was good I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I'm with you on the 'banking system' Deicer. I was one of the shareholders left holding kindling when the music stopped. How did AC's suppliers make out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I was one of the shareholders left holding kindling when the music stopped. How did AC's suppliers make out? The same as Trumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 This little piece of critical thinking came through email this morning. "Last night a friend claimed that Donald Trump wouldn’t make a good president; he is brash, he is racist, he is a loudmouth; you know the normal things people learn to recite after being programmed by television news. The one I loved was that, “Trump is arrogant.” My friend questioned if one man could make “that much difference in the world today.” To my friend's credit, she was respectful enough to let me respond when she asked, “Really, what has Trump done?”I said, “In June of last year, Trump entered the race for president. In just a little over a year, Trump has single handedly defeated the Republican party. He did so thoroughly. In fact, he did so in such a resounding way that the Republican Party now suffers from an identity crisis. He literally dismantled the party. Trump even dismantled and dismissed the brand and value of the Bush family. Trump has Obama petrified that Trump will dismiss programs that weren’t properly installed using proper law.Trump has single handedly debunked and disemboweled any value of news media as we knew it—news now suffering from an all-time level of distrust and disrespect. Trump has leaders from all over the world talking about him, whether good or bad. Trust me, powerful men who have been president before weren’t liked by the global community. I doubt Mikhail Gorbachev liked Reagan when Reagan said, "Tear down that wall."Trump has expressly disclosed the fraud perpetrated on the American public by Hillary Clinton. He has, quite literally, brought Hillary to her knees—if you believe that nervous tension and disorders offer physical side effects and damage. Trump has unified the silent majority in a way that should be patently frightening to “liberals.” As the press accuses Trump of being a house of cards, Trump has proven the press is the real house of cards. He has whipped up the entire establishment into pure panic. Trump has exposed them for who they are and worse, what they are. George Clooney was right when he said Trump draws live news coverage of his podium that he’s not yet approached. Thanks, George, you were perfectly correct. What we see as headline news today are actually the last bubbles from the ship that is now sunk—meaning the standard news media, as a propaganda machine, has been exposed. They have no more value. In the same way Trump asked the African-American community this question, I asked my friend, ”At this point, what do you have to lose?” We have mass cop shootings, riots in our streets, ambushed cops, double digit inflation, bombs blowing up in our cities, targeted police, #BLM, a skyrocketing jobless rate, no economic growth, privately owned land being seized by the federal government, the worst racial tension in my lifetime, no God in schools, more abortions than ever, illegal aliens pouring into our country, sick veterans receiving no care, and a debt that doubled in seven years to $19 trillion. Are you really happy with the condition of the current system? One man has done all of this in one year—one guy, and on his own dime. And with everything I’ve written above, you believe Trump hasn't done anything? You claim that you are afraid of Donald Trump? No wonder we’re in trouble. You can say that Trump is a lousy presidential candidate. That’s your right. Just don’t ever say he’s not effective. That Megan Kelly, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, Raleigh’s News and Observer, the AP, Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, and many more, failed to implement their collectively orchestrated lie on the American people against Trump, is actually a massive testament to Trump. The press colluded pure propaganda to accomplish his demise … and they have collectively failed and miserably.Here's just one example of how badly America is injured right now. There are high school football players on their knees during the national anthem simply because the press used as propaganda to program those kids to do that very thing. But, these kids are mimicking NFL stars the same way the same kids chooses which brand of football shoe to purchase—they're overtly brain-washed to do that very thing. Now, we have a generation of children who hate America. America’s problem isn’t that little children are on their knee in collective disrespect of America. Our problem is that America is on her knee from collective disrespect by Americans. You can disrespect America all you want. But, it’s high-time you respect the silent majority. Because they’re not simply the “silent majority” as you’ve been trained to believe when Hillary calls them “deplorables.” The fact is, they are simply the majority. And now they're no longer silent either. Donald Trump changed all of that, single-handedly and within one year." From Be Forbes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 What an unbelievable spin of pure BS. Defcon, you've been had. The spin masters have apparently found the precise avenue they could lead you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.