"I'm sorry to depart from the topic, but I hope you'll indulge me, as I
believe it goes to the point regarding Dan's dishonesty about proving
one's point.
His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a
presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms,
doesn't do much to indicate integrity on the part of his sources. From
what I've seen thus far...and I intend to further scrutinize the survey
of historians from his first link...had not provided much at all in the
way of policies enacted and their effect versus the policies of other
presidents enacted and the effects of those. Clearly, and without any
room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away
been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the
economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than
Obama's, particularly when Obama insisted his crap was to be accepted as
the new normal and that a magic wand would be necessary to do better.
But we see no reference to anything like that, be it economics or any
other issue.
Then, of course, we have William Henry Harrison.
How could any honest, objective historian not rank Trump at least higher
than a guy who lasted only 32 days in office before dying? Some of his
surveyed historians rank Trump 44th out of 44 total presidents. How
does this indicate integrity on the part of the historians?
What this and other problems with Dan's "evidence" against Trump PROVE
is that Dan isn't interested in truth. He isn't interested in truly
reviewing anything he offers as "proof" when there is clearly so many
problems with his sources and their info. All he cares about is the
conclusion to which they come...regardless of how they come to
it...which he can then use as "evidence" to support his prejudices and
hateful attitude toward whatever the point being discussed may be.
And
when I offered examples of historians that find Trump to be among the
better...if not best...presidents, and they actually use the very
examples of his policies and their effects that people like Dan and
those he favors purposely and deceitfully ignore, he counters with hit
pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with their arguments in
support of Trump as president. His offering of that extremist
conservative periodical, "The Atlantic", does just that. It was an
article wherein the author makes all manner of negative connotations
regarding things Newt Gingrich has said and done, while never offering
any response of clarification by Newt himself. The reader is left to
wade through such biased editorializing of Newt's words and actions or
just believe without reason that the author is still somehow objective
in his reporting. No where in all the article does the author suggest
he is giving his own impressions of what Newt's words and actions mean.
He's asserting meaning and pasting it over Newt's words and actions.
But
it wouldn't matter to Dan, anyway. The point is that the article
speaks negatively about Gingrich, and thus it is true that Gingrich is
evil and therefore his ranking of Trump, based on Trump's actual
policies and their effects, is not to be considered. All the while, Dan
does nothing to prove the integrity or character of his historians
merits believing their assessment of Trump. This is Dan's modus
operandi. This is Dan revering Judeo-Christian values. This is Dan's
constant duplicity. And he dares speak of Trump being a liar."
Art
" "While there MAY be some validity to the notion of not assessing a
presidency until after it's complete, but that assumes a normal
presidency that isn't an active and ongoing series of train wrecks.
Trump's presidency is a disaster and this obvious to all rational
people, experts, scholars and otherwise."
While this notion
provides you with a fig leaf to hide behind, the reality is that it is
virtually impossible to assess something with a potential long term
impact in either real time or in the short term. While not a fan of
Trump, it's absurd to ignore the fact that the economy was in good shape
pre Covid and that it's bouncing back faster than most thought. He's
had some success in moving the ball down the field towards more peace in
the middle ease, and has been disengaging us from overseas military
commitments. He's also does some positive things in terms of criminal
justice reform and in other areas. I'm not suggesting perfection, but
any reasonably objective observer can't rationally conclude total
failure either. One of the benefits to assessing these things in the
future is the ability to assess more objectively. I'd suggest that
looking at history through a subjective, biased lens is probably not the
best practice.
"One can't make false claims and be so
utterly dishonest and corrupt as Trump has factually been and still be a
good president. One can't be as thoroughly inept and just stupid as
Trump is and still be counted as a good president."
Yet, there's
quite a chasm between "good president" and abject failure. I know that
you frequently skip to extremes, but most of us live in the middle
ground.
"In the middle of Hitler's reign, historians could tell
that Hitler was a world-level disaster. Trump is no Hitler (for two
things, he's just so much more stupid and inept than Hitler), but it is
similarly clear to all rational people that Trump is just amongst the
worst."
Interesting double standard there. Judging Trump in real time and the rest of "the worst" in hindsight.
"What's
interesting is why some 30-40% of the population are blind to this? Are
some part of that 40% acknowledging his ineptitude, but are just so
partisan that they welcome historic corruption and ineptitude over the
Democratic party?"
In much the same way as people like you have
said that they'd vote for ANY democrat over Trump, many in the other
side see Biden as a worse option. I'd argue that blindness isn't the
problem, but seeing and judging the positives and negatives of both
candidates is. You may not agree with those who don't share your
visceral hatred of Trump, I'd further argue that if Trump wins, that the
problem lies with the DFL's inability to put forth a candidate that's
more appealing to a broader swath of the electorate than Biden. You
frequently (rightly) criticize Trump for his lying. Yet, Biden is a
decades long history of lying and plagiarism that is undeniable. You'll
likely respond that Biden's trail of lies isn't as bad as Trump's, but
that's subjective. It's also the exact same rationale a Trump voter has
for voting against Biden. Make no mistake, the majority of Trump
voters are voting against Biden, not for Trump. Unfortunately, the fact
that the DFL is in a race to the extreme left, and couldn't find a good
candidate twice says more about y'all that about Trump.
"Historians
are rightly united on Trump's deserved place near the bottom of the
list. What will take some time for historians is studying Trump's
supporters and defenders to figure them out."
These are both simply hunches, and worth about as much because of your hatred for Trump.
And,
that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask
nicely and I'll open up a tread for this new topic. I'm giving you each
one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal."
Dan, with my responses.
Here y'all go. Have at it.
17 comments:
Actually, some of my comments will be in response to Craig as well as the goofy Dan>
"One can't make false claims and be so utterly dishonest and corrupt as Trump has factually been and still be a good president. One can't be as thoroughly inept and just stupid as Trump is and still be counted as a good president."
This is more than merely subjective. It's inane and deceitful. Dan is far more dishonest about Trump than Trump is about anything. I continue to request that someone...ANYONE...provide me with at least one "lie" that Trump has told that has any significance whatsoever...that was some level of deal breaker for any Trump voter without which that vote would go to someone else. Where is his "shovel ready jobs"? His "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? His "dodging gunfire at an airport"? His "there are more than two genders"? His "abortion is healthcare"?
And what corruption has there been any evidence of occurring? This is just an assertion liars throw in to pad their list of negative character flaws they attribute to Trump. It's meaningless.
Far worse is the assertion that he's stupid and inept. This is what comes from having one's head up one's backside when instead one's nose should be in the facts. Dan's own link bears this out (and also proves that he doesn't read his own "evidence"):
Tax reform. Two Supreme Court nominees safely installed on the bench. The travel ban. The bonfire of federal regulations. Criminal justice reform. Legislative action aimed at ameliorating the opioid crisis. Nato members ponying up more cash. Annual wage growth is at a nine-year high. 2018 was the best year for job creation since 2015. Many of his campaign pledges, such as the renegotiation of the Nafta free-trade agreement and the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, have been kept. Promise made, promise kept is one of his boasts that regularly rings true.
"In the middle of Hitler's reign, historians could tell that Hitler was a world-level disaster. Trump is no Hitler (for two things, he's just so much more stupid and inept than Hitler), but it is similarly clear to all rational people that Trump is just amongst the worst."
Dan just says crap. I don't know where Dan got the above, but there are two problems with his claim. First, it isn't true in the least. Secondly, he'd have to be more specifically referring to German historians of the period as his own links are American historians/political science people...which would then make it even less true. Hitler was quite popular in Germany until not long before he killed himself.
And of course we once more get to see Dan claim authority to dictate who is or isn't rational simply based on his own ignorant hatred of Trump. Truly rational people look at the body of work and compare that to previous presidents. Truly rational people need only look one administration immediately preceding Trump to know he is far from the worst.
"Historians are rightly united on Trump's deserved place near the bottom of the list."
Apparently there are only 175 historians in America. I can tell by the fact that Dan's own link refers to "nearly 200 political science scholars" (does being a political science "scholar" make one a historian?)but then the actual survey has 170, plus one author and then four others referred to as historians. As to that survey, there is nothing that speaks to why any of them would rank ANY of the presidents as they do. Hardly a consensus of "historians" in any case. But Dan, true to his lying form, suggests that this small sampling is indicative of all historians (assuming again that political science "scholars" are synonymous with "historians".
As to why anyone's voting for Trump OR Biden, I think it's typical that some, or many, will vote as they do to prevent the other side from winning. The complaint will be about only having someone to vote against rather than someone to support. This time around, both is true and more so than ever before. Trump's record is more than enough to warrant him re-election, and by a wide margin. It's that good. I think Craig underplays it horribly. Dan doesn't acknowledge it at all because he's a liar. Even if the Biden and his party wasn't the marxist, baby-murdering, deviant-loving, rights destroying party it is, Trump deserves a second term, hands down with no argument.
But Biden and the Dems are every bit unworthy of support. No. They are so unworthy as to surpass Trump's worthiness. They are the anti-America party now, more so than ever before. (Keep in mind, that Trump's worthiness is true regardless of his flawed character and questionable manner.) While I will happily and eagerly cast my vote for Trump, because I care about this country and the future for my grandchildren, I believe it is actually people like Dan who so hate Trump that they are willing to destroy the nation rather than to see him re-elected. There's nothing at all rational about people like Dan, because they can't even defend their charges and allegations about Trump, and they aren't honest enough to acknowledge either his good works or the abysmal record of Biden and the Democrats.
"And what corruption has there been any evidence of occurring?"
This is the one that I just don't get. Virtually every big corruption story has ended with either nothing or with some lower level people convicted of process crimes. I think part of the problem is that too many on the left get caught up in the jumping to conclusions part of the accusations, and ignore the actual results.
As for the Hitler comparison...
1. We all know what it means when the Hitler comparisons come out.
2. This historian idiocy ignores the fact that by the mid point in Hitler's reign that there were people fighting a war to end Hitler's reign.
This is true. Yet, from a "historian's" perspective, any claim at the time that Hitler's administration was "a disaster" can't be supported when he still enjoyed a high level of support. He was still winning the war and it had not affected life in Germany where his policies had improved life for most Germans.
I think that the problem is defining "disaster" without imposing subjective, biased, hindsight too strongly.
Clearly from the perspective of post Treaty of Versailles run of the mill Germans, Hitler was pretty successful in everything he did up until early 1942, when it was becoming clear that Barbarossa was failing. The problem is that the whole notion of success or failure is so related to the goals that were intended to be achieved.
Obviously people like Dan will think that Trump is a failure. But that's at least partially because they oppose his policies already and they see any policy success as a failure. It's why the whole conversation about judging an administration in real time is incredibly pointless.
I'll offer one limited example, SCOTUS judges. I tend to think that Trump's judges have been preferable to the potential judges that Clinton would have appointed (or that Biden would appoint). However, the reality is that we'll not be able to adequately asses them until 20+ tears from now. It's entirely possible that the Trump appointees will go against expectations and swing the court increasingly leftward. Which would make folks like us reassess Trump's admin as more of a failure than we might currently.
I just think that we live in a time when folx are obsessed with drawing the lines defining what the right side of history is, but doing so in a way that ensures that their hunches are on the right side. Irregardless of any future reality.
I agree. Honest assessment can only occur after the passage of time has shown the effects of policies and appointments. And even then, it would be negative consequences resulting from a majority of policies and appointments that would result in a low ranking, or one or two moves being so bad as to overshadow all the rest. Thus far, we've pretty much seen only great things resulting from Trump's actions, with just a few exceptions.
A great example would be the Gorsuch decision regarding transsexuals. While it was clearly wrong, and the effects will indeed be negative, at this point it stands as a single bad move which alone would not mean Gorsuch was a bad appointment. He may never do anything that boneheaded again.
The same is true of Trump in general. It is absurd to insist he's been a bad president without weighing every policy and action taken by him and the effects of them on the nation. Thus far, in the aggregate, he's doing great.
I’d add that it’s even possible that events that seem bad (or good) in the short term, might seem different in 20 years.
Marshal... His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms...
"For the sixth time since its inception in 1982, the Siena College Research Institute’s (SCRI) Survey of U.S. Presidents finds that experts rank Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as the United States’ top five chief executives...
“The serving president has entered the survey between 15th , Obama, and 23rd , G.W. Bush, as scholars begin to observe their accomplishments, assess their abilities and study their attributes.
This year, Donald Trump enters the survey at 42nd,
and he is only ranked outside of the bottom five in two of the twenty categories that scholars use to assess the presidents, ‘luck’ and ‘willingness to take risks,’” said Levy."
https://scri.siena.edu/2019/02/13/sienas-6th-presidential-expert-poll-1982-2018/
1. They're not "my" historians. These are historians (in one survey) connected to the Sienna College Survey Institute. They've been doing this since 1982. They are comprised of historians with conservative, moderate and liberal backgrounds. In the past they have ranked Reagan relatively high.
I don't recall you complaining when they did that. Is that correct?
Do you acknowledge that these are respected historians from a respected institution with a long history of doing these surveys?
Do you acknowledge that you have no data about these historians on which you could legitimately make a charge of bias against them?
Note the date: Feb 2019. Trump began showing his "prowess" as president as he ran starting in 2015 and he served for two years (2017, 2018) when this survey was completed. Thus, it's not based on "barely a year in office," but two years, and also they could observe his run for office to help inform them of Trump's ineptitude and corruption.
Do you acknowledge that this survey was done with two full years of data on Trump's presidency and not "barely one..."?
Cont'd...
And they rate the candidates based on twenty categories of assessment...
"Scholars rate presidents on each of twenty categories that include attributes – background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks, abilities – compromising, executive ability, leadership, communication, and overall ability and accomplishments – party leadership, relationship with Congress, court appointments, handling the economy, executive appointments, domestic accomplishments, foreign policy accomplishments and avoiding mistakes."
Marshal... Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's
Well, that is one NON-EXPERT's opinion. And it's not worth much. Trump's tax and regulatory policies have been a disaster. Do you KNOW how much we're in debt right now due in part to those policies? Do you KNOW what economic experts have to say about Trump's policies?
Cont'd...
Trump inherited a recovering economy from Obama (after the economy had been wrecked under the previous GOP administration) with unemployment trending downwards and has devastated it. Yes, for the first three years, Trump didn't train wreck the economic recovery begun under Obama, but it was predictable.
Hint: You CAN'T cut taxes way back (and especially for the rich) AND continue to increase spending without having a deficit. Economics 101. SOME times, during hard economic times (the Great Depression, Bush's Great Recession, for example), it is justifiable to do deficit spending to help the economy recover. But Trump increased deficit spending during relatively good economic times. The man is a moron who knows how to increase wealth for the wealthy (which he WAS good at), but not so much for the rest of us.
Your claim is a non-expert, unsupported and partisan claim and has no bearing on the quality of the assessment of professional historians.
Cont'd...
From economic experts in 2018 (speaking about the great growth in the economy during Trump's first two years...)
"His critics, a group that includes
a legion of Wall Street economists,
most Democrats and
even some in his own Republican Party,
don’t believe it will last.
They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020."
It couldn't last and economic experts and historians and policy experts all could see that in 2018. He gets SOME credit for not immediately destroying the recovering economy he inherited from Obama, but ultimately, not so much.
It's like this: IF I go into great debt and have fun buying boats and cars and NOT investing in things like my house and education, etc, things may FEEL great for a few months or even a few years. But ultimately, reality will catch up to me.
Reagan had his voodoo economics. Trump has his magical thinking economics.
You can't "speak the economy" into good times, any more than you can "speak a coronavirus" into submission by promising "it won't last" and "it will be gone with the warm weather" and "we're going to have a cure any day now..."
He's an irrational magic thinker con man and people who understand math recognize the con.
Marshal, do you buy lottery tickets as your plan for retirement?
Marshal and Craig amazing, defending Hitler!...
from a "historian's" perspective, any claim at the time that Hitler's administration was "a disaster" can't be supported when he still enjoyed a high level of support. He was still winning the war and it had not affected life in Germany where his policies had improved life for most Germans.
Amongst the deluded and the partisan, you might have had support for Hitler within his own nation. And, of course, amongst the racists who supported his disastrous policies. But there was sufficient known about Hitler's policies (in spite of his continued cover ups and lies and propoganda - sound familiar?) where some average people and historians could affirm that his policies were a horror and a disaster.
I'm not saying that hyperpartisan supporters of either Trump or Hitler will be opposed to either. I'm saying amongst informed and non-biased experts (and common people, alike), there is sufficient evidence to recognize the horror and disaster of Trump's policies, even one year in, as well as Hitler's policies.
You all may find this interesting (or sadly, maybe not)...
"Kellner’s diary, which he titled “My Opposition,” is seen by some historians as a barometer for what “ordinary” Germans might have known about activities in the east, where members of the SS and other Germans were engaged in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Slavs. Some of Kellner’s information came from sources that were widely available, including the Nazi party broadsheet and illegal radio broadcasts. To gather other accounts, Kellner questioned people and sifted through gossip, attaching more than 500 newspaper clippings along the way.
A potent sense of anger fills Kellner’s diary, not only directed toward the Nazis, but also with regard to his fellow citizens and the world for allowing Hitler to rise.
“There is no punishment that would be hard enough to be applied to these Nazi beasts,” wrote Kellner. “Of course, when the retribution comes, the innocent will have to suffer along with them. But because ninety-nine percent of the German population is guilty, directly or indirectly, for the present situation, we can only say that those who travel together will hang together.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/what-did-germans-know-secret-anti-nazi-diary-gives-voice-to-man-in-the-street/
Marshal... "from a "historian's" perspective, any claim at the time that Hitler's administration was "a disaster" can't be supported when he still enjoyed a high level of support."
I think there's good evidence that there were people in and outside of Germany criticizing Hitler in the midst of his rise. Specifically experts, intellectuals and even more specifically, historians.
A lot of the same people that modern conservatives attack and undermine and deny. Just as Marshal is doing and Craig remains silent about.
Hm.
https://www.vqronline.org/essay/intellectuals-crisis-historians-under-hitler
Indeed. And that's how actual historians rank people and policies, by their long term effects. This assumes no person or policy results in immediate disastrous results, which in the case of Trump has not happened in any way. His economic policies might be so considered, but rational people will still wait long term to see how things pan out, especially if another comes in to do something that turns things in the other direction.
But hey...don't forget we're dealing with a guy who is only concerned with trashing Trump, not honestly assessing his work. Thus, any "historian" that speaks negatively is totally and completely and without fail accurate. That's how it works with hacks.
And Dan pops out of his hole to drop lies.
Yeah, I can't wait for when I have the time to deal with them. I tried at his place and believe it or not, he deletes me.
I think part of his problem is that he's defining failure based on his perception, not on the perception of (for example) the German people in the 30's and early 40". He's ignoring the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles, and of the Wiemar Republic, and how that affected the German populace and the German economy. Hitler, ran on "fixing" those problems and on some level he did what he said and had success. Clearly that success came at an unconscionable price, and ended in ruins, but it's ridiculous to say that it would have been possible to draw a reasonable conclusion on the entirety of Hitler's reign in 1939. Clearly it would be idiocy to evaluate His rule, without evaluating the end as well as the beginning.
However, none of this is in any way an endorsement or affirmation of Hitler's rule.
What's interesting, is that Dan would have opposed engaging in violence in order to have removed Hitler, and he isn't comfortable with the notion that Hitler is enduring eternal punishment in Hell.
Post a Comment