Fallacious Thinking

[Luckyone]

You refuse to post and leave out the smarmy attacks. Why not straighten up and fly right?

You were told by me and others your OP is fallacious. Now it is more than that, it is mendacious.

It is impossible to answer your posts without stating what is evident. It is not my intention to debase you but to point out just how bad your thinking and evaluation of things are. I know it bothers you and in a small part of my mind it does give me pleasure given that I dislike you intensely as a non-rational thinking person. Ignorance and stupidity are the things I dislike the most in life.

Having said, you really do not know what you are saying or doing. Your posts are full of misinformation and biased opinion. Nothing can be said in any way, shape, or form, that you understand the way it is meant and the facts portrayed.

The only other option is to ignore all your posts. Nonetheless and just in case there is "anyone" out there that is paying attention to any of your posts (I doubt it but it could happen), I feel the need to point out the misinformation you are giving.

I have tried (though you probably don't think so) to have debates of the issues with you. Nonetheless, even hard cold facts, data and truths make no impression in your mind. You are blind by choice or by age. Either way, debating with you is becoming useless.

Good bye again Robert. I will continue to comment on your OP's but I have no plans to responding to anything you write back.

 

[Robertinfremont]

It is impossible to answer your posts without stating what is evident. It is not my intention to debase you but to point out just how bad your thinking and evaluation of things are. I know it bothers you and in a small part of my mind it does give me pleasure given that I dislike you intensely as a non-rational thinking person. Ignorance and stupidity are the things I dislike the most in life.

Having said, you really do not know what you are saying or doing. Your posts are full of misinformation and biased opinion. Nothing can be said in any way, shape, or form, that you understand the way it is meant and the facts portrayed.

The only other option is to ignore all your posts. Nonetheless and just in case there is "anyone" out there that is paying attention to any of your posts (I doubt it but it could happen), I feel the need to point out the misinformation you are giving.

I have tried (though you probably don't think so) to have debates of the issues with you. Nonetheless, even hard cold facts, data and truths make no impression in your mind. You are blind by choice or by age. Either way, debating with you is becoming useless.

Good bye again Robert. I will continue to comment on your OP's but I have no plans to responding to anything you write back.

Good bye a poster who is the most profound bigot on the forum. By far you lead the parade.

I like to discuss. Debate is for chumps. Debate causes hatred on this forum. On some forums I have been on, debate leads to harmony, no name calling happens and nobody runs a person down due to age. My mind is much sharper than yours is so farewell.

 

[TobyOne]

Lol. You first.

Strong words but no facts delivered.

I could say the same thing as you, words are cheap. Try to prove your statements next time, if you desire any attention.

 

[Craig234]

Having said that, party's are both using these actions to stimulate even more anger, even more dissension, even more disunity. It is fallacious thinking because stimulating these negative feelings just makes things worse and not better. It makes solutions more difficult to obtain. Aren't solutions what we want and need? You are not going to get solutions if the problems are made worse.

There are analogies to this topic. Let's start with one point: Assume you think Biden will be far better for the country than trump; and that if you use those 'negative attacks' he wins, but if you don't, he loses. You see the logic in justifying them?

But that leaves your question, how the country can get 'better' culture than one based on negative attacks. One analogy would be the way companies sacrifice what's good for their long term in order to have a 'good quarter' to please Wall Street.

This occurs on a societal cultural level. When societies are at war for their survival, not a lot matters but that war. It's when society is more stable that culture can advance, from the arts to science to 'how to avoid war' efforts in politics.

When a better president wins an election, they might concentrate on what's good for the country, putting the campaigning behind them. trump began campaigning for 2020, literally, pretty much immediately after the 2016 election. Just after being inaugurated he had re-election rallies. He has never paid attention to the country.

Instead, we can think of what some presidents have tried to do - Wilson with the League of Nations, FDR with the United Nations, JFK in many areas, Carter trying to move to renewable energy, etc. We don't have a lot of 'long term thinking for the country' going on, but just 'wanting to win'. And there's something of a vicious cycle to that as people lose faith in government, forgetting what 'good government' is.

 

[Craig234]

You are misunderstanding my post. The goal of any administration or leader "should be" finding solutions to the problems. That is the definition of a leader "a person that will lead us to the promised land and keep us safe". Problems are the norm. Solutions to the problems is what everyone wants.

This is an era of plutocracy, when a "leader" is selected by the wealthy to serve them. And you're talking much too generally about problems. The Great Recession redistributed trillions from the American people to the rich - it was a 'problem' for the people, but not the rich. People being poor, even without healthcare, is a problem for them, plutocrats often prefer that.

 

[PNW Guy]

Good bye a poster who is the most profound bigot on the forum. By far you lead the parade.

I like to discuss. Debate is for chumps. Debate causes hatred on this forum. On some forums I have been on, debate leads to harmony, no name calling happens and nobody runs a person down due to age. My mind is much sharper than yours is so farewell.

Your arrogance is both hilarious and wholly unearned.... :lamo

 

[Luckyone]

Lol. You first.

No, you first. My statement was made in the OP. You disputed it but offered no data with which to dispute it intelligently. I stated as so.

You are the one that has to show why you dispute what I said. Just saying so, means nothing.

 

[Luckyone]

There are analogies to this topic. Let's start with one point: Assume you think Biden will be far better for the country than trump; and that if you use those 'negative attacks' he wins, but if you don't, he loses. You see the logic in justifying them?

But that leaves your question, how the country can get 'better' culture than one based on negative attacks. One analogy would be the way companies sacrifice what's good for their long term in order to have a 'good quarter' to please Wall Street.

This occurs on a societal cultural level. When societies are at war for their survival, not a lot matters but that war. It's when society is more stable that culture can advance, from the arts to science to 'how to avoid war' efforts in politics.

When a better president wins an election, they might concentrate on what's good for the country, putting the campaigning behind them. trump began campaigning for 2020, literally, pretty much immediately after the 2016 election. Just after being inaugurated he had re-election rallies. He has never paid attention to the country.

Instead, we can think of what some presidents have tried to do - Wilson with the League of Nations, FDR with the United Nations, JFK in many areas, Carter trying to move to renewable energy, etc. We don't have a lot of 'long term thinking for the country' going on, but just 'wanting to win'. And there's something of a vicious cycle to that as people lose faith in government, forgetting what 'good government' is.

My statement in the OP was actually quite simple and yet you are trying to make it complicated.

This is not about tactics used to win the election. The OP is all about leadership once you are elected. You give an oath when sworn in to the office and that oath means you will try to do the best for the nation. Fallacious thinking is what all of us do on one occasion or the other. As such, it is the job of the leader of the nation to attempt to stop or reduce as much as the fallacious thinking as he can. It is the opposite of doing his job to be the reason for the fallacious thinking or even to stimulate more fallacious thinking among the people.

It is that simple. In simple words, it is the job of the president to be as open and transparent as he can be so unnecessary misunderstandings do not happen that create more problems rather than less. In other words, don't lie unless a lie is necessary for the benefit of the nation. Not many of those, though a few can be accepted.

 

[Luckyone]

This is an era of plutocracy, when a "leader" is selected by the wealthy to serve them. And you're talking much too generally about problems. The Great Recession redistributed trillions from the American people to the rich - it was a 'problem' for the people, but not the rich. People being poor, even without healthcare, is a problem for them, plutocrats often prefer that.

I fully understand what you mean. Nonetheless, it is our job as the citizens of the nation to choose those that more represent us than the wealthy and powerful. Nothing is ever perfect, meaning that we will never find the kind of person we need and desire. Nonetheless, the idea is to find better rather than find or settle for worse.

It is that simply.

 

[Robertinfremont]

My statement in the OP was actually quite simple and yet you are trying to make it complicated.

This is not about tactics used to win the election. The OP is all about leadership once you are elected. You give an oath when sworn in to the office and that oath means you will try to do the best for the nation. Fallacious thinking is what all of us do on one occasion or the other. As such, it is the job of the leader of the nation to attempt to stop or reduce as much as the fallacious thinking as he can. It is the opposite of doing his job to be the reason for the fallacious thinking or even to stimulate more fallacious thinking among the people.

It is that simple. In simple words, it is the job of the president to be as open and transparent as he can be so unnecessary misunderstandings do not happen that create more problems rather than less. In other words, don't lie unless a lie is necessary for the benefit of the nation. Not many of those, though a few can be accepted.

Obama specialized in failing your test. Be interesting to see if at the time you attacked him or defended him.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I fully understand what you mean. Nonetheless, it is our job as the citizens of the nation to choose those that more represent us than the wealthy and powerful. Nothing is ever perfect, meaning that we will never find the kind of person we need and desire. Nonetheless, the idea is to find better rather than find or settle for worse.

It is that simply.

Obama led the way to working for the rich when he was president.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Your arrogance is both hilarious and wholly unearned.... :lamo

Are you and Luckyone twins who are both routinely wrong?

I responded to the arrogant Luckyone. In your arrogance you sprang to action.

 

[PNW Guy]

Are you and Luckyone twins who are both routinely wrong?

I responded to the arrogant Luckyone. In your arrogance you sprang to action.

I don't care about your interaction with him, my comment had nothing to do with that. The statement stands and is well known.

 

[TobyOne]

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your OP was drivel.

No, you first. My statement was made in the OP. You disputed it but offered no data with which to dispute it intelligently. I stated as so.

You are the one that has to show why you dispute what I said. Just saying so, means nothing.

 

[Razoo]

Clearly the reason the OP FAILED in this case is he led us down a false path called fallacious thinking when he was in truth going to try to destroy Trump.

It failed to work.

It did not ...... Trump ruins himself daily because he talks too much. It is his nature to be loud and stupid.

Not only that his hotels are failures and he has been spending hundreds of millions in cash abroad. The respective government is curious about the cash outlay and is looking around. No one is stepping up to buy Trump hotels because the numbers put forward are skewed = Trump is trying to swindle potential buyers however the potential buyers are suspect. Trump has more than 21,000 documented mistatement of facts in the log books which certifies Trump as a liar.

Trump is the last nail in the coffin of the GOP.

 

[Robertinfremont]

It did not ...... Trump ruins himself daily because he talks too much. It is his nature to be loud and stupid.

Not only that his hotels are failures and he has been spending hundreds of millions in cash abroad. The respective government is curious about the cash outlay and is looking around. No one is stepping up to buy Trump hotels because the numbers put forward are skewed = Trump is trying to swindle potential buyers however the potential buyers are suspect. Trump has more than 21,000 documented mistatement of facts in the log books which certifies Trump as a liar.

Trump is the last nail in the coffin of the GOP.

It failed due to how he structured it as if it was about Fallacious thinking. When his true intention was a typical Democrat Trump trashing job that was loaded with lies. By the batches he lied.

Do quit lying if you plan to discuss other liars.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I don't care about your interaction with him, my comment had nothing to do with that. The statement stands and is well known.

Well stick to being a staunch bigot then. i do not care.

 

[Craig234]

I fully understand what you mean. Nonetheless, it is our job as the citizens of the nation to choose those that more represent us than the wealthy and powerful. Nothing is ever perfect, meaning that we will never find the kind of person we need and desire. Nonetheless, the idea is to find better rather than find or settle for worse.

It is that simply.

If only it were.

Billions of dollars are spent to influence opinions, and unsophisticated people stand little chance of not being overwhelmed by the advertising manipulations, and end up voting on idiotic things ('I heard something about Hillary's e-mails, I can't trust her').

 

[Craig234]

My statement in the OP was actually quite simple and yet you are trying to make it complicated.

This is not about tactics used to win the election. The OP is all about leadership once you are elected. You give an oath when sworn in to the office and that oath means you will try to do the best for the nation. Fallacious thinking is what all of us do on one occasion or the other. As such, it is the job of the leader of the nation to attempt to stop or reduce as much as the fallacious thinking as he can. It is the opposite of doing his job to be the reason for the fallacious thinking or even to stimulate more fallacious thinking among the people.

It is that simple. In simple words, it is the job of the president to be as open and transparent as he can be so unnecessary misunderstandings do not happen that create more problems rather than less. In other words, don't lie unless a lie is necessary for the benefit of the nation. Not many of those, though a few can be accepted.

You like that phrase, 'it is that simple', but it's wrong. Someone wants to be president and be the public servant you say is that simple. The big donors tell him, 'you want to do that, good luck. Go find billions of dollars yourself'.

They'll fund people who work for them. The politician is welcome to say whatever about how much they care about the public, and they can do what they want in many areas, but our system is basically that winning takes big money, and the people who give that big money are served. It is that simple.

 

[Luckyone]

If only it were.

Billions of dollars are spent to influence opinions, and unsophisticated people stand little chance of not being overwhelmed by the advertising manipulations, and end up voting on idiotic things ('I heard something about Hillary's e-mails, I can't trust her').

It is part of the game unfortunately. It has been so since the beginning of time. There have been occasions though, when good people have been chosen. We need to fight for those occasions. Biden is not likely to be that person but at least he is better than what is there now.

 

[Luckyone]

You like that phrase, 'it is that simple', but it's wrong. Someone wants to be president and be the public servant you say is that simple. The big donors tell him, 'you want to do that, good luck. Go find billions of dollars yourself'.

They'll fund people who work for them. The politician is welcome to say whatever about how much they care about the public, and they can do what they want in many areas, but our system is basically that winning takes big money, and the people who give that big money are served. It is that simple.

I understand fully what you are saying but there have been occasions where some fall through the cracks of corruption and get elected. I can think of 3 in my immediate memory. Bush Sr, Obama, and even perhaps Bill Clinton. There is always hope.

 

[Gator]

It’s not fallacious because you are mistaken about the goal. The goal is not “solutions” as you suggest, the goal is to when elections. And fear anger and division gets votes.

Explains it perfectly.

 

[Gator]

You like that phrase, 'it is that simple', but it's wrong. Someone wants to be president and be the public servant you say is that simple. The big donors tell him, 'you want to do that, good luck. Go find billions of dollars yourself'.

They'll fund people who work for them. The politician is welcome to say whatever about how much they care about the public, and they can do what they want in many areas, but our system is basically that winning takes big money, and the people who give that big money are served. It is that simple.

Both sides get big money. And the people who give that money may have given only $10 but 5 million gave it. Those people are served as much as a guy who gives a big contribution--probably served more because in addition to money they have a lot of votes while the individual contributor does not.

And everybody says money influences elections but nobody ever admits that their vote was influenced by money. The votes of loyal Democrats and Republicans was decided 20 years ago (long before any money was spent on the election.

 

[Craig234]

Both sides get big money.

I saw that, and said, 'oh that old false equivalency. Let me check the label and see if it's a Libertarian.' What do I win?

And the people who give that money may have given only $10 but 5 million gave it. Those people are served as much as a guy who gives a big contribution--probably served more because in addition to money they have a lot of votes while the individual contributor does not.

Bad misrepresentation of the facts. To summarize, pretending you have any interest in actually learning about the issue, it's the large donors who get essentially all the influence from donating. Read a study on it - the 99% of voters have effectively zero influence on any legislation large donors care about. And over 98% of voters hadn't even given the tiny donations.

And everybody says money influences elections but nobody ever admits that their vote was influenced by money.

That's part of the insidiousness of advertising. Ask people why they buy a product, 'because they like it'. The billions of dollars companies spend on advertising do nothing, you think? The consumer might say they 'trust' a brand. Little do they understand the big money spent to buy that trust.

The votes of loyal Democrats and Republicans was decided 20 years ago (long before any money was spent on the election.

More false equivalency. It's like there's a Libertarian dogma pamphlet people copy from. Same fallacies over and over.

 

[Craig234]

I understand fully what you are saying but there have been occasions where some fall through the cracks of corruption and get elected. I can think of 3 in my immediate memory. Bush Sr, Obama, and even perhaps Bill Clinton. There is always hope.

Bush Sr, Clinton, and Obama all served the donors. Obama was carefully selected and groomed, it wasn't an accident that his national career launched by being selected to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. He was in fact Wall Street's preferred candidate - and there were no prosecutions of Wall Street for the massive crimes in the Great Recession by Obama.

The hope was Bernie Sanders.

Voters did not overcome the obstacles.

Bernie and many voters did incredibly, with his going from 4% support to 46%, but it wasn't enough, and he was a once in decades candidate bucking the system. There was some hope for Howard Dean, but he was too enthusiastic in a yell to a young audience, and that was that. Remember how I said so many voters pick? No, it's a pretty tight system. You saw all the candidates fall into line behind Biden when told to to beat the candidate not owned by donors.