What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

THe problem with your theory is that I rather obviously do NOT rule for each side half the time.

Over the long run you do.  Even when you concede that the right wing went nuts lately, you also said that both sides alternate periods of nuttiness, and now it's right wing's turn.  If you can't do micro- false balance, you do macro- false balance.  Don't ask me to quote you, I won't do it, it's been some time ago, but I'm never wrong about remembering such things.

That is awesome.

If I am objective in the short run, and objective in the long run, why, that is clear evidence of my lack of objectivity.

And you, of course, are "never wrong about such things". I suppose that is what comes from a total lack of simple self reflection and total embrace of your cognitive bias. You can be completely certain that you are "never wrong".

Personally, I am sure I am wrong about all kinds of things. Hence the need to spot check myself from time to time, and re-asses my assumptions. Must be so much easier to just be completely certain that you are never wrong, and don't need to go through that pesky "thinking" process!

[katmai]

Thinking is for losers

[Ed Anger]

Thinking is for losers

I operate on sheer manly sexiness.

[Berkut]

Thinking is for losers

The best part is jsut how Trumpian he sounds. "I am never wrong at such things! Never! Nobody can be not wrong better than me!"

[Ed Anger]

He is a filthy russian. Used to getting his orders from a Commisar.

[katmai]

Thinking is for losers

I operate on sheer manly sexiness.

How is that working out for ya?

[Ed Anger]

Thinking is for losers

I operate on sheer manly sexiness.

How is that working out for ya?

Awesome. Except the falling apart bit.

[DGuller]

That is awesome.

If I am objective in the short run, and objective in the long run, why, that is clear evidence of my lack of objectivity.

Therein lies the problem:  your very concept of what it means to be objective.  You just seem to be incapable of comprehending what it really is on an almost genetic level.  False balance is not objectivity, it's just that:  false balance.  Objectivity is about fairly processing information, and letting the conclusion be what it may be (and sometimes it may consistently skew far away from the median conclusion).  Objectivity is not about carefully balancing your conclusions, so that they don't skew one way or the other.  The most objective observer in 1860 would be a radical abolitionist.

[CountDeMoney]

Thinking is for losers

I operate on sheer manly sexiness.

You make French anchor babies, so stuff it.

[Ed Anger]

Thinking is for losers

I operate on sheer manly sexiness.

You make French anchor babies, so stuff it.

I think I will.

[DGuller]

Over the long run you do.  Even when you concede that the right wing went nuts lately, you also said that both sides alternate periods of nuttiness, and now it's right wing's turn.  If you can't do micro- false balance, you do macro- false balance.  Don't ask me to quote you, I won't do it, it's been some time ago, but I'm never wrong about remembering such things.

And you, of course, are "never wrong about such things". I suppose that is what comes from a total lack of simple self reflection and total embrace of your cognitive bias. You can be completely certain that you are "never wrong".

Personally, I am sure I am wrong about all kinds of things. Hence the need to spot check myself from time to time, and re-asses my assumptions. Must be so much easier to just be completely certain that you are never wrong, and don't need to go through that pesky "thinking" process!

Almost missed the rather material misquote.  I say that I never remember things that didn't happen, and you take that as me saying that I'm never wrong about my conclusions or thinking?    

You really, really need to start reading what people who disagree with you actually write.  All too often you read what you want people to write, what would make it easiest to offer up a sanctimonious reply full of self-importance.

[CountDeMoney]

I think I will.

How deGaulling.

[Valmy]

  That's pretty rich coming from a leftist.

Yeah but you consider everybody who is not an anarchist a leftist these days.

[Ed Anger]

I think I will.

How deGaulling.

[Berkut]

That is awesome.

If I am objective in the short run, and objective in the long run, why, that is clear evidence of my lack of objectivity.

Therein lies the problem:  your very concept of what it means to be objective.  You just seem to be incapable of comprehending what it really is on an almost genetic level.  False balance is not objectivity, it's just that:  false balance.  Objectivity is about fairly processing information, and letting the conclusion be what it may be (and sometimes it may consistently skew far away from the median conclusion).  Objectivity is not about carefully balancing your conclusions, so that they don't skew one way or the other.  The most objective observer in 1860 would be a radical abolitionist.

What is funny is you keep stating it like that proves that it isn't exactly what I do - and your evidence that I am just trying to be balanced is that...I am sometimes not balanced, but other times am balanced, and this evidence that I am not objective.

Indeed, if I were so careful to be balanced, why am I so adamantly anti-right over the last several years? If my goal was "balance" as YOU insist, then my current position, which is vehemently against the political right in America, would make no sense for me.

Your definition is exactly right, and yet you are incapable of seeing that you don't even try to meet it, and in fact find people who are objective to be despicable. Which is exactly what non-objective people always think about people who ARE objective.

The evidence is right in front of you, and clearly refutes your position, but that doesn't matter - you will just ignore it and re-cast it as something else, because it fails to fit your narrative.

Someone who actually valued the things you INSIST *I* value would act in a very particular manner, and I don't at all act in that manner. Instead, I act exactly in the manner you descrive as objective. Right now, if it is 1860, I am full on abolitionist. I am as anti-right as anyone can reasonably be - how does that work in your narrative that demands that I value "balance" rather than objectivity?

How come I am not saying something like "Well, maybe Trump isn't so bad, he makes some good points..."?