What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

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?    

I am saying that is one of many examples of your absolute surety in your own rightness.

[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?    

I am saying that is one of many examples of your absolute surety in your own rightness.

I think this is a really disingenuous take on your misquoting of me.  All your chest-beating about being a man who re-examines his conclusions make zero sense if you started off with the unmodified quote.  I would rather debate with an imbecile than a liar.  We're done here, and probably not just here.

[Berkut]

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?    

I am saying that is one of many examples of your absolute surety in your own rightness.

I think this is a really disingenuous take on your misquoting of me.  All your chest-beating about being a man who re-examines his conclusions make zero sense if you started off with the unmodified quote.  I would rather debate with an imbecile than a liar.  We're done here, and probably not just here.

Gosh, what a wonderful set of options that you consider for those who have the audacity to not agree with you - they might be imbeciles, OR liars! If not one, why, it MUST be the other!

Maybe they just don't agree with you. Maybe you aren't *quite* as brilliant as you think.

Nah, that can't be it. Better to just "be done here" than challenge THAT deeply felt faith in your absolute rightness.

You are bailing because you know that you cannot reconcile my actual behavior with your silly caricature of me valuing balance and calling it objectivity. That makes no sense given my actions, and that is absolutely clear. So have a nice day if you want to have a faux tantrum and take your ball and go home.

[Ed Anger]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[katmai]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Careful Grandpa, you'll throw a hip out.

[Ed Anger]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Careful Grandpa, you'll throw a hip out.

I took my muscle relaxers. Let's wrestle in the nude.

[CountDeMoney]

Ed's colostomy bag is filled with Grey Poupon.  BUT OF COURSE

[dps]

Ed wants to get naked with Katmai.  And wrestle.  Hmm.

[Ed Anger]

I've never wrestled a Manatee before.

[Berkut]

What is kind of interesting, or depressing, is that this really shows how incapable of evaluating actual evidence so many people are.

We've been arguing politics for years, and for years DG has insisted that I have this fake objectivity that is actually me just picking one side or the other in some kind of desperate attempt to *appear* objective, but what I am really about is being balanced.

He never provides a reason for this - why would anyone want that? There is no mechanism for it - how do I decide which side to be on? Flip a coin? Some kind of sub-conscious internal ticker that forces me one way or the other? There is no discernible reason why *I* would find that valuable. But of course it is obvious why it is valuable to HIM to believe that those who refuse to join his tribe (or the other) would have such a ridiculous set of values.

It really doesn't make any sense, and says a lot about how little he must think of me to imagine that I have this outward interest in objectivity, that apparently works fine as long as it isn't around politics, but I am actually secretly so vapid and empty of actual commitment to ideals that I just kind of flail about trying to stay in the middle no matter what.

But at least years ago I could only argue the point with reason and argument that I know I don't operate that way. There was really much in the way of actual evidence, and while what there was was clearly not someone desperate for balance, there was a small set of data to work from, so he could claim it was in fact me being "balanced".

But over the last 10+ years, there is actual, tangible evidence of how someone like myself actually ends up on various issues. Forget the debates, and the reasoning, you can simply look at my actual positions on actual issues. If in fact I had some kind of manic need to always end up in the aggregate middle, that would reflect in how I came out on issues. And if he was truly objective, THAT would come out as well, right? The proof would be in the pudding....

But what have we seen? What do we see *right now* in fact? He used the example of in 1860 a objective person would be a abolitionist (assuming of course their objectivity was founded on some basic core principles that value liberty, justice, etc., etc. of course). And he is right. If right now is 1860, I am in fact exactly that abolitionist - I've taken an extremely anti-Republican party stance, that is completely *unbalanced* but of course, is completely objective based on those same core values.

And there are numerous examples of this over the last decade plus we've been on Languish. My positions have never been particularly "balanced". I am ardently pro-choice, ardently pro-liberty to an extent that plenty of people find objectionable. I could go on and on. And yes, I am ardently of the opinion that both parties have their crazy elements, and both can and have been dumbasses at different times. The Moveon.org crowd has nothing on the Tea Party though, and in THAT *he* is right. There is no comparison to the left wings crazies to the current level of crazy that the right has embraced.

But none of that makes even the slightest dent. There is literally no possible data that could move him on this - nothing I could do that could convince him, if simply observing what has happened for the last decade has not convinced him. All you have to do DG is look at my actions, and it is starkly obvious that while you may not agree with me on a lot of things, I have no particular internal value assigned to being "balanced", rather than being objective.

[CountDeMoney]

In all fairness, DG is ardently retarded.

[katmai]

I've never wrestled a Manatee before.

[Berkut]

In all fairness, DG is ardently retarded partisan.

FYP.

He is actually pretty damn smart. Not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and his intelligence is hobbled by his inability to think outside his world view on some topics.

Arrogance combined with certainty is never pretty. Only he can fix that car!

[Ed Anger]

In all fairness, DG is ardently retarded.

We call them "Russians"

[Ed Anger]

I've never wrestled a Manatee before.

I'd buy you a Nachos Bell Grande.