Here's Adams's blog post. Example:
BirtherismThat "factual report" contained mind reading: Trump did what he did "to gain a political advantage." If you're going to strip away the mind-reading, you can't leave traces of mind-reading that skew the so-called "facts" away from the direction where the MSM's mind-reading tries to take us.
Factual Report: Donald Trump exploited doubts within the Republican base about President Obama’s birth certificate to gain a political advantage. This is a common political tactic. Candidate Trump used the same strategy against Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada but is an American citizen.
Mind Reading: We can read Trump’s inner racist mind and we know the real reason he was involved with birtherism is to send a silent dog whistle to the racists in the Republican party.
Other examples at the link are "Some illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and some are not," "Charlottesville," "KKK Disavowal," "Judge Curiel," and "Shithole Countries."
Adams's point is that "the anti-Trump media created the 'monster' version of Trump based on mind-reading punditry" and, that "Factual reporting would not have created that impression in the public’s mind."
Notice that Adams is reading a mind even more inscrutable than Trump's — "the public's mind."
Is there such a thing? I don't believe in that monster (I assert, but you don't know if I'm lying).
Inside that mythical beast — "the public's mind" — there is a "monster" that Adams purports to see. And Adams even purports to read the public's mind as it would exist if only the news media had not presented the news as if it could read Trump's mind. Adams is the master mind-reader.
I'm sure Adams is already aware of all these insights, because I'm reading his mind.
Posts
115 comments:
Language is mind reading.
There are good readings and bad readings.
Intention, for example, doesn't exist. It's a marker in an account applied retroactively. You get a narrative by including it.
``Again, we ask this young man who is paying attentions to our daughter to declare his intentions. What are his intentions? Are his intentions honourable? Here, would it make any difference if we asked him what was the purpose of these attentions, whether he has some purpose in view, whether he is doing these things on purpose or for a purpose? This makes his conduct seem more calculated, frames him as an adventurer or seducer. Instead of asking him to clarify the position, perhaps to himself as well as to us, are we not now asking to divulge a guilty secret?''
J.L.Austin
You have out-Adams'd Scott Adams with your infinite regress of minds.
Well, I think you have.
Or at least I am telling you that's what I think.
Technically, ALL illegal Mexicans are criminals. Whether they are otherwise good people is irrelevant once you understand that fact. They all broke a law by crossing that border with no papers or permission.
That "factual report" contained mind reading: Trump did what he did "to gain a political advantage." If you're going to strip away the mind-reading, you can't leave traces of mind-reading that skew the so-called "facts" away from the direction where the MSM's mind-reading tries to take us.
TO be fair, I don't think it's some huge leap to infer that Trump's motivations in that instance were to gain a political advantage. Or at least it's not as much of an exercise in "mind reading" as inductive reasoning, unlike assuming his real motivations were racism, which given the evidence strikes me as a much grander assumption.
Trump did the birther thing as sand in the gears of the holy Obama cult. Show us the paper.
It's not aimed at Obama but at the cult.
It knocks down a guardrail.
"You have out-Adams'd Scott Adams with your infinite regress of minds."
No, he already thought all those things but left them out for simplicity and persuasive effect and because he feels superior when he pontificates while — in plain sight — violating the very propositions he expounds.
Again, I know that because I'm reading his mind.
The minds that might be interesting to read are those of Democrat politicians contemplating how they will get off this Trump hate tiger they are riding when it is apparent there is nothing to the Mueller investigation.
They are already worrying about it.
Their base thinks, like Inga, that impeachment is coming any day.
I love this post!
"Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
It's a fact that we always read the minds of others.
It's a fact that progs are just not very good at it. The science is settled.
Michael K: Their base thinks...
Are you sure about that?
So has the "liberal" Hive now retired Beast Trump the New Hitler? I would assume so, given the Hive's renewed efforts to disarm the populace. Handing over your firearms to New Hitler--or even registering them so that he knows where they are--seems silly, even for "liberals."
People are bad at mind-reading and it cannot be done competently, and yet it is the most important thing to do if you want to live the life of a human being.
You can retreat, become a hermit or live like a robot and skim the surface of life, but if you want a rich, fulfilling human life, you'll have to mind-read all the time. You know, it's hard even to read your own mind, but it's worth doing. Even when we get it all wrong, it's still real — real fiction, real approximation, real engagement.
The main problem is that mainstream media is bad. It's not worth spending your times consuming this junk. Read something you find worthy, some speculation about what people are thinking that appeals to you in some way that seems good.
Did you read my mind just then? I was thinking: I hope you find the Althouse blog worth reading. I'm making a go of it, reading media and minds, and I hope that reading my words helps you engage in some way that belongs in the life of a human being.
Adams is of course mind-reading, that is his whole political pundit game. His "persuasion" schtick is mind-reading.
The question is whether it is accurate mind-reading.
Like any forecasting technique it should be judged by its "skill", the track record of correct predictions.
So far Adams has just one, but very significant, correct prediction.
My inexpert view is that Obama "won" the Birther debate, because the birthers overplayed their hand with a faulty, unproven accusation. Clearly, Obama was born in Hawaii, where his mother attended the University there, and where his grandparents, also lived.
Why on earth would a pregnant 19 year old college freshman (Stanley Ann Dunham) go to Kenya during the school year to give birth? Totally implausible.
But, Obama, I thought, did a good job milking this implausible claim by withholding his birth certificate for a while, and playing coy about it. Obama could have easily cleared it up quickly, but instead let it play out. It was smart politics, too, because it made the proponents of birtherism look silly and mean.
But, similar to Pochahontas in Mass, Obama dangled the exotic story that he was from Kenya (like his Dad) to juice up his resume a few times.
I thought Obama was a decent man, but, on the merits, a lousy president. The birthers though inadvertently generated sympathy towards Obama by hurling these unproven and implausible charges.
My 2 cents.
Mind reading is missing half the action; the other guy hasn't made up his mind most of the time and you're making him do it.
If you don't think the market is going to go up, you must think it's going to go down.
- Stock broker cold call, offering a chance to make money.
And yet Adams is right and we all know it. It's because we all know it that some will attack Adams.
When someone says or asserts something controversial it is common and natural to speculate at the motivations of the speaker - at least doing so is common and natural these days. Don't we all do this sort of mind-reading? Isn't this mind-reading a form of defense against the heard attack, a tactical attempt to discredit it? Garden variety ad hominem?
-sw
There's a bonk noise from somewhere I can't locate. Finally going outside, I discover a robin occasionally fighting his reflection in an upstairs window.
Mind reading exercise.
Psychic is as psychic does. Now stop looking at me in that tone of voice. The mind control experts have been desperately herding cats on the Social Media. But the cats are winning.
Seriously, Scott Adams talks over the heads of most of his listeners.
People are bad at mind-reading and it cannot be done competently, and yet it is the most important thing to do if you want to live the life of a human being.
People are bad at it because they don't correct for their own biases, they just assume the worst of their opponents. People like to feel good about themselves and their own beliefs. It's not pleasant to find out that you may be wrong. It's much nicer and easier to be able to confirm your own biases.
If you want to be less bad at mind-reading you have to be able to get over yourself and your own beliefs. You have to be willing to assume that you may be wrong and it's even possible that your opponent may be right occasionally. It turns out that's kinda hard.
Nonapod said...
"People are bad at it because they don't correct for their own biases, they just assume the worst of their opponents."
I agree with the first part. A common analytical mistake is to project your way of thinking, goals, etc. onto your opponents when you make predictions about them.
Never before -- and this is saying an awful lot -- has the Althouse blog been more in need of a tag for "Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome."
Like the grandfather in "Moonstruck", I'm confused.
Celebrate. We just won the Chuck Award. It is given to the hardest to con minds on the Internet.
Not sure I agree with Ann's assertion that the phrase "to gain political advantage" is mind-reading. That could be a statement of the real world results of the action, rather than a statement about Trump's purposes for doing it.
The dog that didn't bark?
Why was there no analysis of "typical white person" and the other references Obama made to his own racist attitudes? The DNC-media is only interested in reading a politician's mind when it is the R party, just like Chuck. No interest, no curiosity, no searching the recesses of Obama's mind. Just move along and enhance the hagiography.
If what I say is wrong we should see honest media analysis of just what Obama's role in Russiagate was/is? Hmmm. Any day now I'm sure.
I read a lot of news just to get a distillation of the facts, i.e. multiple sources converge on the facts. But in so doing I'm trying to sift out the bias.
PART ONE (due to comment-size limits):
How bad is Scott Adams at journalism? Amazingly bad, it turns out.
Adams tries to summarize facts. And fails. My additions in bold type:
"Birtherism
Factual Report: Donald Trump exploited doubts within the Republican base about President Obama’s birth certificate to gain a political advantage. This is a common political tactic. Candidate Trump used the same strategy against Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada but is an American citizen." Trump also claimed that he had sent his own investigators to Hawaii, and that they were finding out things that they couldn't believe. Trump has never once explained who the investigators were, or what they found. Trump has since avoided all questions on the subject. The most reasonable conclusion is that Trump was lying about all of that.
"Some illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and some are not
Factual Report: Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President with a speech in which he noted that some illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals." In fact, the news media widely reported Trump's comments in full. In full, and in context. Video replays of the speech, all over television and on the web. Trump has had innumberable opportunities to supply a more careful, nuanced version. He's never done it. On this, or dozens of other similar issues involving his public statements and tweets.
"Charlottesville
Factual Report: President Trump said there were 'fine people' on both sides of the Charlottesville protests. When asked to clarify if that meant the racists with tiki torches were fine people, the President clarified that he disavowed that group and was talking about non-racists who might have been there to support keeping historical Civil War statues that many believe are offensive." Again, this is a case of Trump having the opportunity to make a conservative case, and he failed because of his innate inability to articulate carefully. Instead of using the opportunity to call out extremism and rightly including the antifa-type protestors in the condemnation, Trump's bumbling statements threw the entire discussion into the ditch.
PART TWO
"KKK Disavowal
Factual Report: In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, candidate Trump did not take the opportunity Tapper repeatedly gave him to denounce the KKK and David Duke. President Trump said he had some audio problems and didn’t hear the question properly. He clarified the next day that he does disavow the KKK and David Duke, as he has several times in the past." Trump blamed his earpiece. What bullshit. I don't think that Trump is particularly racist, or that he is any sort of racial extremist. I think that Trump is the same sort of racist as millions of other outer-borough whites from Queens and Staten Island. But Trump regularly says stupidly embarrassing things, like he is "the least racist" person that anyone knows.
"Judge Curiel
Factual Report: Candidate Trump employed a common legal strategy by questioning the objectivity of the judge for the Trump University trial. The strategy was a solid one because it biased the judge to rule favorably for Trump to avoid the appearance of bias. As it turned out, the judge scheduled the trial for after the election, which was unnecessarily generous to Trump. A more normal schedule would have put the trial before election. The potential bias Trump called out was that because of his immigration plan, Trump was deeply unpopular with Americans of Mexican heritage. Lawyers routinely consider that sort of potential bias." Give me a break. After declaring that he'd go to trial, because no businessman can afford to settle meritless cases, Trump settled the case for $25 million. And in the process, Trump called Curiel "Mexican," and mischaracterized the La Raza lawyers' guild.
"Shithole Countries
Factual Reporting: In a non-public meeting with other politicians, President Trump used strong language (shithole countries) to question why our immigration policies allow in so many people from economically disadvantaged countries instead of economically advanced countries such as Norway." So Trump actually said, "shithole countries", Adams? That's news. The White House staff and their enablers spent a couple of weeks denying it. I presume that you are technically correct, Adams, and that Trump really did say it. So what about the lying denials?
What a gigantic crock of shit from Scott Adams. Another gigantic crock of shit from him.
The point of Adams is his alleged insight.
Complaining about how he spins the infinitely spinnable is beside the point, no?
As with any gypsy woman with a crystal ball, or stock tout, the proof is in whether what he says will happen, does.
That's easy, Chuckie. Trump's investigators found things "they couldn't believe" and since they didn't believe the facts, they went unreported. Take him at face value, Dude. It works better that way. And you'll save on blood pressure meds too.
“Not sure I agree with Ann's assertion that the phrase "to gain political advantage" is mind-reading. That could be a statement of the real world results of the action, rather than a statement about Trump's purposes for doing it.”
He’s trying to hide it, or accidentally ignoring it, but if x does y “to gain” z, that means x had a goal in mind, x did y with intent to achieve z.
Get your own blog, titty twister.
La Raza. Yes, an organization called "The Race" is called out for being racist by Trump and Chuck defends them. Substitute "brown" for "white" in the phrase White Supremacy and Chuck (the conservative) is ALL for it. I see you working. You don't fool me.
Did Curiel agree with La Raza that the southwest should be ceded back to Mexico or converted to the mythical Astlan? Only incurious minds don't want to know.
Objective manifestation of intent...drummed into me by the best law prof I had.
I thought this was the purpose of Language--to know what is on the other person's mind. Some Yale researchers years back argued that through language (i.e., communication) the person comes to learn what they themselves think (Bem's Self Revelation Theory). Of course, people provide disinformation (perhaps why gambling goes back to ancient times) and lie; but, this too is communication, or language. Gamblers learn how to look for and read "tells."
There is of course Mind Reading (a la communication) and Telepathic Reading (where someone enters our MIND (Ooooo) and hears our inner thoughts. The latter is doubtful, more so than the former.
So, education is supposed to teach us how to read beyond the obvious and find out what is really going on.
Some people are good at it; others suck; most fall somewhere in between.
Mike, you need to try a lot harder to not be so stupid.
Judge Curiel was a past member of La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego. Many of Trump's dumbest supporters confused that association with The National Council of La Raza. Which is a devoutly left-wing, pro-immigration, pro-activist political organization. And the two groups had no formal association, and Curiel had no association with the National Council group.
That fact is pointed out in about a hundred news articles all over the 'net. Don't try to pull a fast one with your half-truths here. You aren't fooling me, sport.
Mind reading versus mind control. Remember, a lot of the time you are in a state of persuading someone what they think and what they want to do, and they are doing the same with you.
I am still waiting to see the last piece of Scott Adam's prediction that the never trumpers would move on from 1.)"Trump is Hitler!!. 2)O.k so he's not Hitler but he's incompetent. 3)O.K Trump's not incompetent, I just don't like what he's doing" I see chuck is still stuck on #2.
but if x does y “to gain” z
but if x does y and "gains" z, and does it over and over and over?
La Raza mean "the race", but Chuck thinks it's harmless because he needs to bash Trump.
Chuck is sowing discord on this political post. If he is a Russian or some other foreign Troll, we must report this to Special Counsel Mueller.
Chuck is being disingenuous again.
La Raza and the La Raza Lawyers Association are related.
They both promote the same agenda.
Chuck, "La Raza" is not constrained to being a particular activist group. There are many such groups. Its core in reality is a series of affiliated California (mainly) student organizations that recruit much like a fraternity, albeit an ideological one. They have created both formal and informal preference systems to help their members get ahead in government service, with the specific purpose of ethnic power.
"La Raza" anything is one of that conglomerate of formal and informal systems.
And yes, belonging to a "La Raza" Legal society does clearly indicate ones particularist inclinations. It is exceedingly obtuse to quibble on this.
As to how I know, I have been following CA politics for thirty years, and as it happens all our kids were approached by "La Raza" affiliates in college.
Chuck defends "The Race" activist group by claiming it is different than "The Race" other activist group. And calling oneself "The Race" is perfectly fine in this context because "The Race" is only racist in the latter, but not the former, group.
Well done, fopdoodle. You have officially twisted your own titty.
Yeah, but he is a member of the respected fopdoodles.
Yancey Ward:
Sorry to quibble about this fopdoodle, but he comes from a long line of self-respected fopdoodles. He can trace his lineage all the way back to the New England fopdoodles who were self-important for hundreds of years.
just about every accusation that Trump is racist is that he said x and x really/secretly means something racist. Given the left's ever-expanding definition of what is racist and reflexive race-baiting, the accusations are meaningless. Most of the stuff either isn't racist under any objective standard or his words are being removed from their context or words are being made up. Unfortunately, they've so convinced themselves that Trump is racist that it is simply dogma at this point.
There is a bit of that on the pro-Trump side explaining away some of what Trump says as "he really means harmless y" but that is far more limited from what I can tell. I suppose that the "Take Trump seriously, not literally" principle reflects a version of this mindset.
#StrongLaRazaDefender
Come on everybody, let's try Chuck!
Chuck, Chuck, bo-buck, bo-na-na
Fanna fo fuck, fee fi mo-fuck, Chuck!
Obama played a nice deflection game by "milking this implausible claim by withholding his birth certificate for a while"
HI state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it's only available in electronic form.
The more germane constitutional legal issue always - if he was admitted to college as "international student" - did he thereby renounce his US citizenship; once "renounced"/not asserted can he go back to "natural born"
I used to like Scott Adams, but his book "Win Bigly" made good points while also damaging his brand further. I think he wrote the book after Hillary supporters attacked his business associates for simply making the prediction that Trump would win. He needed money. And I think he wanted rebrand his creds as being a supporter of progressive causes. Too late buddy, they hate you because Hillary lost and you can't repay that damage. Now we hate you too, because you spent your book making a point of suggesting we are just gullible followers of Trump's persuasion tactics.
We understand Trump knows how to market and brand. Shame you don't, Adams.
Principles (i.e. character) matters. They identify a perimeter to aid discernment.
You dumb shit heads need to get out more, with more lawyers and judges. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have been or are members of the Federalist Society. Justice Ginsburg was an employee of the ACLU, which regularly takes positions before the Court.
Many if not most of the black judges, state and federal, all across the country, are members of the National Bar Association.
I couldn't even hazard a guess, as to how many judges are also members of the American Bar Association; as a conservative myself, I view the ABA as having a pronounced political slant.
Absolutely none of those things would be disqualifying for any of the judges, except in exceptional circumstances.
And I want to repeat something that I suggested when the whole "Mexican judge" controversy arose; if there had been any hope of getting Judge Curiel recused, Trump's California lawyers (the white-shoe firm of O'Melveny & Myers) could have and would have filed a motion. They didn't, because it would have been such an embarrassingly bad and fruitless motion.
None of you douchebags have articulated any radical or politicized positions taken by La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego; don't bother trying; you can't.
narayanan at 12:54 PM
HI state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. And, it's only available in electronic form.
As soon as Barack Obama asked the Hawaiian Department of Health to give him a copy of his long-form birth certificate, he received it.
The last time Chuck got this excited he squeezed out his tampon.
The radical position that a particular race with which the members identify is somehow "The Race" and use the definite article to exclude the idea that other races are equal?
You mean other than a plain reading of words, we have nothing, fopdoodle?
Any lawyer who was a member of BAMN should be excluded from the bench, as well.
Hell, I would have precluded lawyer RBG from becoming Judge RBG because of her membership in the radical pro-abortion group, Planned Avoiding Parenthood.
None of you douchebags have articulated any radical or politicized positions taken by La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego; don't bother trying; you can't.
Chuck, always ready with a kind word.
On the “endorsements” page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the “community,” along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971.
Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.
MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.
As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Awarding scholarships to illegal aliens, which is certainly their right.
“Mr. Elorza wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, ‘Look, a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English, and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney,” the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ Association brochure for the 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala said.
The “Pro Bono & Community Service” page on the Robbins Geller website lists the La Raza Scholarship Fund as one of the causes the firm’s attorney and staff have supported for more than a decade.
Nobody here but us chickens.
You know what’s missing from the National Bar Association, the Federalist Society, the ABA and the ACLU? Any and I mean any reference to race in the name or mission of the organization! Try again LLR.
"You mean other than a plain reading of words, we have nothing, fopdoodle?"
Our boy Chuckles has devoted dozens of posts excoriating Trump over the alleged use of "shithole" in a private meeting, but can't muster the courage to criticize the overtly bigoted inclusion of "La Raza" in a legal society's name. Cuck-a-doodle-doo!
Conservatives think "The Race" is exactly like "The Federalist Society" according to All True Fopdoodles.
Nice work Mike K. Why are so many alleged conservatives so quick to buy the lies the Left sells? Especially self-declared lifelong conservatives?
Must be a lawyer thing.
Chuck said...
"Mike, you need to try a lot harder to not be so stupid."
I come here for the irony. Chuck never disappoints.
Mike,
It's not a lawyer thing.
Some people are "any port in a storm" fopdoodles who need to use any perceived advantage they can to benefit their own argument.
Hillary supporters were birthers before it was cool.
Oh, and birthers took a whack at McCain, too.
Judge Curiel was a past member of La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego. Many of Trump's dumbest supporters confused that association with The National Council of La Raza.
So the fact that they both have the same name, and mean "The Race", is just pure coincidence?
La Raza (of any stripe) explicitly limits membership to identifiable "hispanics" - formerly they were even more exclusive, being almost entirely Chicano, keeping out intruding Central Ameticans, Puerto Ricans, and etc., and most certainly no Cubans! The entire rhetorical background, the history of the term and movement, is purely Mexican, straight out of the country of Mexico. Mexican is a very distinct cultural identity, and so are US Chicanos.
The La Raza lawyers of California describe their own association (see their webpage) as "to support Chicano and Latino lawyers" - i.e., its an organization pursuing ethnically determined professional advancement. Various other affiliates use similar language. This is no Federalist Society.
Its obvious.
As for limiting political responses to official legal channels - this is silly. This is a political question and a political/rhetorical issue. Note how quickly the big "La Raza" changed its name. The National Council of La Raza is now "UnidosUS".
"La Raza" suddenly became politically inconvenient.
You dumb shit heads need to get out more, with more lawyers and judges. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have been or are members of the Federalist Society. Justice Ginsburg was an employee of the ACLU, which regularly takes positions before the Court.
Many if not most of the black judges, state and federal, all across the country, are members of the National Bar Association.
I couldn't even hazard a guess, as to how many judges are also members of the American Bar Association; as a conservative myself, I view the ABA as having a pronounced political slant.
Absolutely none of those things would be disqualifying for any of the judges, except in exceptional circumstances.
So you're saying that membership in the NBA, ABA, ACLU and Federalist Society, is no different than having a membership in a group that has direct ties to hispanic nationalism? And you're calling others stupid shitheads?
The La Raza Lawyers of San Diego chapter web page (go look), states in the very first paragraph of its home page -
"This organization was founded so that it could advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy"
And in the next paragraph -
"...forms connections with those who support the Latino community and its interests."
And so on, and on, and on. Check it out.
Really, it takes but a moment to investigate this stuff.
#StrongDurbin/BlumenthalDefender Chuck: "None of you douchebags have articulated any radical or politicized positions taken by La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego; don't bother trying; you can't"
They stand in solidarity with La Raza, a group we who grew up on the south side of San Diego know very, very well.
We know precisely what their goals are, and it is literally the swamping of California with illegals who will in turn become voters and effectively operationally return California to what they consider the proper owners: Mexico.
They don't even try to hide it.
They are, to a person, Reconquista. Without exception.
So, go ahead white dude from Michigan who doesn't even understand the first thing about Michigan electoral strategy or politics, tell us more about what the La Raza movement in San Diego is all about!
LOL
Perhaps Scott Adams should better define "birtherism" which I have been led to believe by liberals to be a false claim declaring Barry not to be a US citizen, most likely born in Kenya; however, the attack on the Obama COLB, without a doubt, established the fact that the Long-Form Birth Certificate as published on the White House website is a computer-altered construct that could not be a certified copy of the document on file with the State of Hawaii.
But if you can spew the lies long enough and twist history, the mere mention of "birtherism", "swift-boating" and "McCarthyism" becomes the political proof that the real fakers are conservatives.
The interesting birth document re Obama would be the paper original from 1961. That has not been produced. Now, its possible that Hawaii, in some cost-cutting campaign, got rid of all these paper documents at some point, and Obamas was just incidentally destroyed or lost, but that was never clearly stated at any time.
If I were a historian, of some later time when all these matters have lost political consequence, I would certainly make it my business to find that piece of paper.
One can't help but notice that as the fortunes of the democrat Party wanes LLR Chuck gets angrier and angrier.
You should feel free to draw obvious conclusions.
Trump appeared on Oprah an stated that he believed Mr Obama was an American by birth, but asked the question why he (Obama) didn't just produce his birth certificate and and put the issue to bed. A perfectly reasonable question, and not "birtherism."
"'but if x does y “to gain” z'/but if x does y and "gains" z, and does it over and over and over?"
You're implying that "and gains" is different from "to gain," and I agree. If Adam's had written "Donald Trump exploited doubts within the Republican base about President Obama’s birth certificate and gained a political advantage" it would express only the consequence and not an intention. (I didn't point out before but the first part, "Donald Trump exploited doubts," also implied an intention. To scrub out the mind-reading, you might say "Donald Trump raised question President Obama’s birth certificate, which might have gained a political advantage because it might have stimulated doubts that may have existed in the minds of people who might be considered to constitute and abstract concept that could be called the Republican base."
Adams was mind-reading when he saw "doubts," which could only be inside minds. It's a made-up idea that there's a "Republican base." No, there are only human individuals, with minds that you can't read. You don't even know that they are "Republicans." What does that even mean? How does Adams know what happened when things Trump said went out into the world? Were they heard? If so, did they have any effect on minds? What was the condition of those minds? Did they contain doubts about Obama? Adams assumed they did! He indulged in mind-reading!
buwaya said...
The interesting birth document re Obama would be the paper original from 1961. That has not been produced. Now, its possible that Hawaii, in some cost-cutting campaign, got rid of all these paper documents at some point, and Obamas was just incidentally destroyed or lost, but that was never clearly stated at any time.
If I were a historian, of some later time when all these matters have lost political consequence, I would certainly make it my business to find that piece of paper.
What would be "interesting"? Do you have any doubt about the fact that Barack Obama, with his birth having been announced contemporaneously in Honolulu newspapers, was born in Honolulu to his U.S.-citizen mother?
""'but if x does y “to gain” z'/but if x does y and "gains" z, and does it over and over and over?""
But to get to your point!
Let's say X does Y AND gains Z, and X does that again and again. At what point can we say X did Y TO gain Z? That's just saying when can we presume to read a mind? How much evidence do you need?
I recommend writing carefully to deal with the fact that you don't actually know what's in another person's mind. You just openly talk about what you know and keep separate the concrete facts (e.g. what Trump said) and the part where you say what Trump may have thought or seems to believe.
Get smart America.
It's always fun to watch LLR Chuck move effortlessly into passionate obama defense mode.
It's almost....affectionate....
Let's say X does Y AND gains Z, and X does that again and again. At what point can we say X did Y TO gain Z? That's just saying when can we presume to read a mind? How much evidence do you need?
Obviously you can only interpret events based on evidence since there's no such thing as real telepathy (AFAIK anyway). Technically even if X actually says that they're doing Y to gain Z they could be lying. But it's certainly a logical inference to observe that a person keeps doing a thing and getting a positive result, so therefore they're doing this thing to achieve this positive result. So if you're assuming they're sane and capable of reason, you're imagining their intentions (which is our "mind reading" I guess). It's a bit less defensible to impute a state of mind (a person is a racist) to another human being without clear evidence.
Certainly the original document would address multiple questions, such as perhaps the identity of his father.
Who knows what's on that thing?
And the reason for finding it is at this point entirely historical. Obama belongs to the ages now.
His story is exactly as interesting as Thomas Jeffersons. He is part of your story just as much.
All those people who care who was the father of Sally Hemings children for instance, are correct to wonder.
Back to mind-reading: it's what we are best at as a species. Even the tiniest exchange depends on it. Becoming a human being depends on it. Though of course we also make mistakes -- see N. Epley, Mindwise.
Drago said...
It's always fun to watch LLR Chuck move effortlessly into passionate obama defense mode.
I never voted for Obama. I'm not "defending" him now. I am saying that anyone who cannot accept it as a bland and undeniable truth, that Obama was born in the United States to a U.S.-citizen mother, is a laughable fool.
I'm attacking Trump, and all other Birthers. Not 'defending' Obama.
You really are a special and ugly kind of ignorant.
Chuckles (and I only use this appelation because I can't come up with a more contemptuous one),
"La Raza" is just about the biggest res ipsa loquitur name out there.
I figured LLR Chuck had just read the Politico article on the dems panicking over their falling poll numbers and that is what has upset Chuck more than usual.
Of course, Trumps improving poll numbers, the increased positive reaction of voters to the republican tax cuts as well as the collapse of the Left's and LLR collusion lies might also be driving Chucks angst.
Calling out La Raza and their enablers is also apparently upsetting to Chuck.
Anymore of that and Chuck is likely to go after a certain kid again.
Obama is a rather mysterious man.
He was propelled up the cursus honorum with no known achievements. His history, at all stages of his life, are full of holes. There has been an unusual reticence in all sorts of curious places. Everything from his college grades and admissions documents to his lack of acquaintances at Columbia, to the terms on which he was accepted at Harvard, etc. down to the nitty gritty of the politics of his rise.
All over the place also there is the strong taste of back-door influence and unusual circumstances, such as his wifes rich sinecure, the unsealing of his Senate opponents divorce record, and what on Earth was he doing in Pakistan in 1981?
Over nearly all of this mans history, there seems to be a blanket of omerta.
All over the place there is something just a bit off. He is going to be a treasure for biographers, once this all is fair game. Who gets to lift that blanket I dont know, but it will happen, eventually.
Trump on the other hand has had the most public private life in US history. Its a long, strange, messy private life, but the sources are abundant, and so are the witnesses willing to talk their heads off. Even as he is President.
I cant wait to see how our LLR and #StrongCNNDefender goes to bat for Chris Cuomos teenager-gun-purchase lie from this morning.
Normally that would be difficult to explain away but I know our #StrongDemStolenValorLiarDefender is up to the task!
Drago.
At this point most of us just skip past ole Chuck because he has ceased to be funny and is now just an embarrassment.
Chuck is the Greg Marmalard of this blog
Mind reading is what the media refer to as "analysis".
I don't know about mind reading the public's mind, but the forecasting political voting behavior of the American voting public is knowable if one has a very large and reliable sample to scrutinize. Otherwise, modern political polling would have no "MOJO".
One of my tech writing people warned me don't let your connotations get in the way of your denotations. Advice more journalists should take.
Drago said...
...
Anymore of that and Chuck is likely to go after a certain kid again.
You nasty piece of shit. You've done this before, and you know very well how this ends.
You allude to these readers that I would do something like "going after a certain kid..."
You don't specify anything, or explain anything else.
You're bringing up the story involving Donald Trump and Barron Trump again. For no good reason, other than to taunt me. You worthless asshole.
So here goes, again. I have mentioned the published stories about people who speculated that Barron Trump is autistic. US Weekly published such a story, here:
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/melania-trump-threatens-lawsuit-over-barron-autism-video-w452617/
Forbes.com published one, here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/12/06/melania-trump-threatens-to-sue-autistic-man-over-youtube-video/#151c45eca24a
Read those links, if you want the story. I have no more information to add. I've never had any more information to add. Except for the obvious; and the obvious is what brought me to the issue. It is that Donald Trump has, for years and including the 2016 campaign, speculated wildly and factlessly about how childhood vaccines may be to blame for autism. He did it before the campaign, including his involvement with Vaxxer nutjob Jenny McCarthy, and during the campaign as in the Detroit debate during the Republican primaries, and after the election as with his Trump Tower meeting with Vaxxer lunatic Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
I have little doubt but that Donald Trump has some profoundly weird personal involvement with the autism issue. Of course he's been neutered on the issue as POTUS. Thank goodness, and thanks to the few responsible adults who surround him in the White House.
But it's still a fantastically interesting issue; not because of Barron Trump but rather because of the psychopathic curiosities of President Donald Trump.
LLR Chuck is never more gleeful than when posting rumors about children.
Well played Chuck.
You sure showed that kid and his father who's boss.
It takes a big man to rumor monger about children. No wonder you are so well operationally aligned with the far left.
LLR Chuck: "You don't specify anything, or explain anything else"
Not to worry. When it comes to rumor mongering about children, you are always happy to supply all the details....as a way of saying that it's not what you are doing....
....even as you are doing it....while denying it.....while doing it....
What type of impotent cuck repeatedly slurs an adolescent?
I feel like we could clear up a huge chunk of these posts if people would say Chuck sucks, then he'd say, nuh uh you suck. Then we go back to the topic at hand.
What would be "interesting"? Do you have any doubt about the fact that Barack Obama, with his birth having been announced contemporaneously in Honolulu newspapers, was born in Honolulu to his U.S.-citizen mother?
As for me, I do not believe Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu. What I suspect is that the actual birth certificate contains something that is embarrassing that may have nothing to do with Obama’s birthplace.
On Adams: He provides some useful analytic tools but he, like the rest of us, lives in his own bubble. He’s good but he’s not perfect. He sometimes displays a charming naivete about the nuts and bolts of politics. His views on guns are puzzling. He thinks confiscation of semi-automatic “assault rifles” would work (although he’s not in favor of confiscation) because fully automatic weapons are against the law and are almost never used for crime. A minute’s thought by anyone familiar with the issue should reveal the holes in that argument.
Fabi said...
What type of impotent cuck repeatedly slurs an adolescent?
Every time that someone like "Drago" does what Drago did at 3:33 pm; I am going to defend myself. I am not taking that shit from Drago or anybody else.
I am not slurring any adolescents. The Trump family hired lawyers -- the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker lawyers in fact -- to say that "Barron Trump is not autistic" and threaten anyone who says otherwise.
I am not claiming Barron Trump is autistic. I am observing what has been published. All I am saying is that there is something really weird about Donald Trump. I don't think that there is much that is weird about Barron or that story. The weirdness comes solely from the top of the family.
That's right Senator, a "buffer." The Trump family had a lot of "buffers."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uezhB-qJqDc
LLR Chuck: "Every time that someone like "Drago" does what Drago did at 3:33 pm; I am going to defend myself."
Chuck attacks a child, but imagines himself a victim.
No wonder LLR Chuck so closely identifies with and defends Stolen Valor Dem liar Blumenthal.
You know Chuck, just because your lefty/dem operational allies are getting their clocks cleaned by the guy you want impeached, it doesn't give you license to go after minors.
I think the whole birther approach was one that trued to grok the utter foreignness in terms of political ethos of Obama, the left couldnt critique Ayres wright khalidi bell, so this was the acceptable proxy attack.
I didn't raise the subject of any children; you did. You assclown.
I am going to make this clear to you, again. For the next time this happens; and it surely will happen, again.
When you attack me with some oblique reference to a "child," or "an adolescent," and you intimate that I have been abusive, I am going to coldly reference the published stories in relation to Barron Trump.
You will have succeeded, in driving more online links to stories including "Barron Trump" with "autism."
You want to troll, Drago? I'm gonna give you some trollin'.
And I have defended Senator Richard Blumenthal on exactly one thing. It was when Blumenthal correctly summarized his private discussion with then-Judge Neil Gorsuch during his SCOTUS confirmation process. Blumenthal told the press that Gorsuch said to Blumenthal that he found Trump's comments about certain federal judges to have been "demoralizing" and "disheartening."
Trump heard that news, and freaked out. And he went after Blumenthal, tweeting that Blumenthal has mischaracterized Gorsuch. Except that everybody else in the room agreed that Gorsuch had said exactly what Blumenthal reported. Including the Republicans who were guiding the Gorsuch nomination.
And unlike other Trump-lied dustups where Trump denies what he said, and nobody is willing to call Trump a flat-out liar, in the case of Gorsuch there isn't any doubt whatsoever. Because two weeks later, Gorsuch was under oath in front of Blumenthal at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing and Blumenthal asked the question again, and Gorsuch used the exact same two words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to describe his feelings on the subject.
What makes this story even richer in retrospect is that while the Gorsuch nomination is the one and maybe only thing that absolutely every conservative is pleased about with Trump, Trump is such an unstable freak that he may have tried to withdraw the Gorsuch nomination because of Gorsuch's impudent criticism of Trump in that story:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-weighed-revoking-gorsuchs-supreme-court-nomination-report/article/2643893
Its too bad your dem allies are taking hits Chuckie.
Its even worse that you take it out on a child of a politician.
What a strange and disturbed fellow you must be to do such a thing.
Its no doubt one reason of several you hew so closely to the daily far left narrative line.
Perhaps Chucks proclivity toward using kids as political leverage stems from some uncomfortable event in his own past.
Though that may be true it would in no way constitute justification for his more scurrilous comments in this blog.
I rail against people pretending they can mind read.
Yet I also find that if you let folks go on long enough, they eventually say what they really mean. No mind reading at all. I accuse liberals of making social rather than logical arguments because they do it so frequently. No dog whistle needed, just fully audible 100Hz to 10kHz. Conservatives and libertarians do some of it as well, just much less often. Today's fresh example: https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2018/02/texas.html
BORING back and forth between the same people once again...yawn.
ann> but if you want a rich, fulfilling human life, you'll have to mind-read all the time
On Art Bell they called this "remote viewing"
https://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/dames-major-ed/5589
Post a Comment