Trump shot at? Maybe.

[drlj]

My sneakers have TGIF* printed on them. It has saved me a lot of embarrassment.


*toes go in first.

[epaul]

Ha! And my wife said I was the only one. I'm showing her this.

[majorminor]

Kinda surprised to see the polling relatively unchanged after the Trump near miss and epic photo op. I think everybody is pretty much dug in and things like getting shot at or senility and your party wanting to oust you don't seem to matter. Weirdest election of my lifetime.

[billhammond]

Reuters excerpt:

LAS VEGAS — U.S. President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 while on a campaign trip to Las Vegas on Wednesday, July 17 and is experiencing mild symptoms, the White House said.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced the positive test for the 81-year-old Democrat after the president of UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization, said Biden would not be able to speak at a scheduled event due to the diagnosis.

"He is vaccinated and boosted and experiencing mild symptoms," Jean-Pierre said.

[RickW]

Jul 17, 2024 14:19:12 GMT -5 majorminor said:

Kinda surprised to see the polling relatively unchanged after the Trump near miss and epic photo op. I think everybody is pretty much dug in and things like getting shot at or senility and your party wanting to oust you don't seem to matter. Weirdest election of my lifetime.

The fact that no one has come up with any motive, or an understanding of the shooter’s politics might have something to do with that. The story seems to be resolving into “psychotic rando.” I guess we’ll see.

As far as the polls go, who trusts them anymore, anyway? At their height, 35% of people called answered. We’re down to 9%. So the majority of people that are answering are those who are totally set, very angry about whatever, and want to shout at the world. But the media keeps flogging the results, because it collects eyeballs.

[Marshall]

Jul 19, 2024 16:18:20 GMT -5 RickW said:

But the media keeps flogging the results, because it collects eyeballs.

Nice phrase.

[RickW]

There’s a song there, Marshall, but it may require you to go outside your comfort zone. 😂

[Rob Hanesworth]

[TKennedy]

Ya ain’t no kinda nothin without a white ear accoutrement these days.

[howard lee]

Life imitates art.

Hulk Hogan at the RNC 2024 (left), Terry Crews in "Idiocracy," 2006.

  

[theevan]

I know, right? The "other side" is a bunch of dumb, mouth-breathing troglodytes.

"Other side" = anyone opposite me.

[howard lee]

Jul 20, 2024 10:05:32 GMT -5 theevan said:

I know, right? The "other side" is a bunch of dumb, mouth-breathing troglodytes.

"Other side" = anyone opposite me.

Not totally. I found humor in the parallels I posted above. 

What gives me pause is the intelligent, devious ones.

[theevan]

Jul 20, 2024 10:14:02 GMT -5 howard lee said:

Jul 20, 2024 10:05:32 GMT -5 theevan said:

I know, right? The "other side" is a bunch of dumb, mouth-breathing troglodytes.

"Other side" = anyone opposite me.

Not totally. I found humor in the parallels I posted above. 

What gives me pause is the intelligent, devious ones.

Also true.

[james]

At times, I find it hard to entirely disagree with Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Extract -

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force.

Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless.

Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one's prejudgment simply need not be believed - in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical - and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945)

"On Stupidity" Letters and Papers from Prison

ETA - longer version. More exposition. nsjonline.com/article/2021/12/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity

[aquaduct]

Jul 20, 2024 18:52:31 GMT -5 james said:

At times, I find it hard to entirely disagree with Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Extract -

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force.

Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless.

Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one's prejudgment simply need not be believed - in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical - and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945)

"On Stupidity" Letters and Papers from Prison

ETA - longer version. More exposition. nsjonline.com/article/2021/12/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity

Thanks. Sincerely.

I was particularly struck by this:

"Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity."

Interesting thought at this point in US history.

[millring]

"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore.
A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule
of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want."
- Hannah Arendt,
(14 October 1906 – 4 December 1975) was a German historian and philosopher.
The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any.
Arendt's extensive body of work includes many nuanced discussions on truth, lies, and the nature of totalitarianism, and this quote reflects themes from her writing on totalitarianism and the nature of truth.

I've seen all sides "sharing" this quote on facebook. That says something.

I suspect that the word "lie", or any word derived from it -- lying, lied, liar -- polled very well among Democrats. And I suspect that people inclined to vote Democrat wonder why the idea that Trump is a liar doesn't seem to sway anyone away from voting for him.

It's very hard these days to grasp that everyone who doesn't agree with you -- not just ideologically, but when recalling or interpreting issues and events -- isn't lying when they describe or recount them. Especially when one is bolstered with overwhelming institutional certainty.

But it might be interesting to observe that Biden's interview with Holt, his charge of Trumps "28 lies" was countered the next day by a source from the right who found more than 28 lies told by Biden during that same debate -- the debate in which, though the Democrats were devastated by suddenly discovering Biden's fragile condition, nevertheless consoled themselves at the content of his words -- however shakily spoken.

A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule
of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want."

You believe that of them. They believe that of you.

[Marshall]

Jul 21, 2024 6:19:03 GMT -5 millring said:

institutional certainty.

But it might be interesting to observe that Biden's interview with Holt, his charge of Trumps "28 lies" was countered the next day by a source from the right who found more than 28 lies told by Biden during that same debate

Quote please.

[millring]

Jul 21, 2024 8:50:51 GMT -5 Marshall said:

Jul 21, 2024 6:19:03 GMT -5 millring said:

institutional certainty.

But it might be interesting to observe that Biden's interview with Holt, his charge of Trumps "28 lies" was countered the next day by a source from the right who found more than 28 lies told by Biden during that same debate

Quote please.

You mean you want me to link to the source that claimed they counted the lies told by Biden? Why?

[Russell Letson]

Not to insert myself (he said, inserting himself), but my Google-fu has yet to find the "source from the right" counter-claim, at least if I use "28 lies" as part of the search string. A URL to the source of such an assertion is the most helpful, but if one wants to avoid driving traffic to a site/source, at least naming it would allow another one to look at the precise claim and its source and, um, do one's own research.

[millring]

Jul 21, 2024 9:54:39 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

Not to insert myself (he said, inserting himself), but my Google-fu has yet to find the "source from the right" counter-claim, at least if I use "28 lies" as part of the search string. A URL to the source of such an assertion is the most helpful, but if one wants to avoid driving traffic to a site/source, at least naming it would allow another one to look at the precise claim and its source and, um, do one's own research.

Why would you look for it? That's the point. You wouldn't believe it if you found it. You would be confirmed in your belief that Biden tells the truth and Trump lies. There isn't anything that could convince you that if Trump says anything with which you disagree he's not lying. That's the point.

Every single belief now comes down to sources because we've been trained to believe everything is a binary between lies and the truth (because we can't know the truth).

Said as Jonathan Haidt has framed it: You look to your sources, not to find out what you MUST believe, but to convince yourself of what you CAN believe.

(and your very next post, should you insert yourself again, will be to either take issue with my generalizing, or to point out an exception where you don't think Trump is lying -- both strategies validating exactly the point I'm making).