Thursday, December 8, 2016

The aftermath of a winner and a loser...



46 comments:

KD, Trump Effect said...

The liberal is still stinging from the Algore loss , with this devastation behind the woodshed beating of old Kankles , it is just too much, Racheal Madcow said "you are not dreaming, this is real, Trump WON and this is our HELL".


I see that Trump has pissed off more liberals at the HUFFPO, by hosting a party for Christmas at his Motel.

opie said...

Shocking! His favorables have increase to a whole 50% where at the same time Obama was in the 70's. I guess the anti science right will embrace the new EPA chief and denier will promote business and screw the earth. A brilliant pick that the right will embrace as a visionary. Yep, a perfect fit for the likes of our esteemed host who thinks records are made to ignore. LOL

wphamilton said...

the anti science right will embrace the new EPA chief

Trump meeting: Who's grinding an ax with the EPA, represents polluting industry, knows nothing of science and hates government? Yeh that Pruitt guy, let's put him in charge.

caliphate4vr said...

How conservatives out-intellectualized progressives

The past, for a progressive, is something to be sloughed off, jettisoned, moved beyond, transcended. That doesn’t mean progressive-minded scholars don't study the past. Many do. But when they do, it is often in a spirit of antiquarian curiosity about how the oppressor classes and benighted masses of past ages managed to defend the indefensible — the atavistic prejudices about race, gender, and other forms of identity that permeated the past and that "we" have now come to see as obviously, indisputably repulsive.

Whereas conservatives look to the past in search of wisdom, inclined as they are to presume that the greatest writers of past ages may well have been wiser than we are — and displayed greater understanding about morality and politics than we do — progressives tend to see that same past as a graveyard packed with justly dead ideas.

No wonder they don't spend time reading Great Books.

C.H. Truth said...

Cali -

That was a great article. I read it last night and it really hit home. The left truly doesn't respect "anything" from the past... and truly believes that there is nothing to learn from it "other" than what not to do.

They somehow feel that they have earned the collective wisdom of time just for being born later. That every generation is smarter than the last by pure matter of definition. That everything "must" change and almost every "tradition" or long term "value" is somehow dangerous and antiquated and in desperate need of replacement.

Commonsense said...

It's worse that that. All of the great achievements of western civilization are now nothing more than "white supremacy" to the progressives.

Whereas the despotism of Asia and Africa are icons to be admired.

Indy Voter said...

Alternate post title: How I learned to stop worrying and love the Donald.

wphamilton said...

There wasn't even a feigned attempt to support the the dubious premise that Liberal intellectuals reject everything from the past without analysis.

Let's leave aside for now that the claim is, frankly, ludicrous. Let's ignore also that only a simpleton will group people into two categories and then generalize about their thought processes and reasoning skills. What jumps out at me is the delicious irony of someone priding himself and his "in-group" on preferring objective, fact-based analysis of historical knowledge, while utterly failing to exemplify that capability in excoriating the "other guys".

He personifies that which he derides. His criticisms fail by the same measure as he uses to criticize. There is an almost fractal symmetry to it.

caliphate4vr said...

Purity of Essence

wphamilton said...

BTW the HuffPo graph is very deceptive regarding HR Clinton's approval ratings. Other than bumps during periods of association with Bill Clinton and Obama, she has generally languished in the 40's, and low 40's. And at the same time her DIS-approval ratings were abnormally high.

Commonsense said...

I am curious.

How many of today's liberal intellectuals have ever read Plato's Republic?

Or the letters of Cicero?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to name Andrew F. Puzder, chief executive of the company that operates the fast food outlets Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. and an outspoken critic of the worker protections enacted by the Obama administration, to be secretary of labor, people close to the transition said on Thursday.

Mr. Puzder has spent his career in the private sector and has opposed efforts to expand eligibility for overtime pay, while arguing that large minimum wage increases hurt small businesses and lead to job loss among low-skilled workers.

He might reach the approval of W at the end of his term, before he's sworn in.

wrestling and Carl's Jr. Oh my.

CH has to be thrilled.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

R.I.P. John Glenn died today at 95.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

How many of today's liberal intellectuals have ever read Plato's Republic? yes

Or the letters of Cicero? yes

C.H. Truth said...

WP - I think the issue is one of overall generalizations... but one that rings true none-the-less. Hard to call any claim ludicrous when you can literally cite example after example of liberals denouncing the founding fathers, dissing the constitution as antiquated and out of touch, and pretty much declaring everyone throughout American history for not being as "politically correct" as they see themselves today. (when of course, such a thing didn't even really exist as it does today).

And that's just "recent" history. Show me a "progressive" (any progressive) who cites historical politicians as guides to their political thinking?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

CS I'm a major geek. I went to the library weekly, the libertarian would set aside books like those, plus almost every si fi book from clear back to the the late 19th century si fi and yes, Ayn Rand.

I read the Bible at 12 or so. Went to Bible study. My parents bought the 25 volume Encyclopedia Americana, I read every book. You wouldn't believe the books in the rack right behind me.

C.H. Truth said...

Isn't the entire concept of "progressivism" that we have to constantly "advance" in every development... including (if not specifically) political and social development?

Isn't the philosophy to some degree that by nature we always need to be evolving over previous generations and previous political and social norms?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I put the NY Times obituary on John Glenn on the legacy blog.

I was in grade school, they took all of us to the theater and cafeteria room at Canyon Lake grade school, in Rapid City, and we all watched it on the giant 18" black and white televisions. It was amazing.

wphamilton said...

CS asks, how many of today's liberal intellectuals have ever read Plato's Republic?

Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, I would expect that just about everyone has. These are some of the early thinkers who codified philosophies of reason and logical thought - but only the very basics. If I refuse to abandon, say, the modern scientific method and employ only "Rules for the Direction of the Mind", does that make me one of your benighted Liberals who refuse to accept "the lessons of the past"? If I insist that reason can illuminate more than shadows on the cave wall, am I rejecting Plato?

wphamilton said...

Isn't the entire concept of "progressivism" that we have to constantly "advance" in every development... including (if not specifically) political and social development?

Do you a priori reject that objective as impossible, or misguided? Is that the essence of Conservatism, that adaptation and improvement are unworthy of the efforts?

It would explain the opposition to science, that approaches a religious fervor at times. But I don't think that's true. I think it is a consequence of small minded individuals, not the political philosophy.

Commonsense said...

The "modern" scientific method began with Aristotle and was fully formed by the Renaissance.

Unless you consider what alarmist climatologist do today as the "modern scientific method".

If that is what you meant, God help us all.

C.H. Truth said...

WP... there are things like Science that should always be progressing. Science has the means to build upon itself, and there has been a pretty consistent line moving upwards throughout history as it pertains to scientific discovery and advancement.

On the flip side, there is a great many peaks and valleys to things like historical ethics, historical morals, historical social climates. Some people may even argue that these patterns become circular in a society.

A society may start off with rigid laws and absolute manners in which to enforce them. They may move away as citizenship demands less monitoring and more freedom, until there comes a point where freedom becomes lawlessness, and then you have some sort of revolution (or conquest) and society goes back to a more rigid environment. Sometimes these societies are more religious and become less so, and then fall back to religion, etc.. etc...

I think the lessons of history is that as societies move through their progression of norms and societal freedoms, that they become more susceptible to revolution or conquest. The fall of most major empires seem to come from a lack of social stability and a common cause.

More to the point, as you move back and forth between a more controlled vs a more free society, you have fundamental differences of opinion as to what is progress and what is regression.

Commonsense said...

Today on CNN president Obama said "ISIS wasn't on his intelligence radar."

January 20th can't come fast enough.

C.H. Truth said...

How about a specific example: Divorce.

More and more people get divorce in this country. It's become more socially acceptable, and more commonplace. While this does allow some people to get out of a bad relationship and find a better situation, it also has societal costs.

A child growing up in a single parent household is more likely to grow up in poverty, more likely to drop out of high school, more likely to end up in prison. Meanwhile, a child who grows up with both Parents is more likely to go to college, more likely to stay out of poverty as an adult, etc, etc.

So is a higher divorce rate societal progress or is it a societal regression?

KD, Trump saves more Union Jobs said...

United Steelworkers Love Trump

10,000 Jobs coming back on line and paying paychecks not welfare.

It is a good day for the USA .


Union people, why is it the Current Pres could not do this for you?

KD, It is good to be American said...

Opium, you are confusing natural sciences, like earth and water with your dumbshit of Political Science, like the earth is on fire, or ice age is coming, which is it this decade?

KD, 8 million more dropped in to poverty under obama said...

Today on CNN president Obama said "ISIS wasn't on his intelligence radar."

January 20th can't come fast enough."

Amen ,, and again we can talk openly about GOD.

KD said...

Commonsense said...
I don't think the liberal children will ever get over this DEVASTATING loss. "


They are not over the GORE LOSS, how sad really.


wphamilton said...

CH, maybe the single-parent child, who has no one but his mom, has a better chance now than he did even two hundred years ago. I believe that is probably true. That would be a positive societal change, would it not?

If I am right about that (and I am), it is very plausible to me that a higher divorce rate may be due to this positive change, because the social stigma of leaving the wife without any hope of supporting herself would be reduced. That doesn't mean that more divorces is a helpful trend, but it does mean that it is an unfortunate result of otherwise positive changes. Your conservative thesis would reject all that was positive, because before that there were fewer divorces. What we really need is MORE change, to somehow correct that trend.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.


While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

From Paul's link. CH believes that this is true about progressives. This is pretty much a summary of his article.

The past, for a progressive, is something to be sloughed off, jettisoned, moved beyond, transcended. That doesn’t mean progressive-minded scholars don't study the past. Many do. But when they do, it is often in a spirit of antiquarian curiosity about how the oppressor classes and benighted masses of past ages managed to defend the indefensible — the atavistic prejudices about race, gender, and other forms of identity that permeated the past and that "we" have now come to see as obviously, indisputably repulsive.

Whereas conservatives look to the past in search of wisdom, inclined as they are to presume that the greatest writers of past ages may well have been wiser than we are — and displayed greater understanding about morality and politics than we do — progressives tend to see that same past as a graveyard packed with justly dead ideas.

No wonder they don't spend time reading Great Books.


Speaking for myself, I have read hundreds, yes hundreds of books on history, scientific, philosophical, religion and just about any of the books, he implied that people like me, are wilfully ignorant about.

The stunning arrogance is based on nothing. It's his arrogant assumptions are his opinion.

I didn't limit my reading on a philosophy, I was and still curious about what people think and why they act in different circumstances. We are highly intelligent, and creative. Just look at the world we live in. Modern cities are amazing, our transportation systems, and communication technologies like I am using right now. We created all these things, by working together!

Individuals often come up with incredible ideas. But in almost every single circumstance, it takes cooperation between individuals . And yes, sometimes, not always, but government has been very successful. The question is, when will it work and if it does, how do we make it work. Dismissing it out of hand, is arrogant and historically incorrect.

KD, 10 Trillion in new Debt, Congrats, you bought a very shitty economy said...

I See DizzyKos has a Impeach Trump banner going, so cute when liberalism is defeated by pro America Message.


Government never works.

It is we the people that make it all work, WE DID BUILD IT,, we the tax payer, with out our dollars little gets done.

Unless. like this single president you out spend your 8 years in Office by Ten Trillion Dollars. Then you throw money you don't have at no so shove ready jobs and not ready solar "projects".



Has Obama ordered his Chevy Volt Yet???

Commonsense said...

Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life

Yes, they have been named homo liberalis politicus.

KD said...

“The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” Clinton said


Because she lost, she loves honest propaganda.

What a dumb tired sick woman, out of pity , Trump should Pardon her.

KD, What happened to Conservative Democrats said...

Yes, they have been named homo liberalis politicus. "

Funny and true

This morning I read that many in the US Senate want the return of the Fillibuster,,,, Ried killed it to ram thru unwanted bills, so now can you guess what side of the isle wants it back?

Yep, the liberals,,, is there any shame left in them?

C.H. Truth said...

CH, maybe the single-parent child, who has no one but his mom, has a better chance now than he did even two hundred years ago. I believe that is probably true. That would be a positive societal change, would it not?

In the most generic terms... life success would be about having a positive impact on your society (providing a service through an honest trade) and ultimately about raising children that would also have a positive impact on society.

Certainly we all have to agree that "procreation" is the baseline requirement for any species... we basically exist to procreate.

So no, I would not agree with your assumption. I believe there are probably more people today who do not provide a positive impact on society and more people who raise children who do not provide a positive impact on society than we had 200 years ago. More to the point, I don't believe that as many people truly "value" this basic principle.

Therefore I find it a dubious argument to suggest that people more likely to commit crimes, more likely to go to prison, more likely to live in poverty, and less likely to finish school or go to college to help garner a good job (which allows them to provide a positive impact on society)... are somehow better off today, than they were 200 years ago.

wphamilton said...

So what happens to the woman and child 200 years ago, when she couldn't have a job, couldn't own property? That was better for the child in your opinion than now, when women have equal rights?

C.H. Truth said...

WP - now you are resorting to red herring and straw man arguments. Divorce and Equal Rights are not the same thing. Equal Rights might be a cause for good, but that doesn't mean Divorce cannot be a cause for bad.

The question is whether or not the impact of society valuing divorce over the traditional family structure is a societal improvement. I would argue that by a majority of the objective standards of society that it's not. It focuses (as does much of our current social fabric) on what's in it for me. An individual having more concern for their own well being, than for those around them.

I would offer that on a large scale, the more people you have acting on their "own behalf" over the larger behalf of their children or society as a whole, the worse off that society will become over time.

Wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous said...

Individuals often come up with incredible ideas. But in almost every single circumstance, it takes cooperation between individuals .
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indeed.

it's called the free market. keyword - FREE.

and things generally go quite smoothly between individuals - determining value, agreeing on price, transferring $$$ at an agreed upon price for goods and/or services, etc.

"And yes, sometimes, not always, but government has been very successful."

successful at injecting itself into something that, until it's interjection can be described as free market commerce between free people, and royally fucking it up either intentionally via unnecessary regulation, or unintentionally via the imposition of unintended consequences.

iow, things run smoothly until the government sees the opportunity to get their cut, always under the guise of "fixing" things.

in this regard government is no different than organized crime.


caliphate4vr said...

successful at injecting itself into something that, until it's interjection can be described as free market commerce between free people, and royally fucking it up either intentionally via unnecessary regulation, or unintentionally via the imposition of unintended consequences.

iow, things run smoothly until the government sees the opportunity to get their cut, always under the guise of "fixing" things.


People like roger believe that government engineers developed the lunar lander not Grumman

Anonymous said...

People like roger believe that government engineers developed the lunar lander not Grumman
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indeed.

and even 'tang' tastes like shit, so i'll give government all the credit for that.



Anonymous said...



"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

—Thomas Jefferson (1801)

wphamilton said...

WP - now you are resorting to red herring and straw man arguments. Divorce and Equal Rights are not the same thing

I think that you're skimming the thread and arriving at a superficial understanding of it.

I addressed this, the relationship between equal rights and the divorce rate, in my initial comments.

wphamilton said...

I would offer that on a large scale, the more people you have acting on their "own behalf" over the larger behalf of their children or society as a whole, the worse off that society will become over time.

No, I would not agree with a sweeping statement of that magnitude.

There is something to be said for concept of enlightened self interest, in particular but not exclusive to the role it plays free market capitalism itself. What are you, a communist?

C.H. Truth said...

What are you, a communist?

Well you caught me, WP. I am a closet communist. Who knew it would take so long for people to catch on, huh?

There is something to be said about the concept of self interest, just as there is something to be said about the concept of being part of a community with shared values.

The question becomes one of balance... and to what degree the pendulum swings too far and progress becomes regression.

Equal rights for women is fundamentally a good thing.
Equal rights for sexual orientation is fundamentally a good thing.
Equal rights for race and creed is fundamentally a good thing.

The society that most progressives argue as "progress" is for all practical purposes a higher call for diversity and tolerance. It sounds good when argued generically in theory.

But at some point, diversity is just diversity (neither good or bad in and of itself) and demanding that everyone has the right to act however they want and the rest of society should practice "tolerance" has logical limits.

The argument I go back to is last summer when my fiance went to Paris. Many people from the United States are not comfortable there. Believe the people are rude and cold. We just saw them as respectful, polite, and proper. They all dress fairly nice and keep to themselves. But generally there is a real consistency to the behavior.

Unless you are in the Latin district (dominated by American tourists) the restaurants are all quiet, people are respectful, and you can sort of just be there. A member of the wait staff comes and takes your order, and doesn't necessarily ask how your day was, strikes up a conversation, or tries to bowl you over with his/her personally. It's all business like, and it's part of the charm of Paris. But it only works if there is a baseline "homogeneous" behavior practiced. All it would take is for 10% of the population to be loud, obnoxious, and otherwise different... and Paris would cease to be Paris, and become London or New York, or any number of other places where there is a melting pod of behavior. But sometimes, consistency of behavior and a culture that has been around for centuries deserves the respect of others to fit in (not demand that it change for them).

So in too many situations, our American liberal wants to change the country (including the parts they don't live in) if not the world. Everyone should be able to act however they want and we should all be tolerant, because that's "progress".

But that's just an "opinion" and probably not one shared by a bulk of the world... most of whom want to have the autonomy to live within and with others who share their values.

opie said...


Equal rights for women is fundamentally a good thing.
Equal rights for sexual orientation is fundamentally a good thing.
Equal rights for race and creed is fundamentally a good thing.

While you support the party that is against all those things. How can you then support what is going on with your sides hypocrisy?????