I haven't been able to get assurances that Dan won't delete my comments at his blog, so I'm continuing to finish my responses to his questions which I began to do at a previous post entitled "Dan's Recent Buffoonery". I'll be doing so in the comments section of that post.
But here, I wish to point out again how difficult it is to engage in simply conversation with the guy given all of his deflections, equivocations, distortions and other chicanery. He's also a good one for loaded and leading questions asked as if a simply "yes" or "no" will be sufficient to fully express the respondent's position on the issue at hand. It is not uncommon for Dan to whine about trying to get clarification when he's dodging questions. Yet, he's not as gracious when opponents seek clarification...or simply respond according how the question is phrased, which provokes Dan to insist that one is avoiding a response. It was how I came to have my initial responses saved and relocated to a post here at my own blog. As can be seen, his first question was as follows:
" Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?"
My answer was that I acknowledged that the historians he selected ranked Trump poorly. He said he didn't select them. That's a strange thing to say, as if the historians forced their way onto his blog without his consent but happened to agree with his dislike for Trump. This is Dan's logic. Of course he selected this (and other) surveys and examples just as I select various sources to support my position. It was a dumbass thing to say...which is common for him.
But more importantly, it expresses his "poetic truth", a phenomenon of which I spoke in a more recent post. He is so keen on believing what he wants to believe that he won't consider other possibilities with regard to his "evidence" and "data", and that's why he deleted my initial response. I was willing to go piece by piece as I came upon these dishonest questions, but then he began doing his dance wherein he focuses on the irrelevant so as to avoid the substantive. I did all I could to help him really go in circles and all the while just about pleaded for the aforementioned assurance...which never came. So, after whining about not answering questions, which I had been doing before he deleted them, he, as he is wont to do, refused to answer that simply question about granting me that assurance.
There followed other questions that I am interested in answering, and I'm not sure if I'll do so here or at the other post, though I'll likely leave it all there. Doesn't matter. I'm just killing time either way.
4 comments:
Marshal...
He's also a good one for loaded and leading questions asked as if a simply "yes" or "no" will be sufficient to fully express the respondent's position on the issue at hand.
Dan's question...
" Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?"
1. I went on to clarify that I'm talking about groups of historians, bipartisan groups of historians.
2. It's not a leading question. It's a simple reality check.
3. The reality is that there ARE a group of historians (the Sienna respondents) who regularly weigh in on ranking presidents, AND that these historians are representative of people from across the political spectrum, AND that no one I know (including Marshal) has criticized this same group of historians when they rated Reagan relatively highly (in yet another sign of their non-partisan nature)
4. The reality is that there is no corresponding similar group poll of historians who have rated Trump highly or even as middling. The ONLY ranking of Trump by professional historians has rated him not just low, but abysmally low.
I'm asking you :
A. Do you recognize that the only polls we have of historians rank him very low?
B. That it's a non-partisan group that has rated Republicans highly in the past?
C. And now I'm asking you if you recognize that this is NOT a leading question, but a reasonable one?
Marshal... I wish to point out again how difficult it is to engage in simply conversation with the guy given all of his deflections, equivocations, distortions and other chicanery.
Do you recognize how ironic it is of you to say this, when YOU are the one who has equivocated and dodged and refused to answer questions directly?
Marshal... So, after whining about not answering questions, which I had been doing before he deleted them, he, as he is wont to do, refused to answer that simply question about granting me that assurance.
Dan, on his blog after Marshal asked this question:
IF YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS,
those answers won't be deleted.
THE ANSWERS are what I'm seeking, why would I delete them?
IF YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS, THE ANSWERS WON'T BE DELETED.
What about that direct and clear answer are you failing to understand? That is a direct and clear assurance to your question.
Do you recognize that reality?
Marshal... He said he didn't select them. That's a strange thing to say, as if the historians forced their way onto his blog without his consent but happened to agree with his dislike for Trump. This is Dan's logic.
Just to follow up, in case you lose the first comment I made...
1. I didn't "select them." I looked for "historians rank presidents" and THESE are the historians who turn up. Are there individual (partisan as hell) historians who disagree with this large group of historians who I cited who were polled and were from across the political spectrum? Yes. What DOESN'T exist is a progressive historian who rates Trump highly, or a poll of a collected group of historians who rate Trump even middling. It just doesn't exist.
Thus, I'm not selecting them. I'm looking into what historians, as a group, are saying about Trump's presidency and THIS is the result. And yes, that IS my logic: Look at what experts are saying and take their (especially collected) opinions as the expert opinions that they are.
Marshal... Of course he selected this (and other) surveys and examples just as I select various sources to support my position.
2. Again, what I'm doing is reporting what polled historians are saying. This is in contrast to what you're doing: Finding partisan, biased historians who will support what your hunch is and posting that which tickles your ears and confirms your biases.
Do you understand the difference between
A. Looking at expert opinion and reporting what they're saying, regardless of their conclusions VS
B. Finding biased historians who will say what you want them to say and then citing them?
"1. I went on to clarify that I'm talking about groups of historians, bipartisan groups of historians."
The clarification was unnecessary in mitigating my objection to the argument.
"2. It's not a leading question. It's a simple reality check."
Leading questions was but one example of the "deflections, equivocations, distortions and other chicanery" common in engaging in discourse with you. It was not specific to leading questions.
"3. The reality is that there ARE a group of historians (the Sienna respondents) who regularly weigh in on ranking presidents...etc."
None of this matters. My point in rejecting this to support your hateful opinion of Trump is due to the fact that these historian/political science surveys are premature given they reviewed a single first year of his administration and as such are worthless for the purpose of rendering a ranking. It wouldn't matter which president was so ranked. I would also reiterate here that their criteria for judging presidents is EXTREMELY subjective. And once again, given the number of historians/political scientists in the United States alone, the small percentage of respondents to these surveys suggest unprofessional behavior given the nature of "history" being a subject concerning the distant past, not the past year.
"4. The reality is that there is no corresponding similar group poll of historians who have rated Trump highly or even as middling. The ONLY ranking of Trump by professional historians has rated him not just low, but abysmally low."
You like to hang your hat on the fact that these surveys supposedly polled Republicans as well as Democrats (and independents). Given the extremely low percentage of center-right people in the field, one would need to determine how many, if any, are any other than Trump-hating Republicans, of which there are many. Here's another reality for you...neither of these fields confirms the respondents are politically astute. To rank Trump as beneath Obama, Carter or a president who died in his first month in office does not inspire confidence that these surveys are of any value whatsoever.
"A. Do you recognize that the only polls we have of historians rank him very low?"
I can only acknowledge the polls you've presented rank him low. I've no interest in seeking out polls of historians at all, much less to affirm what honest people can readily and easily see regarding Trump's superiority over presidents such as Obama, Carter and a guy who died in his first month as president.
"B. That it's a non-partisan group that has rated Republicans highly in the past?"
Liking, say, Reagan doesn't mean one isn't biased against Trump due to reasons unrelated to his actual effectiveness as president.
"C. And now I'm asking you if you recognize that this is NOT a leading question, but a reasonable one?"
I didn't say this particular question was a leading question (see clarification above), but I can state directly that there's nothing particularly reasonable about it given all else I've said with regard to it.
"1. I didn't "select them.""
Untwist those panties, Dan. It's not big deal. You searched for evidence for your argument and selected that which you found for your presentation. It's not more noteworthy than that.
"And yes, that IS my logic: Look at what experts are saying and take their (especially collected) opinions as the expert opinions that they are."
Then you failed in that endeavor given the fact that these historians are basing their opinion on an extremely truncated sampling and can't be confirmed to not be influenced by an anti-Trump/NeverTrump bias. When they don't even speak to any of his first year policies, there's even less value.
"This is in contrast to what you're doing: Finding partisan, biased historians who will support what your hunch is and posting that which tickles your ears and confirms your biases."
This is willfully dishonest. You accuse those I presented as biased because they rank Trump highly. Victor Davis Hanson, for example, came to his opinion AFTER Trump proved himself in office. He was not a Trump supporter beforehand. This is true of the others, and I would suggest is even true of Gingrich. He has no history of supporter failed Republicans simply because they're Republicans. You simply won't accept that intelligent people are honest in their good assessment of Trump because of your own highly biased hatred of the man.
"Do you understand the difference between
A. Looking at expert opinion and reporting what they're saying, regardless of their conclusions VS
B. Finding biased historians who will say what you want them to say and then citing them?"
Very much so, but you haven't made the case that I've presented biased people and you haven't. Given Trump's polarizing personality, and how that personality has resulted in so much obstruction from his own party, I submit that finding unbiased people has not been demonstrated by you at all. Indeed, those I've presented are those who, like me, were not Trump supporters but were turned by his excellent job performance. If we're biased in favor of Trump at all, it was due to that, not any partisanship. They guy's done a great job and no honest person can say otherwise without going through and finding fault in his policies, and weighing them against those policies where fault can't be found. I don't believe you honest enough to have even made the slightest effort to have done that.
Post a Comment