What follows is from the comments section of what is still Dan's most current post. (http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/09/seriously.html) The post itself is quite the joke, but as these things commonly stray, the following is Dan's response to my request that he supply data for his hateful, typically unChristian opinion of Trump. In the comments section here, I will supply my responses to the first part of his response regarding historians, which is deleted because he does that when he can't respond to truth, or when he doesn't get the groveling response he demands. I haven't gotten around to responding to the rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's my data? You would know it if you didn't choose to blind
yourself or surround yourself only with others who agree with your
limited opinions.
Historians rate Trump poorly - as amongst the
worst of presidents ever. This is true for conservative and liberal and
moderate historians. You've seen that information amongst the historians
who regularly rate presidents. Presumably, you haven't objected to
their expertise back when they've rated Reagan pretty highly. There's no
evidence that you have whatsoever to suggest that they just hate Trump
for no reason or are all liberal plants or something like that.
Do
you have ANY data that suggests anything to the contrary? That, aside
from the historians cited, that most historians secretly LIKE Trump and
think he's been great? No, you just don't. Have the intellectual honesty
to admit it.
Historians on Trump...
"Last year, a poll of
nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed
Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who
have occupied the post"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/opinions/history-verdict-on-trump-devastating-dantonio/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/opinions/trump-impeachment-unprecedented-cobbs-longley-osgood-suri/index.html
+++++++++
In
an unprecedented move in all of at least recent history, you've had
hundreds of military and state department types of experts - generals,
commanders, etc - condemn Trump as unfit and awful.
"He disdains expertise."
"Trump preferred to be briefed by Fox News..." (instead of military experts)
"He trusts only his own instincts..."
"Decisiveness is good, the generals agreed. But making decisions without considering facts is not."
"He resists coherent strategy."
I could go on, but read it yourself. HUNDREDS of military experts have condemned Trump as dangerously inept.
Do
you have the intellectual honesty to admit that this has not happened
at least in our lifetimes? Do you suspect all these military experts are
part of a plot? Or giving their own honest evaluations?
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61341/61341-h/61341-h.htm
+++++
I'll start with just those two bits of information and informed opinion and these questions to you:
1.
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?
2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?
3.
Do you acknowledge that hundreds of military leaders and state
department leaders have spoken out and raised grave concerns about the
ineptitude and unfitness of this buffoon you elected?
4. Do you
acknowledge that there is not a similar group of hundreds of OTHER
military leaders who have joined to speak in favor of Trump?
5.
Do you acknowledge that this level of military and state department
warnings about a sitting president are unprecedented, at least in our
lifetime?
IF you want to comment here, it must be from a place of
informed reason. You'll have to answer those questions if you want to
comment on this post, Marshal.
Thursday, October 15, 2020
Dan's Recent Buffoonery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"IF you want to comment here, it must be from a place of informed reason. You'll have to answer those questions if you want to comment on this post, Marshal."
I never comment from any other place, Dan. You simply aren't capable of proving otherwise, which is why you delete me and use nonsensical, ever-changing rules to rationalize doing so. But, if you've not deleted me by now, I've little confidence you won't after reading my very reasoned responses to your comments above, which I've finally gotten the time to compose.
Historians rate Trump poorly
You cite three sources to support this claim. I'll go through each one. Pay attention.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634
This looked very familiar to me and it soon became apparent that it had come up before, most likely by you, though I'm not sure and didn't go through your archives to affirm it. Nonetheless, I've countered it before and done so with the following link, which, if you posting something multiple times makes it any more worthy, than so too does re-posting the same response:
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2017/08/29/why-im-leaving-the-political-science-association/
The above speaks to the corruption of the association responsible for the study highlighted in the BBC article you found so compelling. The following, more recently published article definitely backs up the concerns presented in the previous link above:
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/05/political-science-needs-intellectual-diversity-but-few-realize-it/
The point here is that your source was chosen by you more for it's clearly biased assessment, as well as the claim it tries to make, with no real effort by you to determine its value. The biggest problem of your link is that it refers to a ranking made with only one year of Trump's presidency on the books, and even then it isn't truly of any true merit. I mean, really... how fair is it to rank Trump, or any president, with only a year or less of work under him? Who would do that except those with a desire to purposely rank a president poorly?
In the meantime, there are historians who support Trump as one of the better presidents. Among them are
Victor Davis Hanson
Newt Gingrich
Eric Metaxas
Robert Spencer
Unlike those your of your APSA link, historians like these actually speak to the work done by Trump when defending their support for his re-election. (BTW, Hanson was not a fan of Trump in 2016, but was like most intelligent people who saw Hillary as a far more egregious threat, and rightly so. More recently, he's written a book, "The Case For Trump", which spells out the reasons he merits a second term.) Your APSA, composed of leftists and a few NeverTrump "conservatives", reflect on the insignificant in assessing where Trump ranks.
Then comes your next link:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/opinions/history-verdict-on-trump-devastating-dantonio/index.html
I'm unfamiliar with this Michael D'Antonio, and couldn't find must that points to his political leanings or any public expressions in that vein. But then I read the link itself and it became pretty clear. It's rife with links to hard-core conservative, Nazi-like sites, such as CNN, Huffpost, what used to be newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post, Yahoo, and other assorted comic books. And given the date of the article, I would have expected his references would have aligned with what was known at the time, had he cared about doing more than taking the word of any of the various lefty sites just mentioned. For example, to bring up the idiots who drank fish-tank cleaner is clearly a sign of his leftist, Trump-hating bent. It's decidedly NOT what an objective and honest historian would bring up. But even in his "first of Trump's weaknesses", he cites CNN, which in its typical fashion bashed Trump all day long with tales of woe from tenants of his, but in the end admits no judge has ruled he ever harassed any of them. That's a rather significant point given the tone and tales of the article.
He immediately moves on to the claim that Trump downplayed the death toll following a hurricane that ravaged Puerto Rico. But the numbers that were being bandied about were long after the hurricane hit, and in a manner similar to how Covid deaths are still being tallied, the number months later included those who died long after the hurricane had hit, with little in the way of connecting how the hurricane caused any of them.
He then questions Trump's references to the increase in suicides that have been supported by so many articles that look at the data showing the jump, and in pretending that Trump is truly insisting he knows more than experts, refers to Trump's support of the use of hydroxychloroquine that medical experts Trump-haters ignore had claimed was a potential treatment...as if the leader of the free world is somehow wrong for being open to other potential treatments...you know...thinking outside the box...when lives are hanging in the balance.
His entire article is like this, and you want to cite him as a reliable historian in assessing Trump's presidency. It's beyond absurd. You clearly like the fact that this guy hates Trump, and that's good enough for you. No need to actually read and vet what he writes.
The third link is no better than the first two:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/opinions/trump-impeachment-unprecedented-cobbs-longley-osgood-suri/index.html
Right from the beginning we can easily see that these "historians" aren't truly as concerned with historic fact as they are with trashing Trump. If that were not so, they'd not have begun with crap about what Trump meant when asking the Ukrainian president for a favor:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/dishonest-media-leaving-out-what-trumps-favor-from-ukraine-president-actually-was
If they, too, are going to cite CNN as sources, they can't be held up as credible. They then move on to the allegation that Trump held up financial aid to Ukraine. Not so fast, Sparkies:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/president_trump_never_impounded_even_one_dollar_from_ukraine_aid.html
They refer to this corruption of reality later in the piece as well. But like the two links already reviewed in my previous comments, this one also takes pains to spin reality in their favor in order to assess Trump's presidential work unfavorably. They do this based on his style and their personal opinions regarding the effectiveness of it. Yet, what Trump does is not unlike what most presidents do and for largely the same reasons. No. These "historians" you think are being honest, are not being truthful, even if they think they are. Their biases are...how shall I put it...dogma that lives loudly within them.
I'm going to leave it here. I have rebuttals to the rest of your post whence came the three links of yours. But I'm not prepared as yet to post anymore comments without knowing you'll respect my effort to provide what you requested, as you have a history of deleting such because you're embarrassed by being debunked, rebuffed and proven wrong once again. If you plan to address my comments like a man, simply leave posted what I've written and say "Go on" and then I'll answer to the rest, allowing me the ability to do so without the distraction of response. Afterwards, you can have at it. I think this is the best way so that I can get all my thoughts out regarding your demand.
I have no delusion that you'll do so, but who knows.
I don't believe that Dan actually reads what he posts as supportive of his opinions. I think he simply finds something that leans in his direction and posts it, possibly assuming no one will actually read and analyze it. I read pretty much every link people like him post in order to see if perhaps they finally provide something that provokes reconsideration of a position I hold. Mostly reading them turns out to be wasted time I can never recover, and in Dan's case, he is then unwilling to admit his source is crap or incapable of explaining why it isn't. It's then that he deletes...because he's a coward. I fully doubt he has the spine to come here and put up, but posting all of this was just to have something with which to reference elsewhere.
Marshal, I thought you might be interested, both in terms of this post and in terms of your own campaign for Trump, to see this list of 30 good things Trump has done. You know, in case you haven't already seen it.
Thanks, Stan.
So anyway, what I've posted above is really just my response mostly to the first question:
"1. 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?"
...and only partially to the second:
"2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?"
But as I tried to explain, to acknowledge what he insists I should in question 1 ignores problems with those who rank Trump poorly. That's the point of my responses. It doesn't matter if I acknowledge them or not. It's whether or not their rankings make any sense. To say again, if I didn't say it in my original three comments, even if his survey respondents included card-carrying Republicans, it doesn't mean they like Trump enough to judge him fairly. And that doesn't matter either, given how fair can any historian be who judge a president's single year in office against the full terms of most of the others?
So all I can honestly acknowledge is that those historians he chose to cite are not fond of Trump. Let's move on...
"2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?"
No. At least I didn't originally, because I didn't feel the need to look until this question was asked. But before I offer more than those historians I listed already, I feel it important to again bring up an important point of context. According to one source, there are approximately 3000 people employed as historians in the United States. According to this source from April 2017, there are 6,350 political scientists in America. So, Dan's first link above, refers to a survey of only 170 political scientists. Out of over 6000. 170 out of 6000. What of the other 6180? Why didn't they respond to the survey? How many of them were made aware of the survey? Would they have regarded it as proper to respond if it included a guy who only had a year of work by which to judge?
As to historians, Dan later cites a different study which cites 155 historians. That's 155 out of 3000. That's 2,845 historians whose opinions about Trump are not published in the survey. Why is that? Could it be that responsible, self-respecting historians don't make assessments about today when their field is focused on the past?
But we're not done yet...
Dan then goes on to his Sienna College Research Institute poll (because he thinks it's less likely to be found wanting than his APSA poll) and cites the following:
"Scholars rate presidents on each of twenty categories that include attributes – background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks, abilities – compromising, executive ability, leadership, communication, and overall ability and accomplishments – party leadership, relationship with Congress, court appointments, handling the economy, executive appointments, domestic accomplishments, foreign policy accomplishments and avoiding mistakes."
These make a poor ranking even more suspicious given the subjective nature of many of them, but also how for most of them, Trump actually should be held in higher regard. Let's look at a few:
---Background---Trump's background is as a real estate investor/developer. He has real estate holding all over the world, and he's also had a hand is many other businesses. One source I've seen puts him at being involved in whole or in part of over 500 businesses foreign and domestic. Thus, his background as an executive is extensive.
---Imagination---Against what, exactly, is such a thing measured? Rather subjective, don't you think?
---Integrity---Again, against what is this measured? I'd say keeping campaign promises works just fine here, as he's ranks among the best promise keepers of the last half century, if not THE best.
---Intelligence---Just reviewing his first year, only a dumbass would suggest that man lack intelligence. How could he accomplish so much if he didn't have some smarts? It's just ludicrous to suggest such a thing, and the lefty haters like Dan aren't concerned with reality (like Dan says he is). No, he's dealing in "poetic truth", which is a reality of his own making.
---Luck and Willingness to Take Risks---Another subjective criteria, at least as regards "luck". I doubt Trump believes any of his accomplishments were necessarily the result of luck, though he might reference luck in describing his work. No doubt he is more likely to believe he achieved what he did through his efforts and "imagination".
He may not have regarded any of it as necessarily risky, either. I don't see among his list of accomplishments anything where "risk" would be an appropriate description. And what might seem risky to some geeky political scientist or historian might not seem all that risky to a man like Trump...or any man at all.
---Compromising---Most of the trade deals and such came after the first year, so there isn't too much one can hold up to use to support or criticize him on this point. At the same time, there was likely some compromising involved in some of the achievements of his first year. For now, I'll concede this one.
More later...
---Executive ability, Leadership---Also somewhat subjective, but at least these can be supported by his many first year accomplishments. Keep in mind Dan's surveys are judging only one year of Trump's administration.
---Communication---This is a mixed bag, and I would not grade him highly myself. Probably no better than a C or possibly a D. However, this is largely a matter of how much these "historians" are actually listening. If they're like most Trump haters, they hear what they want to hear and do nothing to try to understand what they think they've heard. Trump, however, has been wildly available to the media, even those in the media who have shown an incredibly unprofessional bias and hatred toward him (very palpable), and his tweets...like them or not...have communicated much to those who have access to them. His style requires some getting used to, developing a means to interpret, but all in all, has communicated his thoughts on a daily basis. Communication is a two way street, even if there is one side that is doing the communicating. That is, the other side needs to be sure to seek clarification for that which sounds troublesome. Even then, where leftist media figures pretend they're doing that, they really do little to truly get the message and then honestly transmit it to their readers or listeners.
One thing that Trump clearly communicates, and all honest people can agree, is how much he loves this nation and ALL its people. One doesn't get that from any of his opponents.
---Overall Ability and Accomplishments---This is settled by his track record:
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-first-year-his-top-82-accomplishments-786130
One can debate whether all of the above 82 are good things, but no one can pretend he hasn't shown a unique ability to get things done. His current opponent has no such track record and yet leftists like Dan pretend Biden's the better choice. But then, if you're a fake Christian who supports the murder of the unborn, the spread of sexual immorality, unfair taxing, opening borders to whomever chooses to enter without vetting...
---Party Leadership---Given the amount of obstruction from members of his own party...the party establishment...Trump's accomplishments shows his leadership is quite solid. And when one considers the outpouring of support from voters, he's demonstrated leadership that the left has never understood.
---Relationship With Congress---This is a questionable criterion given how so many in Congress have demonstrated no desire to form a relationship with him. But given his accomplishments, his relationship hasn't been a total wreck. How could it be and still get so much done?
---Court Appointments---In a word, "stellar"! His appointments have been based upon the devotion to the US Constitution jurists are supposed to have. They won't always rule perfectly, but anyone who cares about the Constitution must be pleased with his choices. No activists among them.
---Handling The Economy---In a word, "stellar"! Even with spending being worse than I'd like to see, there's no arguing he's done far more...even in just his first year...to improve the economy than had his predecessor in eight years. I'd have to get into the weeds to be more specific about what transpired in his first year and the effect it had before that first year was out, but that's not how it works. One has to wait and see what happens over a longer period than whatever time was left in the first year between the enactment of a policy and the end of that first year. But as we've seen, the ultimate result has been awesome.
---Executive Appointments, Domestic Accomplishments, Foreign Policy Accomplishments and Avoiding Mistakes--- I put these together, as much to get this over with as because they are linked in many ways. Exec appointments has been spotty, but during his first year, one must remember we're dealing with a person who is not a politician and getting his feet wet. He had a history of getting the most out of those he's hired for particular purposes and then moving on to someone else when the situation changes. As to domestic and foreign policy accomplishments, the link above lists those and he's done a lot in his first year. Some whine about how some foreigners criticize Trump, but pissing off the right people is a plus, not a minus. As to avoiding mistakes, that's VERY subjective, and no Trump hater tasked with ranking him would be objective on that score.
All in all, based on the criteria listed, there's no way an honest observer can rank Trump low, even based on a single year in office. Dan's surveys have very little value except to reveal how those who don't like him rank him. We didn't need surveys for that.
That's all for now. Stayed tuned.
Post a Comment