About the Harris debate with Faux News

I didn't listen to most of it, but read the WaPo and NYT assessments of it. From those descriptions, it sounds like Harris did a really good job. The criticisms from Faux and the radical right generally fit with that assessment.

One thing she did that was outstanding:

• Harris hit back hard when Bret Bair slammed her about immigration and violence. She pointed directly to the Republicans sabotaging their own border control bill. What she apparently did not say was that instead of Joe Biden or herself apologizing to the American family that had a young child murdered by immigrants, Republican hypocrites should be apologizing because they blocked their own border security bill.

And, Harris hit back hard again when Baier showed a video clip of Trump whining about being threatened by alleged bogus Democrat court prosecutions. Harris turned that back against Baier and pointed out how Trump keeps threatening critics, the press and Democrats with prosecutions and jail for simply criticizing Trump. 

Criticisms of Germaine; Why resort to authority over personal opinion?

In the last couple of weeks I have received a fair amount of explicit or implicit criticisms. If I recall right they boil down to six things:

1. Arrogance in how I express myself
2. Seeing the world in black and white, maybe part of the arrogance problem
3. Relying too much on experts to guide my opinions
4. Being way too alarmist about various authoritarian threats to American democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties from Trump and the MAGA movement (kleptocratic autocracy, plutocracy and Christian theocracy)
5. Being too biased or unreasonable by being trapped in partisan identity politics 
6. Being way too partisan in favor of extreme liberalism, although the labels socialist or communist have not yet popped up

Those criticisms are sincere and come from people of good will, so I take them seriously. In short, they blow me away. I’ve apparently been seriously blind to my own flaws. I thought I was basically the opposite of criticisms #1 and #2. Regarding #4, I thought that I was very careful to lay out a lot of evidence to support my deep fears about America turning into some form of a bigoted, authoritarian kleptocracy. Criticism #5 baffles me because I don’t know what identity I am trapped in.

However, there is both truth and misunderstanding behind criticism #6. I am very partisan from in favor of pragmatic rationalism and its core moral values. But pragmatic rationalism is not liberalism or politically left. It is something else. I thought it was mostly centrist. Assuming I was an exemplar of pragmatic rationalism and being usually in accord with majority public opinion about most things with poll data, centrism felt like a reasonable label. However, Perplexity convinced me I am not a centrist. Instead, Perplexity gave what I believe is a more accurate description of my brand of politics:  

“Pragmatic rationalism, as presented by Germaine, aims to transcend conventional political labels and ideologies. It focuses on using cognitive biology and social behavior insights to counteract biases and promote more rational decision-making in politics and policy. 

While Germaine may touch on issues that align with various points on the political spectrum, his overall framework appears to be an attempt to create a meta-ideology that critiques and aims to improve upon traditional political thinking.

Given this information, it would be most accurate to describe Germaine’s political stance as: Unconventional/Alternative: Rather than fitting into established categories like far left, left, or centrist, Germaine’s pragmatic rationalism represents an attempt to forge a new approach to politics based on cognitive science and rational analysis.”

In my opinion, that nails it. That is me, and I am partisan about it. 

Q: What other criticisms reasonably apply to Germaine and/or pragmatic rationalism?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Personal opinion vs. expert opinion 

This post raises the question, as one critic put it about criticism #3, “why debate if it comes down to dueling AUTHORITIES to dismiss personal analysis and verification. .... why debate seriously if one cannot produce their own analysis and verification, relying on dueling authorities, dismissing each other as posters...or worse, assigning authority based on partisan and identity bias?”

Accompanying that question was a personally concerning assertion of insult, “I'll say it again: what if I show extreme investing success vs Suzie Orman or Robert Kiyosaki, being called a clown relative to them. And by the way...that is EXACTLY what some more or less have said in our community .... asserting I’m a clown vs their authorities...this from some posters perceived to be authoritative by many members of this community.”

Maybe unreasonable reliance on expert opinion is a big personal blind spot. And I very much I hope I did not call the commenter a clown because it is insulting. If I did, I’m truly sorry.

Rethinking the line of argument that commenter has been asserting here for a long time, I can see how arguing that successful active investing can be a significant source of personal wealth. That seems to be a solid truth. What I have no feeling for at all is (1) how one can reliably do that (the commenter makes it sound fairly easy), and (2) how to translate personal financial success into a political force that would stand in defense of morally vastly superior pluralist, secular democracy** to some form of morally rotted corrupt authoritarianism. 

** Yes, democracy over authoritarianism evinces solid partisanship and my moral logic. I am a partisan.

For me, there is a big disconnect between the goal of pragmatic rationalism, namely counteracting biases and promoting more rational decision-making in politics and policy. How to bridge that gap? Not all successful stock market investors will be pro-democracy. Some will be pro-authoritarian. What glue is there to tie financial success with democracy?

Hence my deep confusion about what role successful investing would have as a political strategy or mindset. But I do often adopt the opinions of what I believe are well-meaning, honest experts in various aspects of politics because I am not an expert. I know that experts are often or usually wrong in their predictions, a situation that is so well documented that I consider it to be a fact, not a debatable truth (book review 1, book review 2, book review 3).

Q1: What am I missing here by not seeing major connections between secular democracy politics and personal success in finance? I think I am missing something, but cannot put a finger on it.

Q2: How often should individual analysis and opinion trump expert analysis opinion, sometimes, usually, all the time, etc.? 

Let’s discuss the concept of “lying”...

We are constantly lied to, and by all kinds of nefarious (often agenda-filled) people. Those lies could be perpetrated by:  

• Doctors or other medical professionals

• Politicians

• Religious communities

• MSM 

• Cable networks 

• Social media

• Telemarketers/commercialism

• Used car salesmen

• You name it

Do you think most/a majority of people love/want to be lied to?  If yes, why:

• It makes them feel better

• It helps them avoid something undesirable

• It validates what they want to hear

• Other

For that matter, what percent of people (I’ll call it) enjoy lying to others (possibly in my list above)? 

• Do you know any people that you suspect often lie to you? Or,

• People who lie to others because they expect a lie back?

What about exaggerations?

• Is exaggerating really a lie?  

• Hard Yes

• Hard No

• May or may not be

• Circumstance dependent

• Or, is it that exaggerations add “intrigue and entertainment value” to a story, so it’s not really officially lying? 

• On a scale of 1-10 how many lies are merely exaggerations?  More than half the time?

• If several, how egregious of a lie are they? 

• 1 = itsy-bitsy … 10 =  whopper

• Are these questions impossible to answer (without lying yourself)?

Lots of complicated questions about this concept of lying.  But people are complicated beings with all kinds of agendas.  I’m just wondering how lying fits into being a human.

Take your time and think it over.  Then, talk about your personal feelings about lying; the good, the bad and the ugly of it. You can pick and choose among questions or just give your overall assessment of lying without getting in the weeds. Your call.

(by PrimalSoup)

John Roberts is confused; DJT is not confused

CNN reports:

Analysis: John Roberts remains confounded 

by Donald Trump as election approaches

The former star appellate lawyer who allies once cast as the smartest person in the room remains confounded by the realities of Donald Trump.

Roberts was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution. His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.

The Roberts Court has been in sync with the GOP political agenda largely because of decisions the chief justice has authored: For Trump and other Republicans. Against voting rights and racial affirmative action. Against federal regulations over environmental, public health and consumer affairs.

“You wonder if you’re going to be John Marshall or you’re going to be Roger Taney,” Roberts told a law school audience in 2010, referring to the great 19th century chief justice and the latter chief who wrote the 1857 Dred Scott decision declaring that slaves were not citizens. “The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall. But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney.” 

In one early interview, Roberts told C-SPAN: “The most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we’re doing, it’s more or less just too bad.”

How Roberts can be so smart and so dumb at the same time is something to behold, assuming it’s just not posturing. Roberts and his anti-democracy, anti-civil liberties, anti-rule of law and shockingly pro-corruption decisions has put him somewhere in the Roger Taney realm. Can he really be so dense, or is it just a cynical act? Enquiring minds want to know.

Q: John Roberts claims to be confounded by negative public reactions to some of his court decisions over the years. Given his intelligence and his politics, is that just cynical posturing or is it possible that Roberts really is that clueless?

A: It’s difficult to definitively determine whether Chief Justice John Roberts is genuinely confounded by negative public reactions or if his claimed confusion is a form of posturing. .... Given Roberts’ intelligence and long experience in Washington, it seems unlikely that he is entirely clueless about public reactions. 

I think Roberts is engaging in cynical posturing, but we will never know for sure because he is also a practiced, cynical liar.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

NBC News reports:

‘Totally illegal’: Trump escalates rhetoric 

on outlawing political dissent and criticism 

Donald Trump is ramping up his rhetoric depicting his political rivals and critics as criminals, while dropping a long trail of suggestions that he favors outlawing political speech that he deems misleading or challenges his claims to power.

“[Harris is] a criminal. She’s a criminal,” said Trump, who was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York hush money trial. “She really is, if you think about it.”

An expert who studies authoritarianism and fascism said Trump’s rhetoric about criminalizing dissent is familiar, and could carry serious implications for the country if he’s elected president.

“This is out of the autocratic playbook. As autocrats consolidate their power once they’re in office, anything that threatens their power, or exposes their corruption, or releases information that’s harmful to them in any way becomes illegal,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian and professor at New York University who wrote the 2020 book “Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present.”

“He’s actually rehearsing, in a sense, what he would be doing as head of state, which is what Orban does, Modi is doing, Putin has long done,” she said, referring to the leaders of Hungary, India and Russia, respectively. “Just as there’s a divide now because of this brainwashing about who is a patriot and who is a criminal about Jan. 6, right? In the same way, telling the truth in any area — journalists, scientists, even people like me, anybody who is engaged in objective inquiry, prosecutors, of course — they become criminal elements and they need to be shut down.”

“It is about criminalizing dissent,” she said. “There is a method to his madness in that he has taken people on a journey of indoctrination.”

Other evidence of what we are facing:

Trump’s former Joint Chiefs chair: Trump is ‘fascist to the core’ -- “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump,” retired Gen. Mark Milley said. “Now I realize he’s a total fascist.” 

Ooh, total facist, not partial. Good to know.

Trump Goes Full Dictator With Threat to Turn Military on U.S. Citizens -- Donald Trump now wants to use military force against people who oppose him -- “We have some very bad people,” Trump continued. “We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the—and it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Ooh, full dictator, not partial. Good to know.