Open Thread: Election 2016
Discuss the 2016 US Presidential election (and related political issues and the primaries).
Want to discuss this? Join my forum.
(Due to multi-year, sustained harassment from David Deutsch and his fans, commenting here requires an account. Accounts are not publicly available. Discussion info.)
Messages (55)
https://twitter.com/PoliticalFolks/status/749581293709656064
> > 2) Johnson called Hillary "a wonderful public servant". awful judgement on a key election issue!
> You are cherry-picking the article and using your pick out of context. Please read the details. Again, media w/n limit my options.
What is "w/n"?
I read the article where Johnson calls Hillary wonderful and formed my opinion that calling Hillary wonderful is meaningful and very bad. Asking me to reread until I agree with you doesn't make sense. Tell me what I'm missing. Quote some part of the article I'm missing. Explain what makes calling Hillary wonderful OK. Argue something.
As a starting point, Johnson initially appears to have a really bad view on this ... so it's time for your rebuttal.
And I don't think I was cherrypicking some kind of outlier, see e.g.:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-says-hillary-no-criminal/
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-criticize-hillary-trump/
There are other problems with Johnson too like about DC statehood: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/17244 http://risenews.net/2016/06/gary-johnson-wants-something-pretty-big/
http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/06/libertarians-on-clinton-email-the-party
> I asked the Johnson campaign for a comment yesterday given the latest. "As this unfolded the Govs have been traveling and we don't have a statement," was a response sent overnight from the campaign's press office.
First question: how is Johnson going to ***stop lying crooked Hillary*** if he doesn't want to attack her? (note he also called her "wonderful", see details above)
> Johnson's manifest unwillingness to play what he might see as a right-wing gotcha game against Clinton almost certainly comes from a sincere place where policy is more important than a process scandal.
this doesn't make sense. whether or not to prosecute criminals like Hillary is a policy matter. and calling her "wonderful" was not a necessary step to focusing the conversation on policy.
> Whatever the case may be, a campaign currently running nearly entirely on free earned media should consider taking advantage of news cycles to his benefit and to remember that on all sides he is trying to appeal to—disaffected Democrats or progressives who preferred Sanders, or Republicans who can't abide Trump—there is much to gain and little to lose in being willing to point out political or personal flaws in his competitors
i agree. he seems bad at politics. we need someone good at politics to stop lying crooked Hillary!
> whether or not he sincerely believes she should face jail time for it.
if he doesn't think top officials who break the law should face jail time, then he's not qualified to be President. the President needs to protect and enforce the law!
---
this article was linked to me as some kind of defense of Johnson and/or advocacy of him. but i don't see the defense, let alone an argument that he's awesome. please give quotes and write out an explanation of your point if you think there's a good point here that would convince people to vote for Johnson.
reply to tweet (and the 2 right after):
https://twitter.com/PoliticalFolks/status/751595641403478016
can u give examples w/ sources that assure u of how effective a fiscal conservative (and social liberal) Johnson will be? and details of what that means? which policies do you have in mind and why are they good? a label like "Socially liberal" is very broad. i can easily think of policies i agree with and disagree with which could be given that label.
example policies i agree with that you could call socially liberal: legalize pot, don't ban on abortion, free speech
disagree examples: affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, disability rights laws, transgender bathroom laws, forcing Christian bakers to serve customers that they don't want to
can you say your ideal foreign policy and the reasoning behind it? Trump said he'll defeat ISIS. that sounds good to me, but you bring up non-interventionism. would you rather we leave ISIS alone overseas and focus only on homeland defense, or what? leaving alone training grounds and weapons factories alone could make things harder! and should we leave Iran alone if they develop nukes and ICBMs (which they are currently working on as we speak)? unfortunately a homeland defense approach isn't going to work on nukes+ICBMs with current technology. an EMP attack may be especially scary (see e.g. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-endorses-nuclear-emp-attack-on-united-states/article/2561733 )
https://twitter.com/PoliticalFolks/status/751601450174844928
> By socially liberal, I mean, e.g., decriminalizing victimless crimes.
plz provide a detailed list of things you mean. give the principle behind them (why they go together, how they are chosen). and give an explanation of why you think they're good. you're just kinda stating talking points, really big picture bullet points. you're not yet explaining your thinking or getting into any details. will you? i don't think discussion is very fruitful without detailed arguments, writing out positions more, etc
reply to https://twitter.com/PoliticalFolks/status/751609709942169600
as an Objectivist (you say, though so far you strike me as libertarian. are you familiar with Rand's comments on libertarianism?), do you believe it's important to make moral judgements? e.g. over who one votes for. and do you believe it's important to rationally discuss major issues (like political policies) and go into details to find the truth?
reply to https://twitter.com/PoliticalFolks/status/751618747421589504
> Thanks 4 sharing ur perspective. My book is written. I am in edit/revision mode as I continue integrating the evidence of my senses.
good luck i guess. but being influential is REALLY HARD.
for example look at George Resiman. he got PhD under Mises, studied with Rand and was on ARI board. he wrote a treatise on par with Human Action. really good stuff. but he's not influential. hardly anyone cared.
his book: http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
i'm very interested in this problem. i too have ideas i'd like to share with the world which i think are very crucially important. but i don't have a solution. i consider even Ayn Rand to have basically failed at sharing her ideas. despite millions of books sales, I believe the sad fact is that almost no one understands much of what she wrote. and there's almost no serious, worthwhile, productive discussion of her ideas going on.
Have you researched Trump before supporting him? or are you supporting him just to defeat Hillary?
You have posted many crits of Donald Trump in your previous blog posts. Have you changed your mind on those crits now?
> Have you researched Trump before supporting him?
yes. for example i read a bunch of his books.
> or are you supporting him just to defeat Hillary?
Hillary absolutely must be defeated.
Trump has some flaws, but basically the stuff he might fuck up is stuff that Hillary is promising to fuck up on purpose.
> You have posted many crits of Donald Trump in your previous blog posts. Have you changed your mind on those crits now?
no
What do you think of Ted Cruz's Betrayal?
sux :(
Why don't Philosophers run for election?
the public isn't ready to vote for philosophers. philosophers need to spread their ideas more first.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/islamic-state-answers-pope-francis-religious-war/
http://www.jaystalien.com/index.php/2016/07/19/10/
Fuck shit up
> Trump has some flaws, but basically the stuff he might fuck up is stuff that Hillary is promising to fuck up on purpose.
What stuff is Hillary promising to fuck up on purpose?
Hillary is promising to fuck up: immigration, iran, israel, the economy, obamacare, SCOTUS, trade, ISIS, terrorism, crime (e.g. releasing criminals from jail so they can hurt more people), corruption (she is corrupt), environmentalism stuff, size of government.
not a complete list.
> Hillary is promising to fuck up: immigration, iran, israel, the economy, obamacare, SCOTUS, trade, ISIS, terrorism, crime (e.g. releasing criminals from jail so they can hurt more people), corruption (she is corrupt), environmentalism stuff, size of government.
>
>not a complete list.
For each of those things, how is she going to fuck them up? I'm learning about this and looking for clear/concise explanations to orient myself.
too many questions. pick 2.
> too many questions. pick 2.
Sure! terrorism and the economy.
> obamacare
I would have picked obama care..
I think he will create something similar to Obamacare instead of killing social healthcare completely.
terrorism
Hillary has promised to broadly continue Obama's presidency.
that includes refusing to understand the terrorist enemy. it includes hesitating to call them Islamic, hesitating to identify Islam as problematic, and not wanting to do racial or religious profiling.
terrorism is a big topic. many policies touch on it from bringing in a bunch of ISIS-infiltrated Syrians at taxpayer expense, and giving Iran $400,000,000 and less sanctions, and trying to weaken Israel, to Hillary getting Americans killed at BENGHAZI. and you're not going to do a good job of fighting terrorism when you're intentionally and criminally mishandling top secret information. and you're sure not going to do a good job when you're taking bribes from a variety of Arabs, as well as Russia, to change US foreign policy.
but that's sure not all.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263365/hillary-must-come-clean-about-huma-abedin-joseph-klein
one of Hillary's close friends and advisors has terrorist ties and terrorist ideas.
how can this be? Because Hillary, like Obama, is deeply anti-American. hence you see e.g. obama's support for the muslim brotherhood. read stuff like http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259240/hillary-may-have-appointed-morsi-president-egypt-daniel-greenfield
obamacare
so the question was how hillary will fuck things up. she'll continue and expand obamacare – which is a disaster.
i think FF's question is what Trump will do with healthcare.
i don't know. no one knows.
Trump is not some purist capitalist. he won't make healthcare perfect.
Trump has mentioned a few good points. like he wants competition between health care providers across state lines. that'd be a great reform.
so Trump is a mixed bag, with at least one great idea on healthcare. he's also said he opposes obamacare.
so Hillary is promising to fuck up healthcare.
Trump will try to make some changes. will it work out well? maybe. maybe not. at least with Trump we have a chance.
economy
hillary clinton has promised to raise the minimum wage. do you know why that's really bad?
she complains about inequality in relation to the economy. that's a really bad perspective which has led to many awful leftist policies, and would lead to more if she were president.
another clinton plan is to funnel more tax dollars into universities by giving out more federal money. universities will quickly raise tuition to match. meanwhile she'll use the money to control people – you have to live your life more how she wants you to in order to get the money.
(i ran into that education one in an economics article http://fortune.com/2016/06/28/trump-clinton-economic-comparisons/ cuz i guess giving out various handouts is a major feature of clinton's economic thinking)
another clinton policy is to attack and discourage the most economically productive members of society. maybe if they stop we can all be equally shabby!
obama is a criminal traitor. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438744/iran-ransom-payment-president-obama-broke-law-sending-cash-iran
RE: terrorism / obamacare / economy above,
I'd like to go check for myself about each point made. E.g. look into the specifics and primary sources, etc.
I guess I could just start googling and see where that leads me. It might take a lot of time which sucks. Any suggestions on where to start?
> Any suggestions on where to start?
breitbart and front page mag authors. there's a few things on this blog too.
50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
This letter makes about as powerful a case as I can think of why Trump must be defeated. And... Though one could debate the credibility of some of the people who signed this letter, I don't see how you can question their motives, nor their logic.
The text of the letter, unabridged and unembellished, is at the link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/08/us/politics/national-security-letter-trump.html?_r=0
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
Donald Trump is leading a revolt against the elites of both parties.
The initial article itself was an argument from authority.
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
Silmaril#6448 wrote:
> The initial article itself was an argument from authority.
How so?
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
The article says:
> The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.
It goes on from there to a bunch of false and unsubstantiated (at best) claims.
That's pure argument from authority. It's basically: trust us, we know
best - vote for Hillary!
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
Note that:
A) There are not one, not three, but fifty high level officials
B) They are from Trump's own party- this is a highly unusual break with the normal standards of party loyalty.
Here's an exercise for you: Can you name one other comparable incident, from either party, (where a presidential nominee was declared unfit by a unified statement made by a substantial group of his own party)?
Is the letter to be accepted as unimpeachable fact? No. Should it be given serious consideration on its merits? Absolutely.
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
Buddyster#6452 wrote:
> A) There are not one, not three, but fifty high level officials
So? What does the number of authorities arguing something have to do
with whether it's an argument from authority?
> B) They are from Trump's own party- this is a highly unusual break with the normal standards of party loyalty.
The elites of both parties want immigration. It's highly unusual for a
candidate of any party to buck this trend, and when a candidate
achieves success by doing so, these kinds of breaks shouldn't be
surprising.
> Can you name one other comparable incident, from either party, (where a presidential nominee was declared unfit by unified statement made by a substantial group of his own party)?
No, but I don't know of any presidential candidate -- with positions
opposed to the elites -- who has gotten as far as Trump has this race.
This is Trump vs the elites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
> Is the letter to be accepted as unimpeachable fact? No. Should it be given serious consideration on its merits? Absolutely.
What merits?
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
Silmaril#6453 wrote:
> Buddyster#6452 wrote:
> So? What does the number of authorities arguing something have to do with whether it's an argument from authority?
So your point is that since these people are expressing their opinion, it should be fair game to question their credibility? OK- I'll buy that- go ahead and question away.
> The elites of both parties want immigration. It's highly unusual for a candidate of any party to buck this trend, and when a candidate achieves success by doing so, these kinds of breaks shouldn't be surprising.
What are you saying here? That these people wrote this letter because because they disagree sharply with Trump on the issue of immigration?
>> Is the letter to be accepted as unimpeachable fact? No. Should it be given serious consideration on its merits? Absolutely.
>
> What merits?
Are you wanting me to cut and paste the points of the letter? It's not long, and its points are not hard to discern.
Re: 50 Republican security officials oppose Trump
Buddyster#6454 wrote:
> Silmaril#6453 wrote:
>> So? What does the number of authorities arguing something have to do with whether it's an argument from authority?
>
> So your point is that since these people are expressing their opinion, it should be fair game to question their credibility? OK- I'll buy that- go ahead and question away.
No, that's not my point. My point is that the 50 generals' letter is an argument from authority. They don't explain or argue their points - they just make assertions.
>> The elites of both parties want immigration. It's highly unusual for a candidate of any party to buck this trend, and when a candidate achieves success by doing so, these kinds of breaks shouldn't be surprising.
>
> What are you saying here? That these people wrote this letter because because they disagree sharply with Trump on the issue of immigration?
No, the 50 generals who wrote that letter want to destroy America by electing Crooked. Immigration is just one major way Trump is anti-elite/anti-establishment. The 50 generals are by and large members of the elite/establishment that a Trump presidency would threaten.
>> [So you think the letter should be considered on its merits? What merits does it have?]
>
> Are you wanting me to cut and paste the points of the letter? It's not long, and its points are not hard to discern.
No. I would like to know specifically what merits you had in mind when you said the letter should be considered on its merits. You could start by picking something you like about the letter and explaining why it's good.
all about authority
> A) There are not one, not three, but fifty high level officials
in other words, they have not a little, not a medium amount, but a **lot** of authority/prestige/expertise/credentials/you-should-defer-to-us-because-we're-your-betters?
> Can you name one other comparable incident, from either party, (where a presidential nominee was declared unfit by unified statement made by a substantial group of his own party)?
you aren't judging whether the claims are true. you're judging by who said them in what circumstances. it'd be better to look over the claims themselves and focus your arguments there, rather than focusing on the speakers. you seem to have an attitude of looking for the social legitimacy (aka authority) of speakers and judging issues that way, rather than judging by the truth content of the ideas. (admittedly this is common. but i think it's a big mistake.)
> Are you wanting me to cut and paste the points of the letter? It's not long, and its points are not hard to discern.
meanwhile you seem to believe the substance of the letter speaks for itself. no critical analysis required. so you (Buddyster) haven't discussed the actual issues at all so far. but nor has Silmaril. Silmaril hasn't pasted the first real argument from the letter and offered a rebuttal. so let's see:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/08/us/politics/national-security-letter-trump.html
> Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief
> He appears to lack basic knowledge
> Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests
> Trump lacks the temperament to be President.
> He lacks self-control and acts impetuously.
> he would be the most reckless President in American history
the entire letter is hostile **assertions** of Trump's failings, with zero attempt to provide evidence, examples, details and arguments for any of them being true.
i was unable to find a single real argument in the letter to rebut. so, yes, if you think there is one, please copy/paste it along with a brief statement of why it's an argument rather than an assertion.
so, why should we believe the assertions the letter consists of? because of who said them. *i, for one, refuse*.
Re: all about authority
>"you aren't judging whether the claims are true. you're judging by who said them in what circumstances. it'd be better to look over the claims themselves and focus your arguments there, rather than focusing on the speakers. you seem to have an attitude of looking for the social legitimacy (aka authority) of speakers and judging issues that way, rather than judging by the truth content of the ideas. (admittedly this is common. but i think it's a big mistake.)"
If I wanted to answer the question "What kind of temperament should a president possess?" or maybe "What kind of temperament would be dangerous in a president?", who would I ask? (I realize that this is a question with a somewhat squishy, subjective answer which can't be precisely argued with hard logical reasoning, but it's still highly relevant to try to answer it)
...
> He lacks self-control and acts impetuously.
This seems true. A few examples:
1) His insults of McCain
2) His comments about the Khans
3) His comment about Hillary being "Schlonged"
4) His insults of Megyn Kelly (blood)
And there are many, many more like this, as we all know. If I had nothing to do for the next hour, I could list dozens of them.
This is one thing in the letter that's worthy of rebuttal.
What about Trumps making a better deal on debt? That is said to be risky
Trump asking Mexico to pay for the wall.. Mexico is NOT ready to pay for it.
Trump being loose on healthcare.
Trump being Anti-freedom. He has made many comments about restricting Press freedom.
Torture!?!! Isn't that supposed to be Anti-FI.. Maybe I am wrong and FI is pro-torture "even if it doesn't work"
Trump being Anti-facts, Anti-logic, anti-thinking, anti-crit
Changing mind without crit or rational thinking.. and changing back again. Answering the same question differently in the morning and differently at night.
Protectionism!!
Lying about being religious.. Why lie?
Trump University (I have not researched about it.. I hope someone here will)
loving Hillary and family until recently.
Being Anti-wallstreet!!!
+++++++more
In my opinion Curi is trying to elect Trump for 1% good and 99% evil instead of Hillary (100% evil according to him)
You say Iran deal is bad.
Why does US get to decide who should have nukes and who shouldn't?
PS: I am not saying Iran should get nukes.
> If I wanted to answer the question "What kind of temperament should a president possess?" or maybe "What kind of temperament would be dangerous in a president?", who would I ask?
think for yourself instead of picking an authority to trust.
> This seems true. A few examples:
the letter didn't argue it. or anything. agreed?
as to your examples, can you pick one and provide details and arguments about it? have you considered alternative interpretations like that Trump is acting out a persona? don't all politicians put on a certain face for the public?
stuff like this requires analysis, not merely listing things.
> Why does US get to decide who should have nukes and who shouldn't?
because we won WWI, WWII, and the cold war. and we didn't start any of those.
and anyway Iran funds terrorists. Iran is actively causing violence. and Iran is actively threatening violence. they want to destroy the US, and they say so in public. so they shouldn't have powerful weapons to destroy civilization with.
the US is a responsible country that wants peace and prosperity. Iran is an irresponsible country that wants blood and death.
> because we won WWI, WWII, and the cold war. and we didn't start any of those.
So no CP finding? If Iran wants a deal in return for not developing nukes... It shouldn't get them?
Many countries have developed nukes and USA hasn't been able to do anything about them.
> Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years.[20][21]
Not enrich uranium above 3.67% purity (suitable for civil use and nuclear power generation only).
> Reduce stockpile of enriched uranium from current 10,000 to not more than 300 kilograms 3.67 percent enrich uranium for 15 years.
Fordo uranium enrichment facility will operate not more than 1,000 centrifuges for research. 5,000 R-1 centrifuges will be running at Natanz. The remaining 13,000 centrifuges will be used as spare, as needed.
> Arak facility will be modified so as to produce a minimal amount of plutonium but will remain a heavy-water reactor.
>Allow inspection of all its nuclear facilities and its supply chains such as uranium mining sites (Military sites are not included).
Sounds better than nothing.
Me and Rami-
> FF: What do you think of nationalism ? Patriotism ?
> RR: Same logic as racism
> RR: you think that defending liberalism needs patriotism? why?
> RR: so then switch pride for one's nation with pride for one's ideals (liberalism).
If he is right. Why are some FI members patriots?
(I didn't ask RR's permission to post this..Sorry about that)
> So no CP finding? If Iran wants a deal in return for not developing nukes... It shouldn't get them?
you are an ignorant fool who knows nothing of world affairs. you belligerently attack the USA, and Taking Children Seriously, while advocating ideas that will result in genocide.
> you are an ignorant fool who knows nothing of world affairs. you belligerently attack the USA, and Taking Children Seriously, while advocating ideas that will result in genocide.
I attacked TCS?!! I promote Genocide!!
If you want to explain to me stuff do it.. or choose to ignore my questions. Why are you accusing me of stuff instead of explaining stuff?
If I don't analyse ideas about USA.. How will I learn?
I don't think questioning is attacking. I am open to changing my mind. I present my ideas so I can change if I am wrong.
You get touchy when it comes to politics. Am I wrong about that?
Should I change my mind without presenting my ideas and questions about certain stuff.
Asking questions is important.
I don't know what comment of mine made you think I am attacking TCS.
I don't like Iran... But I have to be fair when I am discussing.
> you are an ignorant fool who knows nothing of world affairs
So? I have no right to question about sensitive topics?
I know something.. Not nothing.. I have questions..
if FF were trying to learn then he'd read up on the topic. for example, he would have found and read the blog post here covering the Iran deal.
he's careless when it comes to nuclear holocausts.
i recommend people stay the hell away from him.
> if FF were trying to learn then he'd read up on the topic. for example, he would have found and read the blog post here covering the Iran deal.
Maybe.. But the post may/maynot have answered my questions.
> he's careless when it comes to nuclear holocausts.
It doesn't really matter whether I am careless or careful (when asking questions). I am just asking questions not pointing nukes at people.
You are getting touchy like socialists get touchy about free healthcare,capitalism etc.
> i recommend people stay the hell away from him.
Why? To not waste energy in answering my questions?
I am willing to change my mind. But you are not encouraging discussions.
The only loss I see from answering my questions is waste of time. But I don't think that would be the case.. because I am willing to change my mind when I have extreme clarity. You can also delegate this discussion to anybody if you want to save time. You can also quote stuff from the essay.
> he's careless when it comes to nuclear holocausts.
> i recommend people stay the hell away from him.
You are discouraging crit and discussions by saying these things.
You seem to want automatic agreement. That is bad.
> So no CP finding? If Iran wants a deal in return for not developing nukes... It shouldn't get them?
The Iranian govt wants to destroy the state of Israel and exterminate all its inhabitants. The Iranian govt also wants to destroy the US. The Iranian govt also sponsors terrorist groups. The Iranian govt is preventing CPs.
Re: Re: all about authority
> > Buddyster: If I wanted to answer the question "What kind of temperament should a president possess?" or maybe "What kind of temperament would be dangerous in a president?", who would I ask?
> Curi: think for yourself instead of picking an authority to trust.
Buddyster: OK-- but I've never held a position within government. These people have. I think I've made a rational decision that they are in a better position than I to say what temperament a president should or should not possess.
Note that I might have a similar thought process when I visit the doctor. I'll listen to his advice about my ailment du jour, and I'll certainly ask myself if what he's telling me jibes with my existing conceptions of reality, but ultimately I'm aware that he's the doctor, and I'm not. I'm going to place some (but not unlimited) trust in him due to his position.
....
> > Buddyster: This seems true. A few examples:
> Curi: the letter didn't argue it. agreed?
Buddyster: I think I agree-- the letter just stated that Trump "lacks self control and acts impetuously", without any supporting data (and why didn't they cite such data? My guess would be they wanted to keep it concise, and it is sort of common knowledge at this point). But-- it's an easily supportable assertion... (as I did above)
....
> Curi: have you considered alternative interpretations like that Trump is acting out a persona?
Buddyster: Y'know, I have. The problem is that explanation isn't especially plausible (if Trump's public persona is something he has deliberately chosen to adopt, it's an odd choice to say the least). And... even if I believed that what we are witnessing was an elaborate act on his part, I don't see how that would be expected to reassure anyone.
it makes total sense to seek out advice from doctor's about medical matters. you have need of medicine but don't want to learn about it yourself.
in politics, it makes less sense. if you don't want to learn about politics yourself, no problem, you can just do something else. you don't have to get involved at all. that's different than medicine.
when a doctor tells you something, you'll still consider if it's reasonable. if you have some doubts, and it's important, you may get a second opinion.
if two doctors debate a matter, you may pick a side for your own personal treatment. but i'm guessing you wouldn't join the debate and try to correct one of the doctor's arguments, since you don't personally know medicine. it wouldn't be a good contribution to a debate between doctors to go to Dr Johnson and say "Dr Smith and Dr Black argue X. so you're wrong". that doesn't add anything useful. Johnson he can just argue with them directly.
i don't know about Buddyster and Silmaril, but I'm a "doctor" for politics. i've studied the issues and put a lot of thought into it myself. i've read lots of books about it. i've talked to many people with a variety of positions to understand the field. i have my own understanding of politics. i can speak about it rather than just saying "Mr Johnson said...". i don't rely on listening to some expert advice.
so telling me some generals disagree with me won't get anywhere. i don't care unless they give arguments. they didn't give any new arguments. so they can't change my mind.
if you want to listen to the generals, rather than me, because you prefer the sort of credentials they have to the sort of credentials i have ... i don't care. i don't recommend it, but whatever, it doesn't especially matter. but of course that won't change my mind.
when i take advice on something i don't know much about, e.g. medicine, i don't focus on credentials. i focus more on whether the person can give a simple explanation that makes sense. i don't expect them to explain all the details. but i expect a simple version that's i don't see anything wrong with. i think that's a better way to judge than credentials. if the guy giving a reasonable explanation is contradicting some experts, then i would also want to ask him for a simple, understandable statement of why they are mistaken.
if the stakes are high (e.g. major medical problem, not just routine stuff) then i'd want to get a 2nd, 3rd and even 8th opinion. from people with different types of credentials, or none. and i'd do my own research too.
---
you didn't pick any of your examples and go into details. maybe because all you're doing is picking which experts and news channels to listen to. let's look at one a little:
> 3) His comment about Hillary being "Schlonged"
so he said a rude word that may-or-may-not (i don't know) have a somewhat different but still unkind meaning where he lives. who cares?
part of Trump's message is he'll stand up to the language police. it fits his campaign.
Trump has a long history of successful high stakes business deals. i think those demonstrate he can play nice when he needs to get along with people.
and Trump has a lot of fans and supporters who enjoy Hillary being insulted – especially if it's mildly taboo breaking. sometimes he caters to them. seems reasonable.
whether it's an act or not, in this case, what's the problem? trump dislikes hillary and sometimes makes insulting comments. i don't really see why that would bother anyone but a hillary supporter or a Political Correctness enforcement agent who wants bubblewrap on every sharp edged word.
Clinton Cash book
**Elliot Temple:**
i read some more clinton cash
it's pretty repetitive
they are corrupt
they are corrupt
they are corrupt
and they are corrupt
**Justin Mallone:**
the CLINTONS are pretty repetitive, sadly
**Elliot Temple:**
they sell government policy for personal enrichment
they take corrupt bribes to gain money personally and then use government power to give out favors
they like cash bribes
they do favors for their friends
they are friends with people who give them money
they did this with many different people involving many different countries, companies, and deals
the more power they have, the more money people "donate" to them or "pay for speeches"
when the government is about to decide something, people with a stake in it give them money
when people notice the favors and the money, they are dumbfounded. they don't know what you're talking about, why e.g. that guy got a seat at a dinner table to chat with them for a few hours, or, in some cases, they have no clue where that donation even came from
when a group is immoral, the clintons are extra happy to take their money. guy uses child soldiers to fight over mining? he probably really needs to buy influence and has the profits to pay a premium!
country on the outs with the US? all the more willing to pay for better govt classifications
same old, same old
don't think i'll finish the book
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/glick-soros-campaign-global-chaos
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/31/text-donald-trumps-speech-in-phoenix-on-illegal-immigration/
FACT CHECK: "Trump is down to his last wish from Aladdin." Aladdin is not a genie.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-12-07.html