Logic

[headmount]

You have to admire the way Cliff from Cheers sticks to a logical progression.  But it shows in a humorous manner how one little step in that progression can be altered just so slightly to gain a conclusion that is obviously so flawed.  Important to remember during this election year.

[headmount]

And then there's this approach from not a bar fly but an actual candidate.  This is priceless and stands on its own.

[Weasels wake]

Another example~

[headmount]

The trouble I have with Trump and Rachel Maddow is that they are so repetitious.  They're on opposite sides of the fence and RM is just a commentator but both treat us like we're witless. 

[Tom]

I  think  Trump  is  cornering  the  witless  vote

[Old School 213]

If only there was a "none of the above" box on the ballot. . . . . I'm curious what the alternate party candidates my surface by election time.

And to make you feel better... Half of all people are below average, and they vote! A person is smart, people are stupid and we vote by majority.

[headmount]

Presidents are always scapegoats for people to beat up on. And when they go for a second term they really wear out their welcome. None have been any good. During my life they all have been very disappointing and increasingly so.

Truman got us in and out of Korea but he ignored FDRs anti colonial stance and had Indochina returned to the French after WWII. Any debate or counter arguments about anything were suppressed because there was little national forum and limited media to keep tabs on his performance. If you said too much you were a commie and your life would be ruined.

Eisenhower was the victorious WWII general but he put covert forces into Vietnam after the French were defeated in 1954.

Kennedy continued Ike's covert actions in Vietnam and Laos. He was made into a hero after his death but while he was president there were many who didn't like him, notably the disaster at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, assassination of Thieu in Vietnam and Lumumba iin the Congo as well as plans to kill Castro.

 LBJ, betrayed the south which has never voted democratic since.  He sent overt troops and escalated into Vietnam.

Nixon, Watergate.

Ford wasn't even elected, pardoned Nixon and served only three years but pulled out of Vietnam. It wasn't pretty but it was never going to be.after being there in one form or another for over twenty years.

Carter, Iran hostages, botched rescue mission and high interest rates.

Reagan beat Carter by making a deal with the Iranians to hold hostages until after election (October surprise),  Iran-contra and numerous other laws broken.

Bush senior, read my lips and a half war in Kuwait that galvanized the Saudi radicals.

Clinton, didn't do what? while he was distracted from Osama Bin Laden.

Bush junior WMDs in Iraq, and finally the last two terms of Obama. Some have also had successes but mostly because good things happened while they were in office. The current crop promises to go deeper into the abyss. You really have to examine the process to see that it's extremely flawed. The Citizens United decision would be a great place to start.

 Also selection of Supreme Court Justices by Presidents, politicizes the general election of the President with issues that are emotionally charged (like abortion) and which, other than that president selecting an open seat, would not be under their Presidential domain.  Voting in Justices would show the opinions of the people not the political slant of a President that may have selected them twenty years ago.  I get tired of politicians saying that the 'people' don't like this or that as if they know what the majority opinion is.  They don't.  Presidential elections are often decided by little more than a 50/50 split.  It's entirely possible that people on both sides of that split are in agreement on a specific issue yet their voice is taken away by the president.  Only by voting these black cloak guys into the court can we express our majority opinion.  Just some ideas to make things work better.

[lucabrasi]

Ha. Truman. Does that make you feel old? (great points and examples btw) I not that old and it doesn't make me feel old when I think of who was president when I was born (kennedy) but it does make me feel old when I realize that Reagan was president when I moved out here or when my two oldest kids were born.
Yes, kind of like a qb........quite often too much blame and/or credit on the outcome of things.
I still like that routine where within hours of taking the oath the new president is led back to a room with many military, fbi, cia, and other higher ups in many places. People he has never seen nor heard of. A screen comes on with video footage never seen before is shown of JFK in Dallas that day. Many different angles. The lights come back on and the new president is asked "any questions?".  I know that's not where you were going.....some secret sect doing everything behind closed doors nor do I really believe that tho there is far more than meets the eye going on. 
Within hours of Scalia passing there were huge headlines about the republicans blocking anyone who was nominated by the president. Was it really just some yo yo who said it and it got blown out as newsworthy and to the entire party uniting behind blocking any and all nominees or even just something made up by a reporter who thought that would generate lots of.......buzz. I think it's probably like that and it's that kind of crap that really helps leave a bad taste in the whole process of politics The media and their quest for the scoop just blows things way out of proportion and in this internet point and click age of news it really is amusing the misleading headlines to generate interest. Extra, extra. Read all about it....Beer makes you smarter. Click on that and there you read about the brain cells. I don't know, something like that. Many people don't even click to see the rest of the story. Her's a great example of the fine journalism in the media now. Not even taking into consideration the fact that it is February and the nfl combine is really a who cares kind of thing how could anyone ever have thought of this as a real question.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25496432/watch-joey-bosa-has-great-answer-for-silliest-nfl-combine-question

Well, I clicked on it so I guess it worked? Maybe it is over the top intentionally like so much this loooonnnnngggggg campaign season tho some that is over the top is not intended to be.
Is that how all this works......"that story generated 13,987,324 clicks........what a great journalist" "Jimmy Olson's stories average 8,313,412 clicks within the first 24 hours of being posted......get him over here for us....I don't care what it costs.....".
oh my.......is there anything really logical going on? Spock, where are you?

[spookini]

Cliffie Claybin uses a warped thought process to arrive a seemingly logical conclusion.  Trump doesn't even do that -- he doesn't even complete the thought.  There was an article recently analyzing the speech of all the remaining presidential candidates.. Trump scored the lowest, speaking at a 4th-grade level.  Mostly one and two syllable words, very choppy, short sentences.  (Whatever, I could care less if he was making any sense..)

Below is from a recent one-on-one 'townhall' w/ Trump on MSNBC/Joe Scarborough.   I was listening in the car and the following really struck as a "WTF!?" moment.  Transcript online and cut/paste'd below.  Regarding how Trump plans to get Mexico to pay for 'da wall:

MSNBC:  Donald, you said you're going to build a beautiful wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.  But you never say how.  You say "believe me".  How?

TRUMP:  Believe me.  Let me tell you.  Believe me.

MSNBC:  "Believe me" is not an answer.  How do you get Mexico to pay for it?

TRUMP:  Very simple. You have five different ways.  Number one -- here's the key.  They are making, right -- if you look at it as a company -- $58 billion.  The wall is a -- a year.  We have a trade deficit with Mexico of $58 billion, all I have to do it start playing with that trade deficit, and believe me, they're going to pay for the wall.  You watch. 

MSNBC:  Is there going to -- a possible trade war with Mexico?

TRUMP:   I'm talking about negotiating with them, I'm not talking a trade war with -- I'm talking about Japan.  We have all the cards, Joe.  If we -- I was in Los Angeles, I see these massive ships coming in with cars.  We have all the cards, we don't play them.  We don't have the politicians that know how to play them.  We're negotiating against great negotiators.  China, Mexico, Japan, believe me, we're going to start doing great with those -- that trade.  And that's the thing.  Bernie Sanders can't do it.  The bottom line, I think he would be easier to beat than Hillary.

OK, class.  Can any of you correctly list the 5 different methods described by Mr. Trump to gain Mexico's cooperation??

[Admin]

The lack of Logic is the appeal.  He gains respect by not needing to make sense, by disregarding fact, by derogating freely, by disrespecting convention, by disobeying authority, by...

His audience is vicariously sunning themselves in the freedom that the Teflon Donald is achieving.  Freedom from the numerous structures of society that many feel betrayed by.  The pundits are still waiting for that "wait a second" moment when his supporters will finally see the real Donald...but, of course, they love hem because of this stuff, not despite it. 

[stoneaxe]

Unfortunately we have only ourselves to blame. Increased polarization.....you're stupid if you don't believe what I believe. Add that tot the fact that our culture has devolved to the point where the Kardashians are important.

[eastbound]

nice lil recap, HM--i will say that the high interest rates of the Carter years should be credited to Fed Chairman Paul Volcker--i say "credited" because Volcker did the right thing, in the face of threatening hyper-inflation, and serious political uproar over his approach--prime rate was as High as 21%!--but hey, it slowed the economy, cooled inflation, and paved for prosperity that lasted til the crisis of 2009.

I love Volcker--straight shooter, super smart and principled--and clean, as tested when he partook in the design of Dodd-Frank--had there been any dirt on Paul the big banks would have trashed him, but there was nothing there but a good guy.

the seeds for the inflation of the carter years were sown long before he took office--Entebbe, tho, that didnt go well at all.

Trump vs Maddow? Maddow is highly-educated (Stanford) and well versed on all current affairs. Differ as one might with her POV, she is unarguably well-prepared and articulate, and drills deep into issues.

Trump, well the text above is a great example of his intellectual capacity with real issue discussions--less than zero!

I am horrified that Trump might well be the GOP candidate-says much about people in our country and in the republican party--but hugely entertained: he can be quite funny at the podium, and the panicked circus he has caused over at GOP is hilarious. And his school yard taunts are very funny-- "Marco, stop sweating, your collar is soaked!"

[Weasels wake]

In large part, I consider "logic", as being applied here in this thread, as being another term for "conventional wisdom".
I think conventional wisdom can't really be applied this time around, people, especially in the media, keep trying to apply it, and so far it just isn't working.
I also consider "conventional wisdom" as being at the root of the "establishment".
Is a "sea change" just around the corner?  We'll see.

[lucabrasi]

Yes, I can see conventional wisdom as being seen as something at the root of the establishment. Of course. I think we have all rallied against conventional wisdom at some point and still do in many ways.
Logic and conventional wisdom are intertwined for sure.
The front runner on both sides really.......is just.....beyond logic and far beyond conventional wisdom. I don't know. Trump would be a statement I guess. Hillary would be a.....what the hell? How the hell is she there? I won't say all the stuff I have seen, read, or heard over many, many years is true but by golly, where there is smoke there is usually fire and some has to have some truth to it. I don't know what to make of it. Bernie would be a statement as well.
The last debate was the only one I actually watched close enough to see what was being said. I absolutely turned it on for the entertainment tho more than anything. The one before, Jeb's last one was quite entertaining as well and caught most of it but I didn't really pay attention past that enough to see what was really being said. The democrat debate......not sure if the last one or one previous to that, it was a couple weeks ago on a Saturday evening I think.....just no entertainment value and didn't care enough to really pay attention.
blah, blah, blah, blah........
Does Hilary have to battle Donald with kids gloves on many........personal or personality issues taking into consideration her hubby and also maybe many of their endeavors?

So what does conventional wisdom say............who would be a better first lady.......Bill or Melania? I guess logic would make it Melania.

[PonoBill]

Actually, Cliff's speech is an exercise in logic, not common wisdom. It's an associative equivalence with generalized inference. Yields a weak proof, but obeys fundamental logic processes.