3482 The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish - Rebutted!
There have been no shortage of negative Donald Trump articles during this election cycle, but one specific article stood out as something truly special. Stefan Molyneux reads and rebuts "The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish" written by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian.The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publishhttp://quillette.com/2016/06/05/the-article-about-trump-nobody-will-publish/Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
Hey, hasn't it been a while since we did an article review?
Well, I'm going to take on the special challenge of doing an article review of a man who's been on the show a couple of times and who I like in social settings.
But let's just say we're going to have just a little bit of a difference or two when it comes to a published article.
So the article is called The Article About Trump.
Nobody will publish, written by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian.
Peter is a professor of philosophy and James, I think, is a mathematician.
And the article starts like this.
Editor's note.
This article was rejected by 45 different magazines, periodicals, and journals across the political spectrum.
Far left, left, center, unaffiliated, right, far right.
Really?
Guys, you have a tough time getting anti-Trump stuff published in the run-up to this election?
Gosh, it seems to be that, you know, when the mainstream media is more than nine-tenths negative on Trump, if you're having trouble getting your anti-Trump stuff published, it might not be because you're really, really accurate and radical.
Now, listen, it can be that people have a tough time getting out of the public sphere because they're too excellent to for the mainstream or it might be because of the monstrosity we're going to deal with today.
So this is how the article starts.
Trump is a monstrous choice for president.
Monstrous!
He's a demagogue with a clear bent to authoritarianism.
All right.
Out of the gate we have ad hominems and adjectives and negativity And so for those of you who may have studied philosophy at one time or another, generally you start with definitions and proof, right?
So you need to define your terms and you need to provide proof for your assertions.
So, you know, jumping over to Wiki, we say, okay, he's a demagogue.
And that's just one of these vaguely negative terms that's like generic Hitler, right?
It's the vaguely negative term that people apply towards assertions.
People they don't like.
And authoritarianism!
I don't know.
I mean, Donald Trump wants to significantly reduce the size and power of the state, wants to bring troops back from overseas, wants to reduce taxation, simplify taxation, reduce the tyranny of the IRS and its incredible maze of taxation and regulation.
He wants to reduce regulations.
He wants to lower corporate taxes, which will add to people's income because the corporations won't be paying part of their income in taxes.
He wants to give people more control over their own money, and he wants to stop all of these endless wars, and all of these kinds of things.
He wants to give people more choice in healthcare by allowing more competition across state lines from healthcare insurers and so on.
Authoritarian?
I don't know what that means.
I don't know what Peter and James mean by it.
Why?
Because they don't provide any definition of the word.
Demagogue!
Authoritarianism!
Mini poopy pants.
I don't know, along the same continuum.
So according to Wiki, Wiki, yeah!
A leader, right?
A demagogue.
A leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people.
Hmm.
It's a good thing no one on the Democrat side has ever...
Exploited prejudice and ignorance among the common people, I don't know, by race-baiting, by class-baiting, by gender-baiting.
Ooh, we've never seen any of that come from the left.
Whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.
Whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.
That's a demagogue.
So, I don't know.
Racist!
Sexist!
Homophobic!
Whatever-phobic!
I mean, this is whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned debate.
Half of Trump supporters are in a basket of deplorables!
Or call a basket of deplorables or whatever it is, right?
So, how do you apply demagogue to Trump, say, and not to the left?
Dunno.
Anyway, Wiki also says demagogues have usually advocated immediate violent action to address a national crisis.
Hmm, I wonder if you could maybe whip up Ferguson and other minority neighborhoods into rioting and setting fire to their own neighborhood by claiming that cops are out there to hunt and shoot them down like dogs, huh?
Immediate violent action to address a national crisis.
Hmm.
Oh, I think that the Democrats, and rightly so, view this election as a national crisis, and as James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have proven, the Democrats are behind the hiring of mentally ill people to start violent altercations at Trump rallies.
Hmm.
Demagogues.
Good thing you got Trump on your list there, because otherwise you might be right.
It says, demagogues violate established rules of political conduct.
Oh, wait a moment.
James O'Keefe, Project Veritas.
Demagogues violate established rules of political conduct.
I wonder if that means by, I don't know, talking about how to rig votes, talking about voter fraud.
I wonder if that, oh, oh, I've got one.
Established rules of political conduct.
Wait, tip of my tongue.
Yes, that's right.
Coordinating with political action committees.
Illegal!
Otherwise, it's a campaign contribution.
It's illegal.
And Project Veritas has the Democrats routinely coordinating.
I'm on a morning 10 a.m.
call all the time.
Hillary wants ducks on the ground.
God, the things that the politics makes me say.
Demagogues violate established rules of political conduct.
Huh.
Huh.
I got a server in my toilet for classified information.
Huh.
Most who were elected, this is from Wiki, most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of dictatorship.
Huh.
I wonder if this has something to do with executive actions and bypassing Congress.
Obama and Bush feel like declaring war?
No!
That's just the Constitution.
Constitution, goddamn piece of paper, according to Bush.
So...
When it comes to talking about a demagogue, what you have to do is define what a demagogue is and then provide clear examples of how Trump fits this definition.
See, that's what used to quaintly be called philosophy or just being vaguely reasonable or credible to anybody with half a brain.
So...
You provide...
Oh, Trump is a demagogue.
Now, you don't start by saying that usually.
You say, here's what a demagogue is.
Here's what Trump has done that fits that description and criteria.
And not what the other people have done more, right?
Right?
I mean, if you want to say that Danny DeVito is tall, then don't stack him next to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, right?
He may be tall relative to a ferret, but he's short.
Right?
So if you want to say...
Trump is a demagogue.
Okay, fine, you make the case if you want.
Good luck.
Make the case.
Here's a demagogue.
Here's how Trump does it.
And here's how Trump's opponents don't do it more, right?
Because if you're going to talk about demagogues, you would definitely be talking about the Dems rather than...
Anyway.
And the funny thing is, see, this is the thing.
Philosophers...
They like Socrates.
I did a whole show with Peter on the Socratic method.
Philosophers like Socrates.
Hey, you know what happened to Socrates?
It wasn't super fun, and I've got a whole, I think, a six-part series on the trial and death of Socrates on this channel from six or seven years ago.
So, what happened to Socrates, you see?
Peter and James was.
Socrates had a lot of negatives attached to him.
A lot of horrible adjectives.
A lot of pejoratives.
A lot of ad hominems.
He doesn't believe in the gods of the city.
He's corrupting the young.
He puts forward the worst argument knowing it's the worst argument to make everything worse.
Bad, bad, Socrates.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, Leroy Brown.
And then what did they do?
Well, they killed him.
Right?
Did they make arguments?
Did Miletus make good arguments rebutting what Socrates had to say?
No!
Just kept calling him negative nasty names with no definitions and no proof.
Ha!
Kind of funny how academic philosophers who rely on the Socratic method could arguably be doing exactly what the Athenian mob did to Socrates.
Let's find out as we continue our exploration.
So...
The next part is, this article continues.
Trump.
He's completely politically inexperienced and has no clear idea what constitutes successful, appropriate, or even legal behavior for an elected official.
Whoa.
Now that's a lot.
That's a lot of negatives.
So first of all, The fact that he's completely politically inexperienced, that's kind of the point.
Because, you see, America has been run by professional politicians, lo these 50 to 75 years.
And how's that been going for America?
Massive overseas wars, endless debts, the creation of a permanent underclass sucking on the...
Giant Memerian teat of welfare and the military-industrial complex and crumbling institutions and crumbling education and crumbling infrastructure.
How's it been going?
All the experienced people have messed things up.
So the fact that he's politically inexperienced, I don't really think that that's a minus.
Just my particular point of view.
Hey, you know who's got a lot of political experience?
Hillary Clinton.
Hey, you know who's under her second or revived FBI investigation for criminal activity?
Hillary Clinton.
But it's okay, because at least she's experienced.
So, according to these two men, Trump has no clear idea of what constitutes successful, appropriate, or even legal behavior for an elected official.
Now, that's quite a lot.
That's quite a big claim there.
He has no idea.
So he has no idea how to be successful in politics.
No idea how to be successful in politics.
See, the problem with that, guys, is that Trump is by far the most successful politician since...
Forever.
Forever.
Came in with no political experience, no history, no fundraising machine, incredibly hostile media, incredibly hostile Democrats, incredibly hostile Republican Party who hated him and have tried to undermine him at pretty much every turn until he forces them to finally get in line by dragging along with the giant Cheney rope of his success attached to their nets.
So, kind of the most successful politician since forever, and this is the first time he's done it.
I'd say...
That's pretty good.
Hey, feel like graduating from karaoke to opening for the resurrected Freddie Mercury?
I don't either.
Although it would be fun, come to think of it.
But hey, topic for another time.
So, yeah.
Of course he knows what successful behavior is.
Appropriate?
Even legal?
Are you saying that compared to Hillary Clinton?
Compared to...
Okay, you're running against Socrates.
You got a challenge.
Compared to Hillary Clinton?
Trump doesn't know what's legal for an elected official.
Are you kidding me?
You can't...
You can't possibly...
I'm sorry, I know that incomprehension is not an argument.
But you can't be making that argument.
I mean, the woman is...
What is it, like, there's five FBI investigations into potentially illegal behavior?
With her, and Uma Abedin, and the Clinton Foundation, and oh my god.
Yes, but Trump doesn't have any clue what constitutes legal behavior for an elected official.
And again, if you want to accuse someone of doing illegal things or not having a clue what legality is, how about you define what is illegal for an elected official and then provide proof that Trump doesn't meet that standard?
Definition and proof.
We talked about it before.
We really did.
I'm sure you teach it.
The article continues.
Trump, he has repeatedly proven himself to be literally incoherent on foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the military.
Wow.
You know, this is just a personal thing to do with me, so hopefully this will make some sense.
But, you know, I don't make a lot of recommendations when it comes to foreign policy.
I certainly don't make proactive recommendations for economics.
I think people should not have a gun to their head when they want to trade voluntarily, and I don't care what they're trading.
I just don't think a gun should be involved when people are looking to provide win-win negotiations with each other in a peaceful manner.
So, I don't make positive, we've got to do this with the economy.
Diplomacy!
You haven't heard me making a lot of diplomatic suggestions, and I sure as hell am not going to make a lot of military suggestions.
Do you know why?
Do you know why, everyone?
Because I'm an idiot in these areas.
I am humble in these areas.
I don't have a whole raft of experts and expertise, and I don't have all of these advisors, and I haven't thought about it for...
I've been an involuntarist most of my life when I don't care about government policy, right?
But I don't talk about these things because they're very specialized disciplines and I try not to talk about things I don't really know much about.
So when Peter and James, they say that Trump is virtually incoherent on foreign policy.
Okay, what is really great foreign policy?
These guys must know.
Because they're saying Trump doesn't come up.
What's really great?
Economics.
What's really great?
Diplomacy.
What's really great with regards to the military?
These guys must know.
They must be experts in these areas so that they can clearly see how far Trump falls short of their expertise.
And those are some pretty impressive things to be experts on.
Foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the military.
Woo!
That is quite a basket of competence that you've got going on there.
Well, you know, and there are, I don't know, a couple of hundred generals who get behind what Donald Trump says, and he wants to return economic choices as much as is probably politically possible at the moment to the hands of the people by letting them keep their own money rather than taxing it and using it as collateral to sell off their children's futures.
So, I... You know, again, if you're going to say somebody's, what is it, virtually incoherent, well, then show how they consciously contradict themselves or how they contradict your experts.
Now, your expertise, sorry.
Because you can always find an expert to disagree with anyone.
Anyone, anyone, anyone, anyone.
Well, these experts say that Donald Trump's tax plan will reduce the deficit by so much.
Well, these experts say that it will increase, which is why economics is largely voodoo that relies on the tea leaves, the bloody stained tea leaves of state power and its leftovers.
So provide a definition of what is excellence in these areas and then show how Donald Trump is either incoherent or doesn't rise to the wonderful standards that you know.
And by the way, if you guys have these wonderful standards in the fields of foreign policy, economics, diplomacy and these other things...
Just write them down for everyone.
Because if they're the best ideas, you really should either run for office yourself or write them down.
I mean, I've done some of these things with my arguments.
So they go on to say, Trump's, his only true assets are self-promotion, juvenile tweets, and belittling his enemies.
Huh!
Gosh!
Belittling your enemies.
Wouldn't that be a terrible, terrible thing to do?
You see where I'm going here, right?
This is not a great mystery.
Belittling your enemies.
Wow.
Guys, do you mean belittling your enemies by, like, say, slamming them with no proof, no evidence, no definition, just providing negative after negative, ad hominav after heaven, with not a single fact to back up what you're saying?
Would that be called belittling your enemies?
Is that a really bad thing to do?
You provide no evidence that Trump does it, but you're doing it right here in this article.
Relentlessly.
Horrendously.
His only true assets are self-promotion.
Juvenile tweets.
Again.
Yes, he's good at promoting himself.
But you know what?
You also actually have to build things.
You also actually have to be effective.
You have to make people money.
You have to sign contracts.
You have to understand the law.
You have to negotiate with unions.
You have to do all of these wonderful things to build up his massive multi-billion dollar company and his massive multi-billion dollar personal wealth.
So...
It's like looking at Michael Jordan saying, well, his only true asset is height.
It's like, well, lots of tall people aren't Michael Jordan, and lots of people who...
Lots of people in the world are good at promoting themselves, they write juvenile tweets, and they belittle their enemies.
And...
What does that mean?
Aren't you doing that?
And isn't this just projection?
And where's the proof?
Where's the definition?
Where's the proof?
So they go on to say, Trump, he's barely qualified to be president of anything, especially anything with the military.
He's a CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation.
What are you guys, academics?
With tenure?
Maybe, maybe not.
I don't know.
But he's barely qualified to be president of anything, especially anything.
So you guys are military experts.
You know how the military should be run.
You know that he's falling short.
You've got the definitions.
You've got the proof.
But you're just withholding it from everyone for reasons that just seem very, very cruel.
You know, this is what Socrates used to say.
If somebody said, Socrates, you're wrong.
You're absolutely wrong.
Socrates would say, well, don't tell me I'm wrong without showing me that I'm wrong because that's very cruel.
If I'm wrong, instruct me, inform me, show me the way.
Because you don't want to just preach to an echo chamber, right?
You have to make good arguments with reason and evidence, because otherwise all you're doing is getting people to nod along with you who aren't thinking and already agree with your prejudice.
Ah, what was that called?
Yes, that's right.
Sophistry.
Or, perhaps, being a demagogue.
So, they go on to say...
It goes without saying, then, that essentially no one in their right mind should want him as president of the United States of America.
Ooh.
Not an argument.
You know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Then, then it's like, okay, as this domino just comes down because all the previous dominoes went down, it's like, no, all the previous dominoes were bullshit.
All the previous dominoes were just a bunch of negative statements with neither definitions nor proofs nor arguments.
You're a poopy head.
You smell like elderberries.
Your mother was a hamster.
Therefore, I am right.
Saying therefore doesn't make anything an argument.
And of course...
I'm pro-Trump.
What's the point of being coy?
It's only a week to go.
I'm pro-Trump.
So clearly, for these two guys, I'm not in my right mind.
I'm insane.
I'm literally insane for having this.
And half of America is insane for having this.
On the other hand, being pro-Hillary, that's just sane as all get-up.
Unless you like, say, remote bits of stabilization in the Middle East, not hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners dead, and a mass invasion of primitive cultures into Europe, well, maybe, maybe you could be in your right mind to not like those things and look for an alternative.
Just a possibility.
So they go on to say, the problem, however, is that America is no longer in its right mind.
Major political cancers are driving it to madness!
Oh yeah, cancer is the new Hitler.
It's cancer!
It's a cancer with a mustache from Austria that invaded Austria and killed himself in a bunker.
They're going to say, but what would happen should Trump get elected on the right?
President Trump would force the GOP to completely reorganize and fast.
It would compel them to abandon their devastating pitch to the extreme right.
The Republican Party would have to get back on the rails and do so quickly to reclaim a stable position in American politics.
Okay, I don't know what this means.
Like, I've read this I don't even know how many times.
I have no idea what this means.
So if Trump gets elected...
He would force the GOP to completely reorganize and fast.
First of all, the GOP is already completely reorganizing because they've got somebody who's actually popular with the people and providing what they want rather than making promises they'll never keep, like all of the previous Republican politicians going back since the dawn of time.
So it, I don't know what it refers to here, it would compel them to abandon their devastating pitch to the extreme right?
What would?
Trump?
Well, according to these guys, Trump is an extreme rightist, so I don't know what this means.
The Republican Party would have to get back on the rails and do so quickly to reclaim a stable position in American politics.
I'm sorry, this is just...
Right?
I have no idea, so I'm just going to have to pretend we didn't hit something on the road and drive on through the darkness.
They go on to say, on the left, the existence of the greatest impossible dread imaginable of President Trump would rouse sleepy mainline liberals from their dogmatic slumber.
Well, that's a nod to Kent.
And guys, guys, I don't know what you've been reading over the last year and a half.
Do you really think that liberals, that people on the left, that Democrats have been slumbering through Trump's rise?
They've been attacking him like a bunch of hyenas on a wounded elephant.
Who grows stronger by eating hyenas?
Sorry, I lost the metaphor here completely.
No, they're not just dozily letting Trump get to the top.
They're throwing everything that they can possibly throw at him, and then more.
Ah, let us find the kidney of a homeless man and throw it at him.
Oh, he's eaten that and he's gotten stronger too.
Maybe he's still an elephant in this analogy.
I don't know.
That just went pure chaos.
But that's all right.
So they go on to say it, which is Trump's presidency, it would force them to turn sharply away from the excesses of its screeching reality denying uncompromising and authoritarian fringe that provided much of Trump's thrust in the first place.
Okay, that's a lot of words, guys.
Do you feel like coming up with a couple of definitions?
And some evidence, some facts, some arguments.
No!
We're going to say the word screeching and reality denying.
What are they screeching about?
If I screech that two and two make four, is two and two no longer make four because I'm screeching?
Are bats and shark spinsters always incorrect?
Reality denying.
Okay, how are they denying reality?
Uncompromising.
Well, that's not bad if you're in the right.
See, uncompromising is good if you're in the authoritarian.
Fringe!
These are just words, you know?
It's like, anyone who's a nationalist is far right, but anyone who's a globalist, well, they're just a Democrat.
You don't understand.
If you're in this echo chamber, you don't see it, but, you know, hopefully you will someday.
The article goes on to say See, that's how you really want to try and figure out your political analysis is volume.
If you say that there are loud issues, have you made an argument?
No.
No, not at all.
And this question of huge corporate campaign donations, this tells you whether somebody has been just reading a bunch of lefty propaganda or whether they actually know anything about...
American campaign finance law corporations in America are not allowed to donate to candidates not allowed if you run a corporation you got to take it out of your personal account you can't take it out of your business account so corporations can't donate so when people talk about huge corporate campaign donations they don't exist now You can, of course, set up a political action committee, which is supposed to be divorced and separate from the campaign.
Otherwise, it's a contribution, as we mentioned earlier, but the Democrats are blowing past that.
And if you are concerned about dark money in American politics, well, you've got to shrink the size and power of the state.
If the state has the power to buy and sell trillions of dollars, well...
They're going to do it, right?
Buy and sell trillions of dollars worth of stuff.
They're going to do it.
People who want to sell to the government are going to be very interested in how the government does things.
People who buy from the government are going to be very interested in how the government does things.
When the government is so big, when it controls trillions of dollars, people are going to swarm around it.
It's like, hey, it's like the elephant.
They die and then you get a bunch of jackals.
Okay, that works a little better, so.
The elephant was resurrected briefly and then killed off analogistically in order to complete the cycle of life, of my analogy, which now has become an analogy for the analogy.
Anyway, step out of the maze, Steph.
Let us continue.
So, yeah, if you're concerned about big money in American politics, the fact that Donald Trump is largely self-funding...
His campaign should give you some interest because he's not going to be bought and sold by the special interest groups that generally buy and sell politicians, right?
I mean, Obama took an enormous amount of money from Wall Street.
Hillary Clinton's taking an enormous amount of money from Wall Street.
And Obama never really went after anyone, part of the cabal responsible, in part at least, for the 2007-2008 financial crash.
They did go after...
The people who wanted to protest, right?
The 99 percenters who wanted to occupy Wall Street people, they went off and arrested those guys, just not any of the bankers, because they took the money from the bankers and all of that.
So...
Yeah.
If you're going to bring up campaign contributions, well, then you should be very positive towards Donald Trump.
But if you're not thinking at all, and if you're only interested in, I don't know, demagoguery and proselytizing and sophistry, then you're going to just ignore that.
So, the article goes on to say, Of these cancers, perhaps the most significant is today's mainline Republican Party, which is best described as being hyper-rights.
It's not just far right now.
It's gone off impulse power.
It's become hyper-right.
What does that mean?
Hyper-right.
It's an extreme.
It's an extreme.
It's a fringe.
What does this even mean?
Let's say the right is correct about wanting smaller government.
You know, it used to be quite a lot smaller in the past.
A hundred years ago, the government was only 5% the size.
And yes, there were roads.
Anyway, so...
Hyper-rational!
Hyper-correct in two and two make four.
It's hyper...
I mean, what does hyper mean?
It's the usual language, which is kind of a pillaging of the Aristotelian mean, also known as intellectual cowardice.
And what it means is, well, everything in the middle is kind of okay, but anything at any kind of extreme is bad.
I understand that when it comes to something like courage.
An extreme of courage as Aristotle would argue is foolhardiness and too much risk.
A deficiency of courage is cowardice.
You want to get things right in the middle.
But...
I don't think that...
I'm pretty sure.
Actually, I know for certain.
Aristotle did not mean, well, when it comes to axe murdering, too much is bad.
Too little is bad.
You want just the right amount of axe murderers in the middle.
And so when the politicians on the right say we want smaller government, we want more power to the states, we want people to be able to keep more of their own money, hyper...
what?
Hyper...
Hyper, the way it used to be in America up until relatively recently.
I mean, the way that America was founded.
Remember, the whole reason there is in America is because they didn't want taxation without representation.
They felt that the burdens of a couple of percent point tax from King George was unacceptable.
So what does hyper right mean?
Hyper right.
I've never understood.
This extreme argument.
It's just supposed to fear uncertainty.
Ooh, it's extreme.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Things are too extreme.
I don't want any of that.
I'm going to sit here right in the middle, which always decays and falls apart like a donut.
So, the Republican Party, which is best described as being hyper-right and utterly recalcitrant, firmer critics, describe it as obstructionist and seditious.
That is quite a bag of words, gentlemen.
Do you feel like making any definitions at all?
Do you feel like providing any examples at all?
No!
We've got a bag of words.
We've got a thesaurus.
And when you've got a thesaurus, you know, you don't need arguments.
You don't need any evidence.
You don't need any definitions whatsoever.
Because we've got hyper.
We've got recalcitrant.
We've got obstructionist and seditious.
And...
Dancophobic and overly tattooed and sniffy and strangely pierced and all we need to go on and on.
Gonna make an argument anytime soon?
Let's find out, shall we?
They go on to say, Given the GOP's grotesquely partisan behavior during the entire tenure of Obama's two terms in office.
Ah, wait, let's just pause here.
Let's just pause here and see if we can figure out whether these guys are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, or Greens, or Libertarians, or you name it, right?
Because you see, the GOP was grotesquely partisan during the entire tenure of Obama's two terms in office.
So...
Isn't it grotesquely partisan to describe the GOP as being grotesquely partisan without any evidence, without any definition?
What is grotesquely partisan?
Is there handsomely partisan?
They were probably hyper-partisan, don't you think so?
An obstructionist and seditious and recalcitrant and lime-filled.
I don't know what, right?
So, anyway, they go on to say, grotesquely partisan behavior.
It hardly needs detailing that the Republican flight from Eisenhower conservatism to the borderline insane far, far right bunker.
It has backed itself into its one of the greatest domestic political challenges that America currently faces.
Or did your keyboard just fall apart at this point?
I can't do it anymore.
Please make me type at least one argument.
That's right.
Anthony Weiner.
He turned on sticky keys.
There's no reason for that particular comment.
I just wanted to make it at the moment.
So...
Borderline insane.
Far, far right.
Bunker.
See, you say bunker because that evokes Hitler and defensiveness and all of that kind of stuff.
And, you know, it's funny.
Eisenhower conservatism.
See, Trump is talking about deporting illegal immigrants.
And Eisenhower had something called Operation Wetback that deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.
So I don't think that they're flying from Eisenhower conservatism.
I think they're kind of returning to it, but a little taller.
And...
More hair.
So I don't know what that means.
It's really partisan for people on the right to oppose people on the left.
Is it equally partisan for people on the left to oppose people on the right?
Of course not.
It's only grotesque bipartisanship.
Anyway, you understand this.
And the other thing too is that the Republican Party in general, I think they're coming around slowly now, they hate Trump.
They hate Trump because Trump is getting them in trouble with the media.
See, very, very briefly, the Republican establishment, the GOP, as it stood prior to Trump, were terrified of the media because the media will say mean things about you if you don't kowtow to the left's positions, right?
So they would promise the voters to do all of this wonderful stuff and shrink the government and repeal Obamacare and to control illegal immigration and all this kind of stuff.
And they'd say that to the voters, but then they wouldn't want to enact those policies because then they'd be called racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever bag of crap the left can throw at you.
They'd be called all of that in the media.
So they make the promises, and then they break the promises.
Make the promises to get the votes, break the promises to keep the approval of the media.
And when Trump came along, he made the promises, and has been keeping the promises, and it's basically showing that if you stand up to the media, they crumble.
Boy, doesn't that make conservatives prior to Trump look like a bunch of panty-suit, wet-back, spineless Nancy jellyfish nanobies.
That's right.
When one man stands up, and the enemies you feared so much just dry up and blow away, what were you scared of the whole time?
Oh look, there's a shadow!
Run!
So the Republican Party hates Trump.
So if it's been a while that the Republican Party has taken to constitute itself into its current form and they hate Trump, how can you hate Trump and the Republican Party if they hate each other?
At least give me a definition.
I'm waiting.
They go on to say, Trump's shocking and meteoric rise in the Republican primaries has already put the GOP House in shambles.
However, and the metaphor is almost too sweet to pass up.
What metaphor?
House?
It's really not that sweet a metaphor.
Maybe it's a candy house.
Maybe it's Hansel and Gretel.
Maybe Trump is the witch.
Oh man, now I'm hungry.
Okay, focus.
Crank up the blood sugar.
Crank up the blood sugar.
So, now, Trump's rise is not shocking to anybody who understands any kind of issues, particularly with regards to immigration.
I know I've said this before, I'm sorry to repeat.
Since 1965, immigration into America has switched from European, which was more culturally compatible in many ways, to third world immigration.
Third world immigrants vote overwhelmingly to the left, which is why it was the left who changed, right, who changed the immigration from Europe to the third world.
And so third worlders vote left overwhelmingly.
And so people are getting kind of frustrated that you can't have a conversation because the left is basically...
Stealing the elections with immigrants.
That's not a startling statement to anybody who's in even partial possession of the facts.
So the moment that Trump comes along and says, I'm going to enforce immigration laws and maybe we should take a pause, given that one out of every two babies born in America at the moment is born to foreign-born people, well, that's a big deal.
7% of babies born in America are anchor babies.
That's a big deal.
You know, America has the right to say, let's take a break and see whether this assimilation thing works.
Nobody's ever tried to assimilate that many people from that many different cultures under one umbrella of a Western democracy slash republic.
Let's find out if it works first, you know, for a little while.
And then maybe...
So it's only shocking to people who just aren't in...
They're just living in a leftist echo chamber and don't understand the concerns of Americans around immigration.
So they go on to say, over the past two decades, and especially the last eight years, the Republican Party has allowed ideological corruption to rot its once stable corporate structure from within.
And again, I don't...
has allowed ideological corruption to rot its once stable corporate structure from within.
What does that mean?
What is ideological purity?
What ideas are causing problems?
What is your analysis of them?
How do they compare to objective morality?
What is objective morality and how is this deficient?
Just throw a bone here!
We're dying on these ghostly murder burgers of nonsense.
So, um, and meanwhile, meanwhile, a constant gale of far-right pressure has shoved upon the party from at least two sides, the religious right and the anti-government Tea Party and its sympathizers.
Right.
Okay.
I can understand that Peter's an atheist.
I don't know about his, uh, friend.
Um...
Yeah, okay, I understand the religious right, but the religious right is not trying to say that everyone has to go to Sunday school at gunpoint, right?
I mean, they're not that way inclined.
And the anti-government Tea Party, I don't know, anti-government.
If you want to reduce taxes, you're not anti-government, you're anti-tyranny, right?
I mean, that's sort of important.
There's a ridiculous amount of taxation throughout the West at the moment compared to how it was Historically, right?
I mean, in ancient Rome, you only had to work two days a year to pay your taxes, and they had a giant empire, beautiful roads, and dancing girls on every corner, I think.
It's been a while since they did that presentation, but you should watch it.
Truth about the fall of Rome.
Anyway.
Anti-government?
No, anti-tax.
Anti-extreme tax.
None of them were anarchists.
They didn't want no government.
They just didn't want too much government.
And, um...
I don't know.
Like, if you're against...
Government subsidies to farmers?
Are you anti-food?
Are you anti-farmer?
No, you're just anti-excessive government subsidies to farmers.
And so again, this is just a simplification.
No attempt to understand an opposing position by just reaching into your grab bag of leftist in order to smear and not actually make any arguments.
They go on to say, even an institution as old and robust as the party of Lincoln is not sustainable against these forces.
And so the house of GOP condemned itself.
Then in walks a take-no-prisoners real estate mogul, declares the entire enterprise a loss, and becomes the very wrecking ball that smashes it to pieces.
Real estate mogul.
Yeah.
No, see, I mean, he's a successful author.
He's been a political commentator for many years.
He is a successful television star and television producer.
He produces beauty pageants.
He does real estate.
I mean, the man is incredibly talented.
He's a renaissance man in terms of all the things that he can do.
But of course, people just say, oh, he's only real estate.
So the GOP has become rotten, and Trump, who opposes GOP, is also rotten.
So basically, everyone who's not you, or anyone who's even remotely not to the left of you, is rotten!
And just, you know, I don't know what this means.
GOP is rotten, and...
Someone the GOP hates is also rotten.
Anyway, and also really, the party of Lincoln.
The party of Lincoln.
This again, these are people who've just never branched outside the government's education and indoctrination about some things.
I mean, you want to talk about a demagogue?
You want to talk about a tyrant?
Man, Lincoln, probably the greatest tyrant in American history.
Do you know?
I mean, do you know?
Hi, I'm going to free the slave.
No, first four months of the presidency, the guy installed and created a total military dictatorship.
The guy completely shredded the Constitution.
And it never came back.
Lincoln ended forever.
The Constitutional Republic, which was instituted by the founding fathers, Lincoln committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens.
And he formed, created, and helped sustain the incredible oppressive federal government, which continues to grind American people down under its heel to this day.
Lincoln?
Lincoln!
The party of Lincoln?
Oh no!
Trump might be a demagogue!
He might be dangerous!
He might be authoritarian!
So let's get back to Lincoln!
What did Lincoln do?
Uh...
Well, Lincoln arrested the publishers, editors, and owners of...
Many, many newspapers.
And threw them in prison.
With no charges.
With no trials.
For the entire civil war.
Ha!
Constitution.
Supreme Court.
Ha!
Due process.
No!
Enough of that.
Honestly, I'm Abe.
I'm a tyrant.
I mean, God almighty.
He went to war because the South wasn't willing to cough up more tariffs, which were already funding 85% of the federal budget, of the US government budget, and didn't want to pay more.
So he invaded the South, and people didn't like it.
They didn't like it at all.
So...
Abe Lincoln had arrested and imprisoned, again, no trial, no charges, just round him up and throw him in jail, between 15,000 to 20,000 US citizens who disagreed with him about the war, or were suspected of anti-war feelings.
I got a feeling you're going to jail!
I mean, that would be like Bush throwing between 150,000 and 200,000 Americans in jail with no trial, no due process for having reservations about the Iraq War.
Lincoln sent the army to Maryland and arrested the entire legislature to keep them from their legal meetings.
Why?
Because they were debating a bill of secession.
They were all, entire legislature, imprisoned without charges or trial.
Direct violation of the Constitution.
Ah, just madness.
I mean, 300 newspapers invaded, stole, closed them down, threw people in jail because they didn't like the war.
First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
Bah!
I've got a stovepipe hat.
It is filled with madness and evil.
Bah!
So, yeah, the party of Lincoln, boy.
It'd be great if they went back to the party of Lincoln because, you see, Trump might be a demagogue.
Lord.
All right.
Now, they talk about the political correctness, and we'll just go through this briefly.
It's, again, no arguments.
I happen to agree with a lot of it, but...
So what?
Still not making any arguments, right?
So they go on to say, the second cancer, the far right's mirror image, the shrieking victimhood-obsessed culture on the far left.
Trump's rise isn't just explained by the failure of the GOP to get its house in order, conduct responsible politics, or find a single qualified candidate to run for the office.
Trump's rise follows directly from backlash to two words, political correctness.
These two words are two of Trump's favorites and not arbitrarily.
It's almost impossible to find a Trump supporter who doesn't back them explicitly because of his unflinching, dismissive, even hostile stance against political correctness.
Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
Vote Trump!
Could be a campaign bumper sticker.
Should that not be convincing enough?
Clinching the case was the recent Race to the Bottom sparring match between Trump and former GOP hopeful Ted Cruz, over which of them is to be deplored for being more PC than the other.
The politically correct left is a cancer too.
Ah!
Cancer's to the left of me, cancer's to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you.
It diagnoses societal symptoms far too simplistically and, largely just by calling them bigots, smears anyone who questions their moral pronouncements.
Huh.
Wait a minute.
Are you guys saying that you shouldn't just smear people for questioning your moral pronouncements by calling them, I don't know, demagogues and dangerous and I don't know.
Just a thought.
Maybe you should make some arguments.
We'll see.
Holding my breath.
Not holding my hope up.
They're going to say their assessment possesses no more nuance than accusing those on the right of holding policy positions because they're bigots, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and anything else phobic or ist that their imaginations allow.
So anyway, they go on a little bit about...
You can obviously link the article below.
Not a lot of examples and all of that sort of stuff.
And I'll just get down here to the end.
And they say, These are the most egregious cancers eating the American body politic from the inside.
Yet there are more.
To name just one, campaign finance reform is the closest thing to a topical issue that Trump's campaigning efforts represents.
See, now this is the thing too.
If you're in academia, people swarming in from Mexico or Somalia, they're not competing for your jobs, right?
Have some sensitivity.
Have some thought to the Rust Belt states, right?
To the people who used to be able to work in manufacturing and had a stable middle class income and had benefits and had security and had retirement funds and healthcare provided and all of that.
I mean, these people have been shredded and torn apart over the past 20 years by...
Immigration, by bad trade deals, by government spending, by hyper-regulation, by you name it, right?
I mean, have some care, some thought for these people who are destroyed.
Their lives have been literally destroyed and now they're stuck on welfare or they're stuck on unemployment insurance for whatever part-time jobs they can get.
Or they're stuck on disability, or they're trying to retire early, or they're living in their, I don't know, parents' basement, even if they're 50.
I mean, it's really, it's a terrible situation in sort of, what do they call flyover countries, a dismissive and horrible term.
But these people are having a very, very tough time.
And they're angry.
And they should be.
They should be angry.
They've got a lot to be angry about.
Now, campaign finance reform is not number one on their list.
But...
These guys are saying it's the closest thing to a topical issue that Trump campaigning efforts represents.
Well, here's the thing, guys.
I don't know how to put this nicely, so I'm not going to.
You need to go out and talk to people.
You need to go out and talk to people.
Like I've been doing a call-in show for almost 10 years.
I've been doing it.
Five, six hours a week.
People call in and they call in with their concerns.
They call in with their thoughts.
Before Trump ran for office, he hired a guy to listen to talk radio and make notes for a year to figure out what people were interested in, what people were frustrated about, what topics did they want.
What do they want from their political leaders?
Particularly, of course, talk radio is a little bit more right-wing, so he was getting that kind of stuff.
Because you've got to go out and talk to people.
The fact that you're interested in campaign finance reform doesn't mean that it's the only topical issue that matters.
Talk to people.
A guy whose father had a job for 40 years...
And now can't even get a job at Starbucks is angry and frustrated and humiliated and it's a tough life out there for a lot of people in America and just because it's some topic that's of interest to you Just go talk to people.
Listen to them.
Find out what's important to them.
Get your head out of the clouds.
Climb down from the ivory tower and talk and listen to people.
You'll find some wonderfully informative things that can help snap you out of this ideological matrix delusion that so many people get stuck into.
So they go on to say, the billionaire runs not just on a platform of making fun of the dilapidated GOP and PC children, but nominally on being self-funded.
What does nominally mean?
He is largely self-funded.
Now, he did end up taking donations because people really, really wanted to give him donations and he didn't want to say no.
What does nominally self-funded mean?
Compared to Hillary?
Where the hell's Hillary's money come from?
You don't think those people are going to want to favor us back and be mad at Trump?
Trump is campaign finance reform.
Because if you don't get someone in there who's not beholden to special interest groups, you won't get any campaign finance reform.
Don't you understand that?
For God's sakes.
Everyone who gets into office is already bought and paid for their NASCAR with stickers all over them.
They've already sold off your future to get into power.
You want campaign finance reform?
Get someone into power who's not beholden to everyone who gave him money beforehand.
That's Trump.
And nobody else.
Nobody else.
They go on to say, Trump sells himself successfully to his disenfranchised patriotic base as the very image of campaign finance reform, something they seem not to understand but hate all the more for it, really.
They seem not to understand.
So basically, they're just hicks.
They're just like, what is that pickup line in Alabama?
Nice tooth!
I mean, that's, they're just like, tow mater from cars.
I mean, they just, they don't know.
How do you know that they don't understand it?
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an unsophisticated hick who's just angry incomprehensibly and prejudiced.
Like, this is just cheap, guys.
Come on.
Learn something about people who disagree with you.
Learn what their issues are.
You may not agree with them.
Like, I understand what motivates the Bernie Sanders supporters.
I disagree with the conclusions, but I thoroughly, thoroughly understand and sympathize with a lot of the complaints that they have about the existing system.
Yeah, there's way too much money going into politics, buying off politicians.
That's not going to change until someone gets in there to shrink the science and power of the state.
You simply can't have it any other way.
And so just learn some things.
Don't just insult people who disagree with you.
It's boring.
Now, of course, people are going to say, well, you're insulting someone who's disagreeing with you.
It's like, no, but they're not making any arguments.
They're not putting any definitions forward.
No facts.
They're just making acerbic assertions.
It's boring.
It's beneath them.
It's smarter than that.
Better than that, I hope.
Anyway.
It's supposed to be encouraging, you know, like an electric shock can help make you run faster, or in some direction towards the light.
So they go on to say, and make no mistake, campaign finance reform is a serious issue that needs serious attention.
It is, after all, the same issue that propelled Bernie Sanders to be the darling of the progressive left.
In showing that they are viable, even against big money, Trump and Sanders also prove just how desperately Americans need, and democracy demands, campaign finance reform.
And the word reform, it's so boring.
I mean, campaign finance reform, immigration reform.
What does it mean?
I don't know.
Change it.
Change it!
Companies losing money.
Change it!
That's my contribution.
I'm a consultant.
Pay me a million dollars.
Your business is tanking.
Running out of money.
Change stuff.
Reform your business.
Thank you.
I will pick up my check on the way out.
I mean, what does that mean?
There's no thought that goes into it.
Reform!
Better!
I mean, you don't fix a failing business by screaming profits in the ductwork.
I guess you could try, but...
Where's the answers here?
Reform!
What does that mean?
I don't know.
I think I want to say now, and not even needing the qualifier as Liberal's qualifier, we do not want to vote for Trump.
However, we have to admit that even the notion of a President Donald J. Trump makes an utter mockery of the foundations upon which these political troubles stand.
And so he may actually represent an unpalatable but real chance of destroying these two political cancers of our time and thus remedying our insanity-inflicted democracy.
Hey, wait a minute.
If you guys are on the left, let me just...
Let me just run a little something by you here, you know, just see if you find it interesting.
If you're on the left, then you support government education, right?
And, of course, the Democrats, through the teachers' unions and all that, they control Almost exclusively government education.
So, if you feel that there's something wrong with the thought capacities of the American public that they can't see through a shallow demagogue like Trump, why aren't you opposing government-run or Democrat-run education?
Why aren't you asking that it be privatized?
Why aren't you asking for vouchers?
Why aren't any of that stuff?
America is insane!
Who's educating Americans?
Our friends!
Do you think that should change?
No!
Is Trump the bigger issue or is education?
You know, back in the day, Socrates thought that immorality was a form of ignorance.
And if you educate people, they will become more moral.
That's an interesting idea.
I think there's some merit in it.
If you get them, get them young.
Get them while they're young enough.
So, if you have a big problem with America, you can either, you know, whack at the symptom or you can actually deal with the cause.
If you feel that Americans are not well educated, don't understand, can't reason, can't think, can't write, can't read well, well, You gotta change something about the educational system.
And it's not more government because there's just about as much government as could possibly be stuffed into a classroom there without turning it into a black hole of lefty nonsense.
Just a thought.
You know, Americans are insane.
Should we change the educational system to give parents more choice and children more liberty?
God, no!
Because we need union dues to fund the Democrats.
Okay, good.
So, serve up children's brains for political power.
Fava beans and a nice Chianti.
They're going to say, trained up on the canvas-covered platforms of professional wrestling rings, Trump does almost nothing better than make a mockery of things.
Oh gosh, making a mockery of things.
Wouldn't that be, that'd just be terrible.
Like, because he doesn't make any arguments or provide any definitions or make any logical sequences or prove contradictions.
No, just makes a mockery of things.
Gosh, can you imagine what that would be like as you're typing?
And in this case of the very habits and institutions that have proved most poisonous to American politics this century, he also, like any effective demagogue, commands tremendous public influence, thereby stoking and wielding considerable public opinion against his enemies.
The mainstream media is almost exclusively...
Democrat, my friends.
Democrat!
You understand what that means, right?
Not democratic, as in they like democracy.
Democrat.
Of the reporters who gave to political campaigns, 96% of them gave to Democrats.
So, if you're concerned about considerable public opinion being wielded against someone's enemies, I don't think you need to look to the right.
How's that been working out for Trump?
What's he not been accused of?
I mean, we've got a whole series.
The untruths.
Well, the untruth about Donald Trump.
And it's, you know, part infinity.
Because, you know, there's a number of lies.
And falsehoods and misrepresentations put forward about him is ridiculous.
So the idea that Trump just can wield considerable public opinion against his enemies.
What are you talking about?
Do you pick up a newspaper?
Is Trump commanding people to attack those on the left?
Do you even read, bro?
They're going to say, perverse as it sounds, the Trump brand of political mockery might just be what this nation needs most right now.
Yes, it is perverse, and it's also not perverse, because it's just a bunch of statements with no evidence, no definitions, no arguments whatsoever.
Oh, and then we get back to cancers.
These problems truly are cancers to our democracy.
And a President Trump might be potent of rough medicine.
There's little question.
That is incompetence, inexperience, impetuousness, and incivility.
In other words, it starts with indomitable, indefeatable, would cripple both the effectiveness and reputation of American politics for as long as he held office.
And the embarrassment to the American citizens.
If it were to elect him.
It?
American citizens is a plural.
If they?
Anyway.
Editing is for the weak.
If it were to elect him would be almost unbearable.
Be so embarrassing.
So embarrassing.
How do you fit that hair on a stamp?
The younger people say, what's a stamp?
Something you get in a wee?
I don't know.
But the embarrassment.
Oh yes, the cringe people.
Cringy.
I'm so embarrassed.
I'm cringing.
You are very easily embarrassed.
They're going to say, our relationship with many, if not most, other countries would deteriorate.
Our economy would struggle if it didn't crash outright.
And many of our problems would either multiply faster or fester.
Good.
So they know exactly what all the future negotiations from one of the world's great negotiators, if not one of the...
In fact, you could argue he's the greatest negotiator in the world at the moment.
He's written a book called The Art of the Deal, one of the best-selling books in the business category.
He has been negotiating his whole life.
He's wildly successful.
He's an incredible negotiator.
But you guys know how his negotiations would go.
You know how other countries would react.
And you just know for a fact that the relationships would deteriorate.
You just know that.
You know that.
It's not like could deteriorate.
It's not like, well, if this happens and this happens and this happens, there's a potential.
You just know.
You know for a fact the results of Trump's negotiation with other countries in the future, in situations and environments and alliances and problems and strengths and weaknesses you have no clue about.
Because they're in the future, and I assume you're not determinists, so you just know.
You also know that the economy would struggle if it didn't crash out, right?
You just, you know that.
You know, you know what, guys?
Go make a fortune.
Go short a whole bunch of stock, because the economy's going to struggle or crash.
You can make a huge amount of money.
You're going to put your money where your opinions are?
I didn't think so.
I mean, there's this level of capacity to predict the future without blinking an eye.
Many of our problems we need to multiply or fester.
They just would.
Not could, not might.
They would.
Absolutely.
And I guess these guys' opinions of Hillary Clinton broke through the phalanx of law enforcement and actually managed to chew her way through to the Oval Office.
None of this would happen because he's much worse.
You just know for a fact.
They go on to say, Might survive the medicine and come out better for the noxious treatment.
I don't know.
I don't know what they're talking about.
Anyway, we think it may.
The United States is a carefully constructed democratic republic with divided powers and a terrible president, while coming at a serious cost, would prove limited in the scope of his capabilities.
Congress is very unlikely to back much of what Trump proposes, for instance, and they just spent eight years demonstrating that if only half of our elected legislators have such a mind, they can grind American politics largely to a halt.
Really?
Really?
Doubling the debt.
Obamacare.
Massive amounts of extra regulations.
Virtual amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Sanctuary cities.
Yeah, it's just...
Nothing's changed.
Nothing's happened.
Stopped.
Even if he is unable to...
So even if he is able to unduly pressure Congress, Trump would still have the Supreme Court to reckon with and it would really go in his favor.
Even were he able to stack the deck slightly to his favor by placing a few justices.
Really?
Right.
You know, if you get a few justices on your side, it doesn't just slightly stack the deck.
It kind of changes the outcome.
Some in the U.S. military have already indicated that it is unlikely to follow his orders as commander-in-chief if they are unconscionable or outright war crimes, a concept that Trump, in all his bluster, clearly doesn't understand.
Clearly!
In all likelihood, the force of the laws and traditions of the United States will be strong enough to render a Trump largely impotent as president.
So he's not dangerous.
He's a demagogue.
He's terrifying.
He's dangerous.
He's going to be a dictator, but don't worry.
Nothing's really going to change.
Okay!
It is the worst, monstrous, most horrendous, inconceivable transition of a light bringing Obama to a devilish and satanic Trump.
But don't worry because nothing will change because the American institutions won't let him.
Okay, so we're on the road to nowhere.
They're going to say, is it a risky bet?
Absolutely.
A Trump presidency cannot be seen in a more flattering light than an attempt to drink a little chemo, get sick, and kill a handful of political cancers at once.
Is it flirtation with fire?
Yes.
The whole gambit rests upon the horror of a Trump presidency creating a political backlash that repairs our most damaged institutions.
What?
Sorry, did I read that incorrectly?
Let me see that.
Yeah, I'm reading.
Didn't memorize it.
The whole gambit rests upon the horror of a Trump presidency creating a political backlash that repairs our most damaged institutions.
Right, I think we're back to the chemo thing.
Cancer.
Okay.
Are we going to vote for Trump, they say.
No!
No one should!
What we've written constitutes the only reasonable case for supporting Trump, and it's weak.
It's not a reasonable case if you've just used an analogy.
Trump is like chemo.
No, Trump is cancer and Trump is chemo.
And that's my argument.
Oh, come on.
Guys.
Guys.
Do you have anyone in your life who disagrees with you at all?
Do you have anyone that you, I don't know, wives, friends, family, anyone, anyone?
You could have sent it to me.
You know me.
Just, I mean, I wouldn't say you've got to change your mind, but, you know, make some arguments.
For God's sakes, just a bunch of words here.
Anyway, they're going to say that there's even such an argument to be made, though, tells us a great deal about what's going wrong in our society.
I don't know, I... I tell you, I think what's going wrong in our society is that people make a whole bunch of non-arguments with a lot of emotionally reactive and volatile language and no attempt to make a reasoned case from first principles.
And we need that now.
Like, we need that.
I work very hard.
You know, I've got a whole book out on ethics.
I've got a whole 17-part Introduction to Philosophy series.
We go all the way from metaphysics through epistemology, through ethics to politics and all that.
And I got books on relationships.
I got books on how I think a society should work, which means that I don't want society to be ordered around by central authorities.
I've got books on atheism and agnosticism.
I make a lot of cases from first principles.
And Peter's got a book that's worth checking out.
As well, about atheism.
But in this particular case, it's very important that we get the arguments right.
We make the arguments with first principles, with definitions.
You really need a masterclass.
We've got enough people out there in the political realm.
We've got enough people out there in the media realm.
We've got enough people out there, reporters and all that, making all these baseless claims and emotionally volatile arguments with not a shred of evidence and creating fantastical analogies and think they've proven anything Other than their own willingness to delude people with analogies in order to get some point across that they can't make an argument for.
Because what you do when you make these kinds of articles, guys, is what happens is you have confessed that you don't have any good arguments, right?
Because you don't.
These are not good arguments.
I mean, even if I agreed with you, I mean, I agree with you about some of the political correctness stuff, doesn't mean that you've convinced me because you haven't made any good arguments.
And we need people to make good arguments.
You guys have authority.
You're an academia, mathematician, philosopher.
You need to make really good arguments from the ground up.
Because if this is the tenor of republic discourse, if this kind of sneaky, snarky, ad hominem garbage is what you guys are bringing to the public sphere, to the public space, I'm telling you this.
