Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.

Post Message

Prior Page

Page

02/08/20 01:22 PM

#10692

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Guys, I get that he is a very honorable, decorated human being. But, whether he is decorated, honorable, or a freakin' Pope, it is hard to believe that you would really want him to stay in his position as if nothing happened. Call me crazy (or a 'far right wing lug nut') but I am of the mindset that ANY president who believed in his own innocence & had been railroaded by a group of politically motivated politicians would see that none of them (or those who cooperated with them) were on his own WH roster of employees. In the tradition that elections & impeachments have consequences, so do acquittals. For Trump to keep Vindman on for political reasons or to avoid backlash would be truly surprising by any measure.
But thanks for sparing me the name-calling, Jay. Last I checked, Far Right wingers, far Lefties & all the in between are Americans. No matter my positions, it's important that there be representation on the forum that offers more than just one interpretation. So, carry on, classmates! Love you guys!

02/08/20 01:30 PM

#10693

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Incidentally, I'm for the POTUS continuing his right & duty to bestow a medal on anyone he sees fit. Regardless of whether the recipient agrees with my politics or not. SOO, anybody wanna talk about the debate last night?

02/08/20 01:49 PM

#10694

Jay Shackford

Good catch Jack....

Nori-- you seem the lack any sense of empathy -- the ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes. That explains, in part, why you see the world so differently.

02/08/20 05:03 PM

#10695

Jack Mallory

Nora, you may be hearing people somewhere complaining about the award of the Medal of Freedom to Limbaugh because of his politics. Here on the forum, my complaint has been that the President awarded the highest civilian medal to a racist, sexist, homophobic lout. Plenty of evidence has been provided to support that complaint.

You certainly don't have to share our feeling that the award disgraces the medal itself, the President, and the nation. You may even think that Limbaugh deserves the honor. But don't mischaracterize our opinions.

02/08/20 08:50 PM

#10696

Jack Mallory

"Crazy" or "far right-wing lug nut" are not words that I have had under consideration. There's another word I've been trying to decide on, struggling with the issue of accuracy and honesty vs. politeness.

When someone repeatedly tells untruths, with no evidence supporting their falsehoods or when convincing evidence actually contradicts them, what label should we use? When does a "teller of untruths" become a liar? When does frank and honest discourse demand the frank and honest use of the word, lie?

The occasional exaggeration, different interpretations of evidence, heated rhetoric, all might call for polite restraint. But when malicious accusations are made against apparently decent people, when repeated requests for evidence are ignored, when it is not a matter of interpretation of evidence but absolute lack of evidence, restraint seems a weak response. Restraint in the face of lies seems itself dishonest.

In law, in philosophy, in science, in public discourse in general, when someone makes an allegation, assertion, or other claim the burden of proof is on them. No one needs to refute it--it is unproven, untrue, until evidence is provided. I think this is especially true when negative charges are aimed at individuals. When such charges are made deliberately and repeatedly, without evidence even after evidence is requested, I think it is fair to say that's a lie.

To claim that the Vindmans are part of some "back channel" conspiracy to bring down the elected government is a lie, whether spoken by the President or here on the Forum.

02/09/20 07:06 AM

#10697

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Thanks for the psyche examination. That aside, anybody remember Tim Morrison claiming rank insubordination & describing his own mistrust of Vindman? Or is that something, like so many others, we all just ignore? Ok. I get it: Vindman GOOD; Limbaugh BAD; Trump EVIL; Jeez, I feel lucky just being called an unfeeling liar.
Have a groovy day!

02/09/20 07:54 AM

#10698

Jack Mallory

But Nora still can't/won't come up with a scintilla of evidence for her lies about the Vindmans and some "back channel" conspiracy. What, again, is the evidence against Yevgeny Vindman, who had nothing to do with the testimony other than genetics?

Repeating a lie doesn't make it more credible, or the liar any more honest.

*******
Interesting article in this morning's NYT on where lies, belief in lies, and spreading lies can lead.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory.html?referringSource=articleShare

02/09/20 09:08 AM

#10699

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Nori, Vindman wasn't an example of back channel political attempts to bring down the President. You saw his testimony Nori. I'm sure you could see he was just feeling he should tell the truth as he was supoenaed...He was and is a very honorable man. Trump is not honorable. He is operating like the head of a mob organization. if people followed your thinking, they should be scared to tell the truth as then they will be fired. The Ukraine Ambassador got fired because she was fighting corruption in Ukraine and wouldn't have gone along with shifting it to Biden when there was no there threre. There are signs that many who testified were aware of their fate and resigned or left anyway but some stayed on. Trump has gotten rid of Matthis and others who offer him another point of view then his own or push back on something. ..he is the one in charge as there are few around him to give another approach and the world is not a better place. Love, Joanie

02/09/20 03:31 PM

#10700

Jack Mallory

02/09/20 05:20 PM

#10701

Joan Ruggles (Young)

Jack, your link to the story about Q is truly terrifying. All it takes is one of those nut jobs to decide to kill a member of Congress or anyone else they disagree with. It's hard to figure out why the unifying thread through all of their rants involes child molestation. What's that about?

I think we have more to fear about misinformantion in the upcoming election besides foriegn interference. Home grown conspiracy whackos can do easily as much damage and it's uncertain that this administration is even paying attention.

02/09/20 06:59 PM

#10702

Jack Mallory

I agree that the greatest threat in both the short term and long is internal, Joan. On one level in the form of those of any ideology who will manipulate the public with lies and the other forms of disinformation discussed in the NYT article on QAnon and the Atlantic article I linked to the other day.

But I also think that an even greater threat than the disinformers themselves is the attitude of those everyday citizens who believe truth just doesn't matter. They either believe that there's no way to try and know what's true, and/or that truth matters far less than their "side" gaining/keeping power to some particular end. In either case, they are willing to both accept their leaders' claims without evidence and to spread those claims knowing that they have no idea if they are true or not.

This way lies the fascism of the right or left. We see it at the top, from the most powerful, and from all around among people otherwise just like us.

02/09/20 08:13 PM

#10703

Jack Mallory

This is an article about a book I haven't read, Joan, but the article is worth a read. Among other things, it deals with the rejection of truth as a common fascist technique for acquiring power: ". . . fascism as a method of politics. It’s a rhetoric, a way of running for power . . . The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power."

"Smashing truth" strikes me as an unintentionally misleading description of today's American fascism, where truth is often more casually and passively eroded, nibbled away at, assumed to be both impossible and unnecessary to discover. No need to smash truth if you can convince people that it's irrelevant. But the goal is clearly power.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/19/17847110/how-fascism-works-donald-trump-jason-stanley

I'm falling farther and farther behind on my reading list, but this book might have to be added!

02/10/20 08:21 AM

#10704

Wolfgang Voegeli

I haven't taken part in this forum for a long time, but Jack's link to the QAnon article of the NYT about a Republican politician truly frightens me. I quote:

Mr. Lusk said he was uncertain whether there really was a pedophile ring associated with the deep state.

“That being said,” he added, “I do believe there is a group in Brussels, Belgium, that do eat aborted babies.”

This is insane. Before the Nazis came to power in Germany rumours had been spread about all sorts of atrocities allegedly committed by jews, amongst them that they ate babies. We all know where this ended. That political representatives of the greatest power in this world share such beliefs makes me want to vomit.

02/10/20 09:09 AM

#10705

Jack Mallory

Hi, Wolfgang. That's a particularly disgusting example of truth irrelevancy. But the eagerness of some to believe without evidence and pass on lies, to assume that it doesn't matter if it's true, is what's frightening.

********

But FB provided some happy tears with breakfast this morning.