McCarthy opens impeachment inquiry

[TomC]

My grammar is the worstest.

Lemme help you fix that.
"Grammar is my worsted thing at."
HTH
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My grammar is the worstest.

Lemme help you fix that.
"Grammar is my worsted thing at."
HTH
Tom

Puhlease.

Grammer my mostest; worster thing at.

 

[TomC]

My grammar is the worstest.

Lemme help you fix that.
"Grammar is my worsted thing at."
HTH
Tom

Puhlease.

Grammer my mostest; worster thing at.

At least I didn't wrestle a semicolon to the ground and force it to submit to unspeakable acts.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

We can assess "this is how it was before the US intervened" and "this is how it was after the US intervened" and figure out if one of them is worse than the others. Therefore we can determine that things are worse after intervention, and do so without any access to alternate realities.

Sure. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is logically fallacious.

Interventions happen for reasons. They exist only because someone believes (rightly or wrongly) that the situation will get worse if no intervention occurs.

Given a situation that is expected to deteriorate without intervention, the observation that it deteriorated despite intervention is not evidence that the intervention was the wrong approach. It's equally reasonable to conclude that the intervention was merely insufficient.

"We intervened, and things got worse", could imply that the intervention made things worse; Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

The real world rarely presents dichotomies; "Worse" isn't an absolute, and something that is worse than before, can easily be better than it might have been.

So that is why you keep saying we need to see alternate realities. The fact that things are worse after US intervention isn't enough for you, you need to see an alternate reality where things are "worser".

Or you can look at real world results and say "it's not the US fault" over and over each time an intervention leaves the situation worse than it was before. "But you can't say it was the US, that's post hoc ergo propter hoc and that makes it wrong." Your position is that maybe in some alternate reality the US didn't intervene and things are even worse, and that's why you keep saying that I need the alternate reality.

It is true that the same people who promised the prior intervention would make things better are promising that the current intervention will make things better. Their track record is abysmal, but that doesn't matter because maybe possible just this one time they might be right.

So 52 years of being correct? Or is it 52 years of nothing to show for it?

52 years of having every foreign policy prediction end up being borne out by facts.

It is a lot easier to hold positions that you aren't actually held responsible

Very true. Which is why Libertarians are always right because they are not in a position to ever be held responsible.

If the predictions had turned out to be incorrect, you would be happily trumpeting that from the highest tower. Instead all you can say is "well they weren't in office when they made those prediction so it doesn't count."

 

[laughing dog]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

We can assess "this is how it was before the US intervened" and "this is how it was after the US intervened" and figure out if one of them is worse than the others. Therefore we can determine that things are worse after intervention, and do so without any access to alternate realities.

Sure. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is logically fallacious.

Interventions happen for reasons. They exist only because someone believes (rightly or wrongly) that the situation will get worse if no intervention occurs.

Given a situation that is expected to deteriorate without intervention, the observation that it deteriorated despite intervention is not evidence that the intervention was the wrong approach. It's equally reasonable to conclude that the intervention was merely insufficient.

"We intervened, and things got worse", could imply that the intervention made things worse; Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

The real world rarely presents dichotomies; "Worse" isn't an absolute, and something that is worse than before, can easily be better than it might have been.

So that is why you keep saying we need to see alternate realities. The fact that things are worse after US intervention isn't enough for you, you need to see an alternate reality where things are "worser".

Or you can look at real world results and say "it's not the US fault" over and over each time an intervention leaves the situation worse than it was before. "But you can't say it was the US, that's post hoc ergo propter hoc and that makes it wrong." Your position is that maybe in some alternate reality the US didn't intervene and things are even worse, and that's why you keep saying that I need the alternate reality.

It is true that the same people who promised the prior intervention would make things better are promising that the current intervention will make things better. Their track record is abysmal, but that doesn't matter because maybe possible just this one time they might be right.

So 52 years of being correct? Or is it 52 years of nothing to show for it?

52 years of having every foreign policy prediction end up being borne out by facts.

It is a lot easier to hold positions that you aren't actually held responsible

Very true. Which is why Libertarians are always right because they are not in a position to ever be held responsible.

If the predictions had turned out to be incorrect, you would be happily trumpeting that from the highest tower. Instead all you can say is "well they weren't in office when they made those prediction so it doesn't count."

First, I didn’t say anything about your boasts counting or not.

Second, as bilby pointed out with impeccable logic,your claim is unverifiable . Your belief that they are correct does not make it so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It takes a very special type of person to consider any field for 50+ years and think they've never been wrong in it.

 

[Patooka]

It takes a very special type of person to consider any field for 50+ years and think they've never been wrong in it.

Unfortunately, it really doesn't.

 

[Elixir]

Humans’ proclivity for debasing themselves is an enduring source of wonder … it’s a question of who does it better - straight-up trumpsuckers, or libberpublicans mouthing refried unworkable isolationist policies and relegating themselves to functioning as “I’m not a trumpsucker”s.

It takes a very special type of person to consider any field for 50+ years and think they've never been wrong in it.

Unfortunately, it really doesn't.

In the land of Dunning-Kruger, libberpublicans are critical care patients.

 

[TomC]

It is true that the same people who promised the prior intervention would make things better are promising that the current intervention will make things better. Their track record is abysmal, but that doesn't matter because maybe possible just this one time they might be right.

I'm mostly in agreement with you. The track record of the USA concerning violent foreign interventions is so utterly appalling. From Vietnam to the middle east to Afghanistan, the list of interventions that were disastrous for everyone but rich Americans is huge.

Not Ukraine though, that one is different. In that case the international bully doing the invading isn't US for once. In that case I support ramping up aid as much as possible to help the Ukrainian people defend themselves.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

First, I didn’t say anything about your boasts counting or not.

Second, as bilby pointed out with impeccable logic,your claim is unverifiable . Your belief that they are correct does not make it so.

Mosty people are able to say "here is their prediction" and "here is what happened" and then compare the two.

That is one way to do verification.

Maybe you should try it.

 

[laughing dog]

First, I didn’t say anything about your boasts counting or not.

Second, as bilby pointed out with impeccable logic,your claim is unverifiable . Your belief that they are correct does not make it so.

Mosty people are able to say "here is their prediction" and "here is what happened" and then compare the two.

That is one way to do verification.

Maybe you should try it.

Anyone can make meaningless comparisons, as your responses indicate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My grammar is the worstest.

Lemme help you fix that.
"Grammar is my worsted thing at."
HTH
Tom

Puhlease.

Grammer my mostest; worster thing at.

At least I didn't wrestle a semicolon to the ground and force it to submit to unspeakable acts.
Tom

I don't believe in the rights of transgender punctuation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

We can assess "this is how it was before the US intervened" and "this is how it was after the US intervened" and figure out if one of them is worse than the others. Therefore we can determine that things are worse after intervention, and do so without any access to alternate realities.

Sure. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is logically fallacious.

Interventions happen for reasons. They exist only because someone believes (rightly or wrongly) that the situation will get worse if no intervention occurs.

Given a situation that is expected to deteriorate without intervention, the observation that it deteriorated despite intervention is not evidence that the intervention was the wrong approach. It's equally reasonable to conclude that the intervention was merely insufficient.

"We intervened, and things got worse", could imply that the intervention made things worse; Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

The real world rarely presents dichotomies; "Worse" isn't an absolute, and something that is worse than before, can easily be better than it might have been.

So that is why you keep saying we need to see alternate realities. The fact that things are worse after US intervention isn't enough for you, you need to see an alternate reality where things are "worser".

Have you done that? Or have you merely said that in 52 years the LP hasn't been wrong without any comparisons to any situations the US did get or didn't get involved in and how it made "things" "worse".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

LP: Here is what we said would happen, here is what happened. As you can see we were right.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected to office, so you can't say you were right.
LP: Here's the evidence that shows we were right, you don't need to be in office for that.
Conservoprogressives: If you were in office making the tough decisions you might have decided differently.
LP: The evidence is what the evidence is, and it shows our foreign policy is correct.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected. You're unpopular. Nyah Nyah.

 

[laughing dog]

LP: Here is what we said would happen, here is what happened. As you can see we were right.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected to office, so you can't say you were right.
LP: Here's the evidence that shows we were right, you don't need to be in office for that.
Conservoprogressives: If you were in office making the tough decisions you might have decided differently.
LP: The evidence is what the evidence is, and it shows our foreign policy is correct.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected. You're unpopular. Nyah Nyah.

Repeating a straw man does not make it valid. Just like believing something to be true does not make it so.

 

[TomC]

LP: Here is what we said would happen, here is what happened. As you can see we were right.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected to office, so you can't say you were right.
LP: Here's the evidence that shows we were right, you don't need to be in office for that.
Conservoprogressives: If you were in office making the tough decisions you might have decided differently.
LP: The evidence is what the evidence is, and it shows our foreign policy is correct.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected. You're unpopular. Nyah Nyah.

That's not how I see it.
Having never had much political relevance, they've have never had reasons to suck up to wealthy donors. It's easy to remain pure when you've got no interests to protect.

That said, maybe you should start a thread about the Libertarians in politics, instead of continuing this derail. It would probably be very interesting. My vague understanding of libertarianism is "conservatives who smoke pot". But that sort of thing is from a long time ago. Lots about the parties and overall political landscape has changed hugely.

But the Libertarians never seemed relevant enough to put much effort into understanding. To me, they've always resembled the Greens. A somewhat extremist wing who don't have to put their money where their mouth is, since they aren't going to get elected anyway.

Feel free to start a thread discussing them.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

LP: Here is what we said would happen, here is what happened. As you can see we were right.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected to office, so you can't say you were right.
LP: Here's the evidence that shows we were right, you don't need to be in office for that.
Conservoprogressives: If you were in office making the tough decisions you might have decided differently.
LP: The evidence is what the evidence is, and it shows our foreign policy is correct.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected. You're unpopular. Nyah Nyah.

Repeating a straw man does not make it valid. Just like believing something to be true does not make it so.

Then why do you keep repeating strawmen?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

LP: Here is what we said would happen, here is what happened. As you can see we were right.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected to office, so you can't say you were right.
LP: Here's the evidence that shows we were right, you don't need to be in office for that.
Conservoprogressives: If you were in office making the tough decisions you might have decided differently.
LP: The evidence is what the evidence is, and it shows our foreign policy is correct.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected. You're unpopular. Nyah Nyah.

Technically you are strawman'ing yourself. A small portion of the bolded text is accurate only in the sense that you've asserted something. You haven't presented evidence. And technically, you have only referred to the last 52 years... and no specific intervention or non-intervention.

 

[laughing dog]

LP: Here is what we said would happen, here is what happened. As you can see we were right.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected to office, so you can't say you were right.
LP: Here's the evidence that shows we were right, you don't need to be in office for that.
Conservoprogressives: If you were in office making the tough decisions you might have decided differently.
LP: The evidence is what the evidence is, and it shows our foreign policy is correct.
Conservoprogressives: But you weren't elected. You're unpopular. Nyah Nyah.

Repeating a straw man does not make it valid. Just like believing something to be true does not make it so.

Then why do you keep repeating strawmen?

Nothing in my post is a straw man. Both sentences are logical truths. So what straw man do you feel I am repeating?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With a 52 year track record on foreign policy showing the LP has been right every single time on foreign intervention, and during that same 50 years the Demopublican war party was wrong every single time, your answer is certain to be right.

1) 52 years sounds very much like cherry picking.

2) You are assuming that the right answer in each case was not to intervene.

1) 52 years ago the Libertarian Party was founded. Before that they issued very few press releases or position papers.

2) The result of each intervention during that 52 years was that each intervention turned out to be a mistake that made the situation worse. The only exception is Current War, which is obviously completely different from Previous War.

Ok, I'll accept the 52 years--the start of the organization is a reasonable cutoff point.

However, you're still assuming the correct answer was not to intervene.

I think it's pretty clear Desert Storm helped and I think our arming of the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan helped. (Note that unlike what many say, most of those we armed became peaceful after kicking Soviet ass. It was only a small minority that continued the violence, in the end basically seizing the country from those who we helped liberate it.)