How do liberals guage success?

I think that most of the people who read articles about politics, at sources like CSMonitor, know the term (I suspect it's much less than a quintile of the population - maybe a quintile of a quintile).

Only if there's enough context to explain the term, or if the reader takes the time to look up the word.

If they'd said "the bottom two quintiles (40%)," then I really wouldn't have a problem.

Like I said, though, it's my opinion.

That's not a reason to use "quintile," though.

That's a reason not to use "quintile," so that the barrier to political participation is lower.

why dumb down the language for CS Monitor readers? it's not like the people who read US Today are going to rush to CS Monitor for more details

Now you are getting at that quantile that can do higher math.




Yes I intended to use the term quantile.

You are begging the question here by saying he "screw[ed] over workers". You merely parroting the claim a different way when substantiation for it was being requested.

Layoffs aren't inherently unethical. If the workers are needed for the business you are shooting yourself in the foot to let them go if not then there is no reason not to let them go. Businesses are not charities and have no obligation to be run as charities.

They bought distressed businesses and made layoffs to turn them around. What about this is unjustly screwing over the workers to you? Do you think companies are obligated to keep jobs that don't help them?

If they are letting people who help them and who they need go, then they aren't being unethical, just stupid. If they are letting people who they do not need go they they are doing the most ethical thing (they have fiduciary duty to their investors and have no such duty to keep people hired indefinitely).



I think it's unethical to be that untruthful about what your interlocutor's position is. I merely don't agree with your positions which in a similar caricature would be: "businesses is bad."



Neither am I, just wanted to see if you actually had any specific claim to unethical to make or were merely parroting the mudslinging of Romney's political opponents. You've made plenty clear that you are just participating in the mindless mudslinging too and that you don't have any case for anything really unethical to make, just negative aspersions to cast. We don't need to rehash the entire body of our political differences for this much to be obvious, that you would rather not answer and would rather talk about me and my politics is answer enough.



You've wasted a lot more words telling me that than it would have taken to answer the question, but I understand that the words you chose are easier to write than answering the question would be.

It's always easier to merely spout fallacies. Say, disparaging your interlocutor's position (ad hominem), or making an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum), than answer a tough question but it's also fairly transparent a tactic and will only deflect the daft.

Which candidate most "puts America ahead of himself" is in the eye of the beholder. I subscribe to the view that politicians are highly sociopathic and that this is largely branding you buy, or not.

I think most politicians are looking out for themselves first and that people who buy the noble and lofty images of patriotic duty are being gullible.

I agree; that's the reason why people who run for office usually turn out tainted by the politics of it all! Romney is a good case in point; he'll say anything that he believes will win votes. That's the reason why he's not consistent in what he says, and actually contradicts himself - often. He's already known to be a liar, but that doesn't seem to phase the political right.

"Dumbing down" has a nice rhetorical ring to it, but presenting the same information in a way that is more accessible is not "dumbing down."

Using elevated language, so that only the elite can understand it, is a way of maintaining control of information.

I agree with you. Why would i want someone to be President that actually wants the job?

I was merely pointing out that most people make an emotional connection of some sort. Patriotism is an emotional appeal. It's hard to make an argument that someone that avoided military service and paying taxes is a patriot that puts his country ahead of his own safety or financial gain.

I just take a very dim view of that level of politics, though I completely agree that those kinds of attacks will be effective to a significant degree.

It's just that I don't find them very significant. It's like the questions about Obama's patriotism (and even birth certificate etc). There's no denying the appeal (and efficacy) of such political attacks but I think it's pretty clear that the arguments are largely vapid.

The "branding" side of politics (as opposed to the policy debate) tends to decide the elections but also tends to be a very superficial way to do so, in my opinion. It becomes about marketing. About form over function.

It's human nature. Most people aren't going to make voting decisions based on looking at all the facts and deciding the best choice based on those facts.

I heard an interesting news story on what makes a charismatic leader. It's all about emotional appeal but it can be very calculating in achieving that appeal.

I agree that it's human nature, and while I don't think you are saying so I think we shouldn't accept an appeal to nature and leave it at that. Our behavior is not inflexible, and nature is not an inherent right, so as a society we should seek to rise above it (and, of course, we often do). Whatever our nature is can be argued endlessly, but more important is what our society should be.

And there will always be a chattering class that will never approach anything with any intellectual depth, but its relative size waxes and wanes upon input from factors like the cultural acceptance of such vapidity. As a matter of course, the more society speaks out against it the smaller the manifestation will be.

Not everyone can change the world, but anyone can try to change their corner of the world. Within your own microcosm you can elevate the intellectual level of debate dramatically.