The Biden Cabinet and Administration

Then talk about the NYT article, or do you not trust The New York Times?

Do you ever question what you’ve read? Do you ever question your own opinions? If you don’t even question your own opinions, and you don’t question the reliability of your news source, then you’re only looking for articles that support your opinion. I posted a char on here not long ago regarding just this topic. I don’t follow it religiously, there’s a list of things to look for to help identify valid news and fake news. So, do I trust the NYT? I wouldn’t say “trust”, but I believe the contents are more reliable than anything on Fox News.

Indeed. Attacking the source rather than what it is saying is a prime example of an ad hominem fallacy. You don't need to agree with Jacobin's editorial policy in order to use their factual reporting to support your views.

While we're on it, I don't agree with the editorial stance of the WSWS either, but it can be a valuable for referencing an alternative perspective or for finding stories that aren't covered in the increasingly monolithic mainstream. And shockingly, despite also detesting their agenda, I do also read mainstream media and don't immediately disqualify it. One simply reads it while keeping in mind its ideological biases.

What is "WSWS"?

World Socialist Web Site.

I thought it was the noise people made when calling their cat.

Assessing the credibility of sources is a compulsory step in the formation of valid analysis.

Jacobin's credibility on Biden's cabinet is based completely on disingenuous precepts - they reject all public policy in the US since Eugene Debs and therefore it is extraordinarily unlikely they'd find anyone who actually worked in any administration and had to make policy decisions acceptable.

Which, of course, is why you are defending them.

It is not disingenuous to "reject all public policy since Eugene Debs". That is a political position which one may happen to disagree with. But it has absolutely no bearing on whether the presentation of facts in a given article is credible or not. If they are not, or if the source has a history of dishonesty elsewhere, then it can be attacked on that basis. Trying to strike them out because your politics differs is bad faith, and a clear logical fallacy.

And let's face it - adopting this kind of approach means that you're ruling out virtually all critical commentary - because the denizens of the bubble that you occupy using the sources that you deem acceptable certainly aren't going to make it.

This article isn't factual, it's opinion based. Because these individuals acted in prior administrations and we disagreed with those administrations they aren't appropriate. That's nothing more than editorialization. I particularly like when the author unilaterally decides that others who claimed Avril Haines was a moderating force in the drone strikes are lying, without any corroborating evidence at all except for her own bias. This is NOT a news article. No different than the talking heads on Faux.

So yes, I can reject opinion from an editorial slant, in the same manner I do with Breitbart. Or Russia Today, for that matter.

Not at all, indeed the most credible critical commentary are the ones provided by those on the same side of an argument. The multiple Trump cabinet officials coming out against Trump, for example.

But it's only objective reality to understand that someone who argues against the very existence of the US as a mixed economy system and that it needs to be rejected in favor of Marxism is OF COURSE going to being unrelentingly critical of said government.

I'm all for furthering the US into a more Nordic system. I am done with the far left saying even that isn't enough, thereby making it harder to achieve, and constantly telling everyone how evil Obama was.

Yes, we get your stance, this isn't a lack of understanding on the left and center left's part.

It's just that most of the far left's dogma is obvious bullshit.

The posts by Demiurge and Quest above illustrate why I refer to so many leftists as "reality impaired." Tho many of then deny it, folks like Rick or Tererun won't be happy with anything less than full-bore communism where anyone who dares to excel will be hammered back into the proletarian masses. For the public good, of course.

Yeah yeah, Rick. Dumb.

That's a misrepresentation. It isn't their presence in other administrations which issue is being taken with, but their actions while in those administrations - which one would need to be delusional not to consider as relevant to their likely future actions. Most of the article consists of pointing out incontrovertible facts about those actions.

That's nice, but entirely irrelevant. It doesn't make your ad hominem attacks any less so, and it doesn't make I or anyone else that you're in opposition hold to those kind of absurd views.

Yeah, so you can either link to my advocacy of "full-bore communism" (whatever that is) or you can STFU. Strawmen certainly seem to be the order of the day in this thread.

For my views on what you most likely consider "communism", see here.

Please explain what you mean by "full-bore communism" and how even that equates to "anyone who dares to excel will be hammered back into the proletarian masses"

The future all libs secretly want.

that perception is based on your past behavior as being a disingenuous race baiter.

I’m not a disingenuous race baiter though. Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.

the whole "dare to excel" thing is kind of self aggrandizing too.

you catch a better break than most far more than you "excel".

much like your perspectives on everything from Trek to socio-economics?

Nope.

This is true. Suggesting only yourself has worked hard, but others in not so favorable positions did not, is not only a lie, but also detrimental to those in not so favorable positions.
Point of fact, I worked harder working fast food than my present job. Yet, I make a hell of a lot more money now. And that I’m here and not other coworkers along the was was, in fact, by chance and decisions made by others trying to move me out from under their control - because they could not control me.

It's the characterizations of those actions as being relentlessly war hawk oriented that is in dispute. IT'S THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE.

Saying that I don't need to take an editorial comment seriously from a group that couldn't possibly be pleased by any group of actors that have previous experience is not an ad hominem.

Obama took US troops in the middle east down 85% during his tenure. From a height of 170,000 in 2007 under the surge, down to 17,000 3 years into his term in 2011 in Iraq alone.

Why wouldn't I reject the argument that is 'war hawk' behavior. It's ridiculous on the face of it. Obama led a massive drawdown of US forces, and a de-escalation of the US' role in the area.

So good thing you aren't making that argument. It would make you look like someone else whose ideas could be rejected as not reality based in whole cloth.

Just like the Jacobin.

Is there another argument aside from the dumb ass shit that is completely wrong here?

No, this is a person who has been with him all the time, has horrible ethics, and is on his staff now. This is a person who has not changed and has been a part of the problem. The fact that she is still around is evidence he has not evolved. A person who has evolved would have left this sort of person behind due to their bullshit. That is a valid argument and opinions that was supported by the article and information. The fact that you do not like it does not change those realities. Please feel free to show why I am wrong, but this bullshit of claiming I have not backed up my point is pure trumpista level bullshit.

Step the fuck up. Don't try to say what I am thinking, prove your fucking point or STFU!

The sound you heard was the joke sailing over your head.

I get it now. You are right, that one went way over my head, and then fell on me. good one.