FPM: Democrats, Tyranny, and Sophistry


An excellent essay that presents a useful reminder that ancient observations from the dawning era of political science as a formal discipline retain their vitality.

21 thoughts on “FPM: Democrats, Tyranny, and Sophistry

  1. “An excellent essay?”

    This so-called “essay” is pure rubbish. Nothing of substance or insight. And packed with lies, slanders and right wing conspiracy fantasies. Wrapping bullshit in a supposed historical and classical perspective does not change what it is. Bullshit.

    Seriously, Mr. Roberts, you embarrass yourself when you post it and even more when you offer such an evaluation of this kind of crap.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “And packed with lies, slanders and right wing conspiracy fantasies.”

      Care to mention any, and explain, or offer a superior point of view from which others might learn?

      If not, then it is you who embarrasses himself.


      1. Almost every statement of current fact in this garbage is false. Take your pick.

        Here is one example . . . [Mueller is the] “Dems’ hand-picked special prosecutor”
        That is a bold faced lie. Mueller was appointed by and reported to the Trump DOJ. He was selected for the job by the Trump appointed Rod Rosenstein ( a protege of of Ken Starr and a Clinton impeachment alumnus). The “Dems” had nothing to do with his selection or appointment.

        Here is the statement by Schiff and Adler about the opening of these DOJ probes into individuals and debunked conspiracy theories. . .

        “These reports, if true, raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under AG Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump’s political revenge. If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution, or to help the President with a political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage.”

        Now THAT is a true statement. And yet the bulk of this bullshit essay is about denying that it is true.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “These reports, if true”

        Amazing. You apparently don’t recognize a counterfactual when you see one. More amazing, you think this particular counterfactual is a “true statement.”


        1. You are a very silly fellow. If you knew anything about logic or even half of what you pretend to know you would understand that a statement conditioned by an “if” clause can be true or it can be false.

          For example . . .

          “If it rains tomorrow, the ground will get wet” is a TRUE statement.

          or . . .

          “If reports of Trump is using the DOJ to attack enemies are true, the rule of law is diminished” is a TRUE statement.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “‘If reports of Trump is using the DOJ to attack enemies are true, the rule of law is diminished’ is a TRUE statement.”

          Not really. This particular counterfactual begs the question. Logically, the satement is comparable to saying:

          “If it rains tomorrow, then it rains tomorrow.”


          “If reports of [sic] Trump is using the DOJ to attack enemies are true, then Trump is using the DOJ to attack enemies.”

          It does not follow from such circular reasoning that “profound new concerns” are raised, as opposed to concerns that would arise in the first place if Tump is using the DOJ to attack enemies. The rhetoric sounds truthy, but isn’t.

          That’s why this particular counterfactual is false, even though counterfactuals can be true.


          1. Laughable. Time for you to look up what a “counterfactual statement” actually is. None of these conditional statements we have been discussing is a counterfactual statement.

            Of course the reality is that the phrase “if true” in the statement was simply being polite. The real point is that “These reports raise profound new concerns . . .”

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Seriously? Yes, it is an essay. Excellence was blown out of the water by the phrase …” alleged Russian electoral interference”… PROVEN interference by EVERY single intel agency in the country, verified by the Mueller Report. Any credibility Mr. Thornton may have had was shot to hell.

    Horowitz hates progressivism (“”Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out””) so the idea of being open minded is completely lost before the first letter is written by anyone that provides content to frontpagemag.com.

    Nothing gained in reading this. Nothing new, nothing compelling. Once again, further evidence that the blind are led by the blind.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “PROVEN interference by EVERY single intel agency in the country, verified by the Mueller Report.”

      Not true, actually. The IC report presented an “assessment,” but no solid evidence of interference. Mueller provided no independent verification, but merely repeated the IC’s unsubstantiated assertions. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to sophistry of exactly the kind the FPM essay warns against.

      RE: “Horowitz hates progressivism”

      So what? So do I.


      1. “So do I.” To quote my father, “No shit.”

        Again, you ignore that which is plain. You don’t see because you choose to be blind. FPM might as well change it’s name to “Trump ‘r’ Us”. Nothing in that piece was worth the paper it would have been printed on in the good old days. Progress is coming, Mr. Roberts. If you don’t like it you are free to return to the 50’s, when men were men and sheep were nervous.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “Again, you ignore that which is plain.”

        What do you think I am ignoring which is plain? Instead of accusing others of being blind, the burden is on you to describe and justify what you believe you are seeing with your own eyes.

        In the case of the IC report, you might begin by quoting any evidence it contains of actual Russian interference.


        1. I could quote the entire report and you would find a way to deny the facts. It is a waste of time to reason with you because you are pretty much unreasonable. You are an unrepentant apologist for the most corrupt POTUS in the history of this country. The old “pissing contest with a skunk” advice is screaming in my head.


        2. RE: “It is a waste of time to reason with you because you are pretty much unreasonable.”

          In that case, why don’t you stop commenting on my posts. As you never have anything but psycho babble to share, you’d be doing everyone a favor by keeping silent.


          1. RE: “Seeing as I get a lot more agreement form the others”

            I’m not hungry for social proof. Are you?


  3. “ Sophistical rhetoric, then, turns the false, the unjust, and the bad into the true, the just, and the good by manipulating the citizens’ emotions, self-interest, and factional passions.“

    The Trump regime playbook to a “T”.

    From Mexico sending mostly rapists and criminals (only “some” are good people) to bringing Bevin from a mythical 17 point deficit just before the KY election, it has been a torrent of lies flowing like raw sewage into a clean lake in order to manipulate supporters’ emotions.

    (“I’ll protect you from those savages and I have magical persuasive powers.”)

    So if one believes the frontpagemag opinion, then the rhetoric has worked.


    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s