In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership.
Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that.
That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of.
I guess a lot of the conspiratory debate culture regarding economics comes from the fact that economists have largely forgotten politics and are making purely technical arguments. Sure TTIP might increase the trade volume somewhat but it's barely going to give you any palpable effect for the average earner, the volume is simply too small. Also economists haven't really come up with any feasible solution to actually combat inequality over the last few decades which is the biggest issue for the broad population.
Republicans are so tired of being called racist, though. With all the rhetoric speaking out against being politically correct, is Romney telling everyone to stop supporting the racist guy really a good message? Could they need any more confirmation that "the liberal media" is afraid of Trump and trying to get rid of him? When the GOP starts saying their base is too racist, the establishment will officially be toast.
On March 04 2016 04:05 strongwind wrote: Today it finally hit me just what the death of print journalism has meant for media coverage in general. I can't believe I haven't realized it until now.
Watching this election I've been constantly struck by the sensationalist news headlines that pollute the airwaves and the internet. Add in the pervasiveness of opinion pieces and blog articles, and what we have now is the fracturing of readership / viewership into increasingly polarized camps. Now people get to hear what they "want" to hear instead of the broad reality of the country at large.
At first I thought this might be due to the consolidation and acquisition of the major news agencies by wealthy individuals and corporate entities. But now I realize this was an effect, not the cause. The cause is that the failure to adequately monetize the transition from print to digital media has led to severe cost-cutting measures, effectively winnowing the field of conscientious journalists that strive hard to achieve journalistic integrity.
I for one am tired of the hyperbole being thrown around. I know my opinions are not always right, and I don't think the opposition is the devil incarnate. I want to know why people think the way they do, because I believe there is almost always a nuanced reason behind it.
I understand objective journalism can never be completely unbiased, but I've always trusted journalists to strive for it no matter what. Now with bloggers posing as true journalists, I question that trust. That can't be good for this country.
I have to disagree. Sure there is no denying that journalistic integrity has taken a nosedive but the cause hardly seems to be cost-cutting, its not like news celebrities like Wolf Blitzen or Bill O'reily are not payed very well.
I would certainly point more to the news agencies realizing that large groups of people don't actually want to hear objective news but are perfectly happy about eating up whatever you put in front of them. People like having their opinions confirmed.
There was no big outcry when news stopped telling the objective truth and so news agencies stopped caring about delivering it. Its not the news agencies faults for no longer caring. Its the people for being ok with it that is the problem.
even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
On March 04 2016 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: Republicans are so tired of being called racist, though. With all the rhetoric speaking out against being politically correct, is Romney telling everyone to stop supporting the racist guy really a good message? Could they need any more confirmation that "the liberal media" is afraid of Trump and trying to get rid of him? When the GOP starts saying their base is too racist, the establishment will officially be toast.
That Romney speech will just drive more people to Trump I mean a three time Presidential nominee decides it will be good to tell voters how they should vote.
On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership.
Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that.
That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of.
I mostly liked the point that calling out Trump on tone is dumb since a lot of his "controversial" statements come straight from past GOP platforms, Trump's just more blunt about it.
But yeah "good" wasn't the correct word, and there's definitely an undercurrent of "conservatives are all racists" in the article that xDaunt is justified in calling out.
On March 04 2016 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: Republicans are so tired of being called racist, though. With all the rhetoric speaking out against being politically correct, is Romney telling everyone to stop supporting the racist guy really a good message? Could they need any more confirmation that "the liberal media" is afraid of Trump and trying to get rid of him? When the GOP starts saying their base is too racist, the establishment will officially be toast.
Sounds fantastic.
Same could be said about the Democratic party and the BLM movement and related SJW movements.
It's just a matter of the right getting to that point first.
On March 04 2016 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: That Romney speech will just drive more people to Trump I mean a three time Presidential nominee decides it will be good to tell voters how they should vote.
Should go over real well.
It's cuz Romney is a loser, and Trump is a winner. Who cares what a loser has to say about winners? :D
On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote: even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies.
On March 04 2016 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: Republicans are so tired of being called racist, though. With all the rhetoric speaking out against being politically correct, is Romney telling everyone to stop supporting the racist guy really a good message? Could they need any more confirmation that "the liberal media" is afraid of Trump and trying to get rid of him? When the GOP starts saying their base is too racist, the establishment will officially be toast.
Sounds fantastic.
Same could be said about the Democratic party and the BLM movement and related SJW movements.
It's just a matter of the right getting to that point first.
On March 04 2016 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: That Romney speech will just drive more people to Trump I mean a three time Presidential nominee decides it will be good to tell voters how they should vote.
Should go over real well.
It's cuz Romney is a loser, and Trump is a winner. Who cares what a loser has to say about winners? :D
You made it to that point first. BLM activists saying and demanding silly things is the left's version.
I eagerly await Trump's likely surge when Romney criticizes him. It's not even about what Trump says, it's how he says it. He also doesn't go the 'you make good points, Sir, but' conciliatory route because voters are just that mad to be over and done with it. He's not my candidate, but he'll likely be nominated anyways. However, today, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
"Socialism" is still an ugly word in the US, and simply saying "that's socialist" is enough to scare many people away from any given policy. Evidently economists aren't immune.
On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote: even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies.
Free college is dumb idea anyways. The base education for Americans is so shit, the jobs that are open that we need filled in America don't require college education, but specialized job placement education.
On March 04 2016 04:05 strongwind wrote: Today it finally hit me just what the death of print journalism has meant for media coverage in general. I can't believe I haven't realized it until now.
Watching this election I've been constantly struck by the sensationalist news headlines that pollute the airwaves and the internet. Add in the pervasiveness of opinion pieces and blog articles, and what we have now is the fracturing of readership / viewership into increasingly polarized camps. Now people get to hear what they "want" to hear instead of the broad reality of the country at large.
At first I thought this might be due to the consolidation and acquisition of the major news agencies by wealthy individuals and corporate entities. But now I realize this was an effect, not the cause. The cause is that the failure to adequately monetize the transition from print to digital media has led to severe cost-cutting measures, effectively winnowing the field of conscientious journalists that strive hard to achieve journalistic integrity.
I for one am tired of the hyperbole being thrown around. I know my opinions are not always right, and I don't think the opposition is the devil incarnate. I want to know why people think the way they do, because I believe there is almost always a nuanced reason behind it.
I understand objective journalism can never be completely unbiased, but I've always trusted journalists to strive for it no matter what. Now with bloggers posing as true journalists, I question that trust. That can't be good for this country.
I have to disagree. Sure there is no denying that journalistic integrity has taken a nosedive but the cause hardly seems to be cost-cutting, its not like news celebrities like Wolf Blitzen or Bill O'reily are not payed very well.
I would certainly point more to the news agencies realizing that large groups of people don't actually want to hear objective news but are perfectly happy about eating up whatever you put in front of them. People like having their opinions confirmed.
There was no big outcry when news stopped telling the objective truth and so news agencies stopped caring about delivering it. Its not the news agencies faults for no longer caring. Its the people for being ok with it that is the problem.
People like Wolf Blitzer and Bill O'Reilly underscore the problem. They are paid well precisely because they are good at funneling people into ideological camps.
Giving people what they "want" to hear is extremely short-sighted. You create an electorate that can't see past their own biases, and who surround themselves with media pundits that will agree with them. Of course I love hearing people that agree with me, but deep down I know this is not a healthy way to consume the news.
Your description of people that are happy with "eating up whatever you put in front of them" is pretty interesting, because it reminds me of why there's an obesity problem in this country. Sacrificing long-term gain for short-term satisfaction is almost never a pathway to success.
On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote: even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies.
Free college is dumb idea anyways. The base education for Americans is so shit, the jobs that are open that we need filled in America don't require college education, but specialized job placement education.
I'd argue that both are important... specialized job/ vocation training is very important, as is improving public education (at the primary, secondary, and undergraduate levels).
On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote: even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies.
Free college is dumb idea anyways. The base education for Americans is so shit, the jobs that are open that we need filled in America don't require college education, but specialized job placement education.
I'd argue that both are important... specialized job/ vocation training is very important, as is improving public education (at the primary, secondary, and undergraduate levels).
On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote: even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies.
free college is really not very workable. it's in the context of the skyrocketing college cost situation, which includes public colleges trying to compete with private colleges for the rich cohort.
it's way better to target vocational schools and whatnot, as aid to poor students directly.
On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership.
Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that.
That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of.
I mostly liked the point that calling out Trump on tone is dumb since a lot of his "controversial" statements come straight from past GOP platforms, Trump's just more blunt about it.
But yeah "good" wasn't the correct word, and there's definitely an undercurrent of "conservatives are all racists" in the article that xDaunt is justified in calling out.
Call it racism, or call it entitlement resentment, dogwhistle politics revolving around the premise that many if not most blacks are part of a moocher mentality, that they are 'bought' by the Democratic party through promises of welfare state giveaways, is a staple of Republican politics. This often extends to a criticism of black culture and a belief that Democrat policies serve to enable supposed counter-productive gangsta elements, whether it's an epidemic of black men not raising their children to a refusal of African-Americans to adopt societal norms in order to secure employment (i.e. pull up their pants), obsession with these topics is a central part of the Republican message .
On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership.
Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that.
That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of.
I mostly liked the point that calling out Trump on tone is dumb since a lot of his "controversial" statements come straight from past GOP platforms, Trump's just more blunt about it.
But yeah "good" wasn't the correct word, and there's definitely an undercurrent of "conservatives are all racists" in the article that xDaunt is justified in calling out.
Call it racism, or call it entitlement resentment, dogwhistle politics revolving around the premise that many if not most blacks are part of a moocher mentality, that they are 'bought' by the Democratic party through promises of welfare state giveaways, is a staple of Republican politics. This often extends to a criticism of black culture and a belief that Democrat policies serve to enable supposed counter-productive gangsta elements, whether it's an epidemic of black men not raising their children to a refusal of African-Americans to adopt societal norms in order to secure employment (i.e. pull up their pants), obsession with these topics is a central part of the Republican message .
Well, are the Democrats pandering to the black community by giving them more benefits or are they not?
On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership.
Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that.
That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of.
I mostly liked the point that calling out Trump on tone is dumb since a lot of his "controversial" statements come straight from past GOP platforms, Trump's just more blunt about it.
But yeah "good" wasn't the correct word, and there's definitely an undercurrent of "conservatives are all racists" in the article that xDaunt is justified in calling out.
Call it racism, or call it entitlement resentment, dogwhistle politics revolving around the premise that many if not most blacks are part of a moocher mentality, that they are 'bought' by the Democratic party through promises of welfare state giveaways, is a staple of Republican politics. This often extends to a criticism of black culture and a belief that Democrat policies serve to enable supposed counter-productive gangsta elements, whether it's an epidemic of black men not raising their children to a refusal of African-Americans to adopt societal norms in order to secure employment (i.e. pull up their pants), obsession with these topics is a central part of the Republican message .
Well, are the Democrats pandering to the black community by giving them more benefits or are they not?
EPT
