|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 02 2017 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:
If insurance companies are required to provide coverage at low costs their willingness to spend on preventive care will naturally rise, because it increases their own profits by reducing costs in the long run (long term preventive care is still cheaper then waiting for someone to end up in the ER).
many already do though.
most self-insured employers, as well as many of the non profit insurers or integrated health systems do all sorts of stuff around preventative care or population health/ disease management. they've done it for years, though the model is kind of outdated - the basics is they get a bunch of data about the people they cover, stratify and identify risk and then have someone (usually a RN or other certified health professional) engage to help coordinate care.
this model actually shows very solid ROI for the payors, something like 3-5:1 for every dollar spent i think based on the studies i've read. these sort of analyses have some pretty cool modeling about how admissions and such are reduced compared to a baseline. however, its typically limited to the high risk group, ie people with asthma, COPD, cardiac issues, etc. because staffing hundreds of nurses is quite expensive. one trend is to outsource, which turns this into a variable vs fixed cost, though this has gone back and forth and approach varies from insurer to insurer.
so there is a fairly complex system of preventative care, though only applicable to the highest risk group. trying to apply that sort of preventative model to a wider population is hard. there are things like incentive plans (my plan offers 50 bucks if you take a survey and pledge to be more healthy) but the impact of those isnt really that great. there's better stuff coming out using mobile devices, activity trackers and digital engagement type stuff, but that stuff is still pretty early stage.
|
On March 01 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 22:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 01 2017 19:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 14:57 Nyxisto wrote:
isn't exactly working out for Corbyn is it. The base can love you to death but you don't win an election by winning over your base. There's no need to over adjust really. Dems lost by 70k votes in three states this time, if < 0.1% of the population would have changed their minds you wouldn't have that discussion. Not to mention that three consecutive party wins in the US are very rare.
I think people are a little quick to see relations where none are, not everything is a policy issue. They didn't just barely lose, they barely lost to Donald Trump. I don't really think you're dishonest when you say stuff like this but really how do you not see that "barely losing" isn't the same thing when you lose to a decent candidate or when you lose to someone who has perhaps the most blatantly shitty program I've ever seen (down to "I'm going to fight against income inequality by taxing the rich less"), is already hated by a significant number of his own population and ridiculed by an even more significant number, and can barely put coherent sentences together? We can also pretend that this election is the only thing that happened and that the democrats haven't lost a zillion seats with their strategy since 2009 but that's not really productive either now is it. Also are we really going to go to Corbyn every time now just because Dershowitz mentioned him in the middle of his propaganda piece? The republicans lost much harder to the same person. The fact is that for all of Trump's blatantly obvious flaws, we have to accept that he also has some (less obvious) qualities that resonate strongly with a significant amount of Americans. I mean, I definitely want democrats to push harder leftward, I definitely agree that Trump is a disaster, but I don't think he's as easy of an opponent to defeat as some people like to pretend. The whole, never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience holds some truth, and in a presidential campaign, you have no choice but to argue with him. Hillary being the democrat choice made the case of bringing her down much easier because a couple decades of smearing makes stuff stick, but I think no matter the candidate chosen, the person opposing Trump would have seen their favorability numbers tank during the election period - media fragmentation was a thing before the election as well. It's not a huge surprise to me that Donald Trump would beat the other republicans, given that on republican subjects he's basically saying the same general things with less filters (bonus, because "political correctness" is baaaad -_-) and when he departs it's on things that they appreciate more than what the other republicans have to say. Republicans should certainly fear someone like that because they're not in a very honest business in the first place so a better salesman is a real threat. The other side actually has sane policies on their side. An advantage in facts coupled with an advantage in fighting a ridiculous manchild with hateful rhetoric, that's not material for a close race, and we're doing a disservice to America when we pretend it should have been expected to be one just because they did happen to lose it. This is precisely the kind of misplaced elitist thinking that has led the democrats to become the weakest American political party in 90 years. For all of the talk about how bad of a candidate Hillary was (and she was bad), what democrats commonly overlook is that their message is not resonating with the voting public at large -- particularly anywhere outside of larger, urban areas. There very much was a "referendum on the Obama era" element to this election that democrats really don't want to talk about because of the implications for many elements of the democrat platform. I don't think that it's too bold to suggest that chalking up a rejection of the democrat platform to the idiocy of the American voting public is the wrong answer.
It pains me to say it but you have a point. Although I think it's both.
And to be clear, it's not that Obama did a bad job, he was probably the best president America has had in many, many decades. But the world is changing and a lot of people feel left behind. The problem is that it's something no one can do anything about, at least in the american coordinates, and Trump capitalized on it with yhe usual weapons of the far right: populistic hatred of the elite, immigrants and foreigners and simplistic ideas that appeal to the lowest of the lowest denominators. After all from the mildest to the most hardcore versions of far right "success" stories, that has always been the receipe.
That being said, I also think that Trump's depravity, tackiness, vulgarity and his bombastic style actually ended up being great assets. That's what made my american friends the saddest: that people would reward such qualities and that being a tacky bully seems to rime with success and appeal to a lot of people. And to the question "is that who we are", the answer seems to be, well, actually yes.
|
On March 01 2017 19:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 14:57 Nyxisto wrote:
isn't exactly working out for Corbyn is it. The base can love you to death but you don't win an election by winning over your base. There's no need to over adjust really. Dems lost by 70k votes in three states this time, if < 0.1% of the population would have changed their minds you wouldn't have that discussion. Not to mention that three consecutive party wins in the US are very rare.
I think people are a little quick to see relations where none are, not everything is a policy issue. They didn't just barely lose, they barely lost to Donald Trump. I don't really think you're dishonest when you say stuff like this but really how do you not see that "barely losing" isn't the same thing when you lose to a decent candidate or when you lose to someone who has perhaps the most blatantly shitty program I've ever seen (down to "I'm going to fight against income inequality by taxing the rich less"), is already hated by a significant number of his own population and ridiculed by an even more significant number, and can barely put coherent sentences together? We can also pretend that this election is the only thing that happened and that the democrats haven't lost a zillion seats with their strategy since 2009 but that's not really productive either now is it. Also are we really going to go to Corbyn every time now just because Dershowitz mentioned him in the middle of his propaganda piece?
But this is only true if you assume that party voters are flexible. The US is insanely polarised, and especially Republicans seem to turn out for their candidate no matter what as long as he has an "R" next to the same. In that environment Donald Trump as a person or the program isn't even that relevant. I've seen Republicans cheer for trade protectionism on television yesterday.
I'm not saying that the Democratic party should not evaluate where they stand, but people should be a little careful to assume that there is something fundamentally wrong with their program simply because they lost. Good candidates with good programs lose elections, it happens.
The Corbyn comparison is not just a silly meme, it's a good example of what happens if you overshoot into the wrong direction simply because you've taken a bad hit.
|
For this VOICE thing, does it also include legal immigrants...? That seems bizarre if so. Everything i am seeing seems to indicate it isn't exclusive to illegals.
|
It is specifically for crimes committed by illegal immigrants. I would point out that it isn't super specific to if they need to be convicted of the crime, or just charged. And publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by a specific group has some pretty dark history to it. I fail to see the argument for publishing those crimes over crimes committed by police officers or union employees.
It's real goal is to stir of fear and create an impression that illegal immigrants are committing violent crimes all over the US. It is there to confirm irrational fears of illegal immigrants, when most evidence shows they are far less likely to commit violent crimes than natural born citizens.
|
United States42777 Posts
On March 02 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:
It is specifically for crimes committed by illegal immigrants. I would point out that it isn't super specific to if they need to be convicted of the crime, or just charged. And publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by a specific group has some pretty dark history to it. I fail to see the argument for publishing those crimes over crimes committed by police officers or union employees.
It's real goal is to stir of fear and create an impression that illegal immigrants are committing violent crimes all over the US. It is there to confirm irrational fears of illegal immigrants, when most evidence shows they are far less likely to commit violent crimes than natural born citizens.
If we're not willing to tolerate state sanctioned propaganda aimed at minority groups living alongside us then clearly we're the true intolerants. Political correctness has gone mad.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I have to admit, I laughed.
|
On March 02 2017 03:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:
It is specifically for crimes committed by illegal immigrants. I would point out that it isn't super specific to if they need to be convicted of the crime, or just charged. And publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by a specific group has some pretty dark history to it. I fail to see the argument for publishing those crimes over crimes committed by police officers or union employees.
It's real goal is to stir of fear and create an impression that illegal immigrants are committing violent crimes all over the US. It is there to confirm irrational fears of illegal immigrants, when most evidence shows they are far less likely to commit violent crimes than natural born citizens. If we're not willing to tolerate state sanctioned propaganda aimed at minority groups living alongside us then clearly we're the true intolerants. Political correctness has gone mad.
To paraphrase one perplexed black man on twitter:
“I live in a bizzaro liberal/libertarian reality where I am shunned for not defending the rights of others to advocate for my systematic murder.”
I likely went over 140 characters,.
|
On March 02 2017 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2017 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 22:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 01 2017 19:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 14:57 Nyxisto wrote:
isn't exactly working out for Corbyn is it. The base can love you to death but you don't win an election by winning over your base. There's no need to over adjust really. Dems lost by 70k votes in three states this time, if < 0.1% of the population would have changed their minds you wouldn't have that discussion. Not to mention that three consecutive party wins in the US are very rare.
I think people are a little quick to see relations where none are, not everything is a policy issue. They didn't just barely lose, they barely lost to Donald Trump. I don't really think you're dishonest when you say stuff like this but really how do you not see that "barely losing" isn't the same thing when you lose to a decent candidate or when you lose to someone who has perhaps the most blatantly shitty program I've ever seen (down to "I'm going to fight against income inequality by taxing the rich less"), is already hated by a significant number of his own population and ridiculed by an even more significant number, and can barely put coherent sentences together? We can also pretend that this election is the only thing that happened and that the democrats haven't lost a zillion seats with their strategy since 2009 but that's not really productive either now is it. Also are we really going to go to Corbyn every time now just because Dershowitz mentioned him in the middle of his propaganda piece? The republicans lost much harder to the same person. The fact is that for all of Trump's blatantly obvious flaws, we have to accept that he also has some (less obvious) qualities that resonate strongly with a significant amount of Americans. I mean, I definitely want democrats to push harder leftward, I definitely agree that Trump is a disaster, but I don't think he's as easy of an opponent to defeat as some people like to pretend. The whole, never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience holds some truth, and in a presidential campaign, you have no choice but to argue with him. Hillary being the democrat choice made the case of bringing her down much easier because a couple decades of smearing makes stuff stick, but I think no matter the candidate chosen, the person opposing Trump would have seen their favorability numbers tank during the election period - media fragmentation was a thing before the election as well. It's not a huge surprise to me that Donald Trump would beat the other republicans, given that on republican subjects he's basically saying the same general things with less filters (bonus, because "political correctness" is baaaad -_-) and when he departs it's on things that they appreciate more than what the other republicans have to say. Republicans should certainly fear someone like that because they're not in a very honest business in the first place so a better salesman is a real threat. The other side actually has sane policies on their side. An advantage in facts coupled with an advantage in fighting a ridiculous manchild with hateful rhetoric, that's not material for a close race, and we're doing a disservice to America when we pretend it should have been expected to be one just because they did happen to lose it. This is precisely the kind of misplaced elitist thinking that has led the democrats to become the weakest American political party in 90 years. For all of the talk about how bad of a candidate Hillary was (and she was bad), what democrats commonly overlook is that their message is not resonating with the voting public at large -- particularly anywhere outside of larger, urban areas. There very much was a "referendum on the Obama era" element to this election that democrats really don't want to talk about because of the implications for many elements of the democrat platform. I don't think that it's too bold to suggest that chalking up a rejection of the democrat platform to the idiocy of the American voting public is the wrong answer. Will you take part of the responsibility for simply assuming that because I believe the republican platform is wrong and/or dishonest, a lot, on a lot of subjects, it must be because I think I'm better than them, and not simply because I've studied it and come to that conclusion naturally?
Yep, and I'll further state that it's a fair assumption given your post. Hell, let's really have fun: I'll double down and state that I doubt you understand the republican platform half as well as you think you do. Europeans generally struggle with their understanding of American conservative politics. And your writing off of the politics of a solid 40% or so of the country as being "not sane" and "dishonest" is patently ridiculous.
And lest anyone think that I'm being unfair to our European brethren, I have the same criticisms of many American democrats as should be clear from my previous posts on the subject. Because of the liberal dominance of major media and academia, the average democrat has been instilled with a misplaced sense of inherent superiority in his/her politics. It's this sense of inherent superiority that gives rise to the arrogance and dismissiveness that we see from our friends on the left, which leaves them with some rather large blind spots to their own political vulnerabilities and to understanding the opposition.
|
United States42777 Posts
xDaunt, the media didn't desert conservative politics. That'd be absurd and fly in the face of basic economics, entire industries refusing to serve large numbers of established customers wouldn't make any sense. The traditionally centrist media giants are still selling the same basic coverage they always were. The problem is that they are limited in what they can report by the actual facts. Subscribers to the conservative political ideologies no longer want to read about those facts and have abandoned actual journalism and fled the sanctuaries of facebook forwards and infowars which are free to report the fantasies conservatives want to read.
There is this bizarre idea that if the media is reporting something that contradicts your belief then the media must be out to get you and should be shunned. It's a symptom of the increasing division between the Republican party and reality. The media isn't a liberal conspiracy and nor is academia. When they say that global warming is happening, they're not saying that because they want to discredit Trump and make him look bad for saying that it isn't, they're saying it because the ice is melting.
If you want the "mainstream media" to suddenly start becoming a bulwark of conservative politics you could do that overnight. All you'd have to do is incorporate the facts that they are reporting on into your policies. If the Republican party put together a solid strategy for tackling global warming then every "global warming is a looming crisis" piece would be an article that could be used to support and justify that strategy. They're not reporting facts as a way to make the Republicans look bad, the Republicans look bad because for some reason they have decided they wish to be ideologically opposed to facts.
It's the exact same issue as they have with judges. Whenever judges say "this is unconstitutional' they roar "the judges are out to get us!!!". It's nonsense. The judges just want the legislation and guidelines to be constitutional. They're not saying it's unconstitutional as some kind of attack, they're saying it because it's unconstitutional. If the conservatives would start writing shit that was constitutional then this whole war between them and the judiciary could be over immediately.
If someone disagrees with you that doesn't mean they hate you or are conspiring against you or are out to get you. Sometimes they just want to help you find your way back to where you should have always been. But if the Republican party keeps peddling this adversarial narrative where you must gouge out your lying eyes rather than believe them then they'll never get their shit together.
|
On March 02 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 01:32 On_Slaught wrote:On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote:
The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.
I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith. I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work. The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being. Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want. As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs.
Dems still don't get religion and set themselves up for antagonistic relationships. You repeat "significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought" often enough and people end up with the surprising idea that their vote isn't valuable to them. As long as your reinforce the binary "You're either in favor of mollycoddling religious idiot voters or you're part of the new rational thought ascendency," you're feeding into Trumpian us-or-them rhetoric. You want a competitive second choice not pick GOP again because fuck those entitled assholes that preach religion is the opiate for the masses.
Hide your contempt, people are less open to your argument when you make it clear you despise them.
|
On March 02 2017 03:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2017 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 22:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 01 2017 19:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 01 2017 14:57 Nyxisto wrote:
isn't exactly working out for Corbyn is it. The base can love you to death but you don't win an election by winning over your base. There's no need to over adjust really. Dems lost by 70k votes in three states this time, if < 0.1% of the population would have changed their minds you wouldn't have that discussion. Not to mention that three consecutive party wins in the US are very rare.
I think people are a little quick to see relations where none are, not everything is a policy issue. They didn't just barely lose, they barely lost to Donald Trump. I don't really think you're dishonest when you say stuff like this but really how do you not see that "barely losing" isn't the same thing when you lose to a decent candidate or when you lose to someone who has perhaps the most blatantly shitty program I've ever seen (down to "I'm going to fight against income inequality by taxing the rich less"), is already hated by a significant number of his own population and ridiculed by an even more significant number, and can barely put coherent sentences together? We can also pretend that this election is the only thing that happened and that the democrats haven't lost a zillion seats with their strategy since 2009 but that's not really productive either now is it. Also are we really going to go to Corbyn every time now just because Dershowitz mentioned him in the middle of his propaganda piece? The republicans lost much harder to the same person. The fact is that for all of Trump's blatantly obvious flaws, we have to accept that he also has some (less obvious) qualities that resonate strongly with a significant amount of Americans. I mean, I definitely want democrats to push harder leftward, I definitely agree that Trump is a disaster, but I don't think he's as easy of an opponent to defeat as some people like to pretend. The whole, never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience holds some truth, and in a presidential campaign, you have no choice but to argue with him. Hillary being the democrat choice made the case of bringing her down much easier because a couple decades of smearing makes stuff stick, but I think no matter the candidate chosen, the person opposing Trump would have seen their favorability numbers tank during the election period - media fragmentation was a thing before the election as well. It's not a huge surprise to me that Donald Trump would beat the other republicans, given that on republican subjects he's basically saying the same general things with less filters (bonus, because "political correctness" is baaaad -_-) and when he departs it's on things that they appreciate more than what the other republicans have to say. Republicans should certainly fear someone like that because they're not in a very honest business in the first place so a better salesman is a real threat. The other side actually has sane policies on their side. An advantage in facts coupled with an advantage in fighting a ridiculous manchild with hateful rhetoric, that's not material for a close race, and we're doing a disservice to America when we pretend it should have been expected to be one just because they did happen to lose it. This is precisely the kind of misplaced elitist thinking that has led the democrats to become the weakest American political party in 90 years. For all of the talk about how bad of a candidate Hillary was (and she was bad), what democrats commonly overlook is that their message is not resonating with the voting public at large -- particularly anywhere outside of larger, urban areas. There very much was a "referendum on the Obama era" element to this election that democrats really don't want to talk about because of the implications for many elements of the democrat platform. I don't think that it's too bold to suggest that chalking up a rejection of the democrat platform to the idiocy of the American voting public is the wrong answer. Will you take part of the responsibility for simply assuming that because I believe the republican platform is wrong and/or dishonest, a lot, on a lot of subjects, it must be because I think I'm better than them, and not simply because I've studied it and come to that conclusion naturally? Yep, and I'll further state that it's a fair assumption given your post. Hell, let's really have fun: I'll double down and state that I doubt you understand the republican platform half as well as you think you do. Europeans generally struggle with their understanding of American conservative politics. And your writing off of the politics of a solid 40% or so of the country as being "not sane" and "dishonest" is patently ridiculous. And lest anyone think that I'm being unfair to our European brethren, I have the same criticisms of many American democrats as should be clear from my previous posts on the subject. Because of the liberal dominance of major media and academia, the average democrat has been instilled with a misplaced sense of inherent superiority in his/her politics. It's this sense of inherent superiority that gives rise to the arrogance and dismissiveness that we see from our friends on the left, which leaves them with some rather large blind spots to their own political vulnerabilities and to understanding the opposition.
At the same time, you have a whole party that has claimed for 30 years that drastically cutting taxes on the richest of the richest will benefit the average Joe despite repeated evidence of the contrary, that denies climate science and who counts an alarming number of leaders who claim that the world is 6000 years old. Oh and who chose Donald fucking Trump as a president, a man who looks and behaves like a grotesque superhero comic books vilain. It makes it very fucking hard to take you guys seriously.
There might be some great subtlelty in american conservatism that us european are not smart enough to get, but yeah, from the outside, the GOP looks like a bunch of hypocrites and lunatics. I'm still waiting for evidences that it's not the case. There is John Mc Cain, who seems like a decent human being, that's the best I've found.
|
On March 02 2017 03:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2017 01:32 On_Slaught wrote:On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote:
The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.
I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith. I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work. The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being. Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want. As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs. Dems still don't get religion and set themselves up for antagonistic relationships. You repeat "significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought" often enough and people end up with the surprising idea that their vote isn't valuable to them. As long as your reinforce the binary "You're either in favor of mollycoddling religious idiot voters or you're part of the new rational thought ascendency," you're feeding into Trumpian us-or-them rhetoric. You want a competitive second choice not pick GOP again because fuck those entitled assholes that preach religion is the opiate for the masses. Hide your contempt, people are less open to your argument when you make it clear you despise them.
I would argue that the conservatives are not making any inroads to convince democrats or liberals that they are right. As I said, I grew up in a dirt poor rural town. My parents owned a small business that employed 10 people. Every single one of those people loved talking down to the “city people” that don’t understand “real life”. These are people who got mad that you get paid $12 per hour in Boston for serving coffee, because they don’t get $12 hour for their job.
The contempt is cyclical.
|
IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
|
On March 02 2017 04:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 03:57 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2017 01:32 On_Slaught wrote:On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote:
The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.
I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith. I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work. The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being. Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want. As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs. Dems still don't get religion and set themselves up for antagonistic relationships. You repeat "significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought" often enough and people end up with the surprising idea that their vote isn't valuable to them. As long as your reinforce the binary "You're either in favor of mollycoddling religious idiot voters or you're part of the new rational thought ascendency," you're feeding into Trumpian us-or-them rhetoric. You want a competitive second choice not pick GOP again because fuck those entitled assholes that preach religion is the opiate for the masses. Hide your contempt, people are less open to your argument when you make it clear you despise them. I would argue that the conservatives are not making any inroads to convince democrats or liberals that they are right. As I said, I grew up in a dirt poor rural town. My parents owned a small business that employed 10 people. Every single one of those people loved talking down to the “city people” that don’t understand “real life”. These are people who got mad that you get paid $12 per hour in Boston for serving coffee, because they don’t get $12 hour for their job. The contempt is cyclical.
For it to be cyclical, city dwelling people would have to hear that gripe and magnify their response. LA & NY don't respond because they've heard rural families complain about coastal pay rates ... they haven't heard a word. It's their own blind spots on guns and religion (God Bless Obama for that one) that motivates.
Trump's election was one of the first broadcast messages to that part of the country. It arguably wasn't heard.
|
On March 02 2017 04:10 LightSpectra wrote:
IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
Any attempt to explain why Americans turned to non-legacy news sources is met with incredulity. Clearly, people who think different than me don't want their misconceptions challenged.
I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect.
Surely you can't be serious.
|
On March 02 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 04:03 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2017 03:57 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2017 01:32 On_Slaught wrote:On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote:
The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.
I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith. I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work. The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being. Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want. As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs. Dems still don't get religion and set themselves up for antagonistic relationships. You repeat "significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought" often enough and people end up with the surprising idea that their vote isn't valuable to them. As long as your reinforce the binary "You're either in favor of mollycoddling religious idiot voters or you're part of the new rational thought ascendency," you're feeding into Trumpian us-or-them rhetoric. You want a competitive second choice not pick GOP again because fuck those entitled assholes that preach religion is the opiate for the masses. Hide your contempt, people are less open to your argument when you make it clear you despise them. I would argue that the conservatives are not making any inroads to convince democrats or liberals that they are right. As I said, I grew up in a dirt poor rural town. My parents owned a small business that employed 10 people. Every single one of those people loved talking down to the “city people” that don’t understand “real life”. These are people who got mad that you get paid $12 per hour in Boston for serving coffee, because they don’t get $12 hour for their job. The contempt is cyclical. For it to be cyclical, city dwelling people would have to hear that gripe and magnify their response. LA & NY don't respond because they've heard rural families complain about coastal pay rates ... they haven't heard a word. It's their own blind spots on guns and religion (God Bless Obama for that one) that motivates. Trump's election was one of the first broadcast messages to that part of the country. It arguably wasn't heard.
It is mostly that the people in the cities don’t give a shit about people in rural areas and people in rural areas don’t give a shit about the city. Traveling between the two for most of my life, this is the common refrain.
You can theorize who started it, but I’m not really sure that matters.
|
On March 02 2017 04:10 LightSpectra wrote:
IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
I am honestly more troubled by the fact that our news media is fawning over a mediocre speech instead of using every available resource tp track down the Trump>Russia truth before all the potential sources are killed. Excuse me, I meant before they have "heart attacks" or fall off buildings. Been an awful lot of mysterious deaths and disappearances lately.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/colleagues-mourn-sudden-death-russian-ambassador-45624185
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/top-russian-diplomat-petr-polshikov-found-shot-dead-at-moscow-home/ar-BBxm3p1
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/747259/NATO-Auditor-General-is-found-shot-dead-in-suspicious-circumstances
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/top-russian-diplomat-found-dead-9593229
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-strange-case-of-the-russian-diplomat-who-got-his-head-sm?utm_term=.ow2JZ587L#.xq0MknZwW
And let's not forget about the connections on this side of the world!
Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Rex Tillerson, Michael Cohen, Richard Burt, Howard Lorber, Wilbur Ross, Roger Stone and Jack Kingston.
But yeah, let's get all teary eyed about that Seal widow and yammer on about Obamacare lol.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Getting a little too conspiratorial there matey.
|
On March 02 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:
Getting a little too conspiratorial there matey.
That's the response that scares me. Where there's smoke etc. And in this case it's billowing from Russia to Ukraine to Cyprus to the USA. Treating the mere possibility of collusion or blackmail as total bullshit is dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
