|
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. |
Interesting study on 2016 and policy vs personality.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.
Article
|
Fox opinion, soon to be Trump's opinion, on leaks,
Dennis Kucinich: New WikiLeaks reveal proof we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism
Dennis Kucinich Published March 08, 2017
The U.S. government must get a grip on the massive opening that the CIA, through its misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, has created.
If Tuesday’s WikiLeaks document dump is authentic, as it appears to be, then the agency left open electronic gateways that make all Americans vulnerable to spying, eavesdropping and technological manipulation that could bring genuine harm.
That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation’s “haystack” of information has already been reported.
It is bad enough that the government spies on its own people. It is equally bad that the CIA, through its incompetence, has opened the cyberdoor to anyone with the technological skills and connections to spy on anyone else.
The constant erosion of privacy at the hands of the government and corporations has annihilated the concept of a “right to privacy,” which is embedded in the rationale of the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, where private lives do not exist.
We have entered a condition of constitutional crisis that requires a full-throated response from the American people. I have repeatedly warned about the dangers of the Patriot Act and its successive iterations, the execrable national security letters that turn every FBI agent into a star chamberlain, the dangers of fear-based security policies eroding our republic.
We have crossed the threshold of a cowardly new world, and it’s time we tell the government and the corporations who have intruded to stop it.
Source
|
That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation’s “haystack” of information has already been reported.
This was the first thing that came to my mind, isn't it possible, even probable, that they were using these exploits (along with others that may not be included) to collect data. And couldn't they, by making the ID's anonymous (temporarily), and just sticking the data on a server somewhere without looking at it, argue that they weren't breaking the law?
|
Dennis Kucinich Published March 08, 2017
The U.S. government must get a grip on the massive opening that the CIA, through its misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, has created.
Good lord if that bad writing. It looks like somebody looked up any word with "feasance" to throw on the end and just put it in there. This is the first time I've gotten semantic satiation from a single sentence.
|
On March 09 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Interesting study on 2016 and policy vs personality. Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump. Article
hmm, while that does fit my impression that she screwed up by not focusing on policy enough with ads. or at least establishes that she wasn't putting enough policy in ads, and I don't think many will argue if I claim it's a screwup.
I wonder what other studies on the topic have found/will find.
|
It is Dennis Kucinich, who is a fun guy, but not the best writer. But he isn’t wrong about how the CIA has been operating. But with congress asleep at the wheel, no one is thinking about this. Because that would be governing and Republicans have been too busy getting reelected.
|
On March 09 2017 06:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Interesting study on 2016 and policy vs personality. Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump. Article hmm, while that does fit my impression that she screwed up by not focusing on policy enough with ads. or at least establishes that she wasn't putting enough policy in ads, and I don't think many will argue if I claim it's a screwup. I wonder what other studies on the topic have found/will find.
Like what?
|
On March 09 2017 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 06:35 zlefin wrote:On March 09 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Interesting study on 2016 and policy vs personality. Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump. Article hmm, while that does fit my impression that she screwed up by not focusing on policy enough with ads. or at least establishes that she wasn't putting enough policy in ads, and I don't think many will argue if I claim it's a screwup. I wonder what other studies on the topic have found/will find. Like what?
Well, most obviously whether other studies reach the same conclusion, or reach different conclusions.
It's always nice to have multiple independent studies to compare, helps cut down on the chances of erroneous info.
While an unfortunate necessity, it's not good to rely on a single study, especially if it's one that confirms what you thought anyways (which makes it harder to spot errors).
|
On March 09 2017 06:18 LegalLord wrote:Fox opinion, soon to be Trump's opinion, on leaks, Show nested quote +Dennis Kucinich: New WikiLeaks reveal proof we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism
Dennis Kucinich Published March 08, 2017
The U.S. government must get a grip on the massive opening that the CIA, through its misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, has created.
If Tuesday’s WikiLeaks document dump is authentic, as it appears to be, then the agency left open electronic gateways that make all Americans vulnerable to spying, eavesdropping and technological manipulation that could bring genuine harm.
That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation’s “haystack” of information has already been reported.
It is bad enough that the government spies on its own people. It is equally bad that the CIA, through its incompetence, has opened the cyberdoor to anyone with the technological skills and connections to spy on anyone else.
The constant erosion of privacy at the hands of the government and corporations has annihilated the concept of a “right to privacy,” which is embedded in the rationale of the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, where private lives do not exist.
We have entered a condition of constitutional crisis that requires a full-throated response from the American people. I have repeatedly warned about the dangers of the Patriot Act and its successive iterations, the execrable national security letters that turn every FBI agent into a star chamberlain, the dangers of fear-based security policies eroding our republic.
We have crossed the threshold of a cowardly new world, and it’s time we tell the government and the corporations who have intruded to stop it. Source
lol good ole Kucinich. He was Bernie before Bernie was cool.
|
Nearly two dozen senators on Wednesday slammed the White House for proposing major cuts to the Coast Guard's budget to help pay for President Donald Trump’s border wall and stepped-up immigration enforcement.
“We urge you to restore the $1.3 billion cut to the Coast Guard budget, which we firmly believe would result in catastrophic negative impacts to the Coast Guard and its critical role in protecting our homeland, our economy and our environment,” write 23 senators, led by Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), to OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.
They warn the cuts “would directly contradict the priorities articulated by the Trump administration, in particular the priorities regarding enhanced maritime security needs and desire to invest in our national security.”
In draft budget documents first reported by POLITICO, the Coast Guard’s budget for fiscal 2018 would be reduced 14 percent to $7.8 billion, while the TSA and FEMA would both see a more than 10 percent drop.
The cuts help fund Trump’s immigration crackdown, including more than $1.9 billion for Trump’s border wall, $915 million for border surveillance technology and $285 million for the first tranche of new Customs and Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/senators-blast-trump-coast-guard-cuts-235838
|
On March 09 2017 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation’s “haystack” of information has already been reported. This was the first thing that came to my mind, isn't it possible, even probable, that they were using these exploits (along with others that may not be included) to collect data. And couldn't they, by making the ID's anonymous (temporarily), and just sticking the data on a server somewhere without looking at it, argue that they weren't breaking the law?
Bush and Obama passed some pretty sweeping laws allowing for more surveillance. I doubt anything is particularly illegal. But Obama was indeed a huge hypocrite on surveillance, that much is true.
|
On March 09 2017 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 06:18 LegalLord wrote:Fox opinion, soon to be Trump's opinion, on leaks, Dennis Kucinich: New WikiLeaks reveal proof we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism
Dennis Kucinich Published March 08, 2017
The U.S. government must get a grip on the massive opening that the CIA, through its misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, has created.
If Tuesday’s WikiLeaks document dump is authentic, as it appears to be, then the agency left open electronic gateways that make all Americans vulnerable to spying, eavesdropping and technological manipulation that could bring genuine harm.
That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation’s “haystack” of information has already been reported.
It is bad enough that the government spies on its own people. It is equally bad that the CIA, through its incompetence, has opened the cyberdoor to anyone with the technological skills and connections to spy on anyone else.
The constant erosion of privacy at the hands of the government and corporations has annihilated the concept of a “right to privacy,” which is embedded in the rationale of the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, where private lives do not exist.
We have entered a condition of constitutional crisis that requires a full-throated response from the American people. I have repeatedly warned about the dangers of the Patriot Act and its successive iterations, the execrable national security letters that turn every FBI agent into a star chamberlain, the dangers of fear-based security policies eroding our republic.
We have crossed the threshold of a cowardly new world, and it’s time we tell the government and the corporations who have intruded to stop it. Source lol good ole Kucinich. He was Bernie before Bernie was cool.
And he wins the award for most unlikely couple in DC, marrying a woman so stunning that she would get asked out when they were at dinner.
|
On March 09 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:
I like how we have turned the US politics thread into a discussion of the systemic bullshit of the US health care industry while our EU posters look on in sad disbelief.
Yes. On some theoretical level, i know how shitty your system is. But every time i read stories like that, i am utterly disgusted. Why do people put up with that shit? Why do people defend that system? My only explanation is that they have simply never experienced anything else, and thus think that that is just the way things have to work.
Basically, WTF. Even ignoring the whole ruining people's lives thing, and the fact that you pay way more for worse healthcare than any other developed nation, why are people willing to deal with their healthcare being such a constant hassle?
Let me tell you how it works for me. If i am sick, i go to the doctor (Any doctor i like). I hand them my insurance card. I get treatment. Maybe they write a recipe for some meds, which i have to get from the apothecary. It is possible that i may have to pay about 10-20€ for those meds, if they are not completely covered. I head back home and lay in bed until i am healthy again. The end.
I am in constant disbelief why anyone would choose the US system. Or defend it. I don't understand it. It seems utterly irrational and insane to NOT want to simply steal a healthcare system from any random european nation instead. Roll a die or whatever. Any one of them is better than your shit.
And instead you have insane idiots trying to make your system even worse, and the people are cheering on that. The whole situation is incomprehensible. I think that everyone from the US should just experience being sick in a reasonable system once. I don't think that any of them would want to go back afterwards.
|
On March 09 2017 07:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:
I like how we have turned the US politics thread into a discussion of the systemic bullshit of the US health care industry while our EU posters look on in sad disbelief. Yes. On some theoretical level, i know how shitty your system is. But every time i read stories like that, i am utterly disgusted. Why do people put up with that shit? Why do people defend that system? My only explanation is that they have simply never experienced anything else, and thus think that that is just the way things have to work. Basically, WTF. Even ignoring the whole ruining people's lives thing, and the fact that you pay way more for worse healthcare than any other developed nation, why are people willing to deal with their healthcare being such a constant hassle? Let me tell you how it works for me. If i am sick, i go to the doctor (Any doctor i like). I hand them my insurance card. I get treatment. Maybe they write a recipe for some meds, which i have to get from the apothecary. It is possible that i may have to pay about 10-20€ for those meds, if they are not completely covered. I head back home and lay in bed until i am healthy again. The end. I am in constant disbelief why anyone would choose the US system. Or defend it. I don't understand it. It seems utterly irrational and insane to NOT want to simply steal a healthcare system from any random european nation instead. Roll a die or whatever. Any one of them is better than your shit. And instead you have insane idiots trying to make your system even worse, and the people are cheering on that. The whole situation is incomprehensible. I think that everyone from the US should just experience being sick in a reasonable system once. I don't think that any of them would want to go back afterwards.
most people are terribly ignorant of the actual possibilities of the world. most voters have terrible understanding of the issues. and they aren't aware of the extent of their own ignorance.
also, medical lobbying is VERY big and gives a LOT of money to a LOT of politicians.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i
and all people don't have issues all the time; people who are better off and get good insurance through work have it much the same way as you describe it. (most of the time anyways). it's more the lower classes with less power who get messed with more by the system.
|
On March 09 2017 06:36 Plansix wrote:
It is Dennis Kucinich, who is a fun guy, but not the best writer. But he isn’t wrong about how the CIA has been operating. But with congress asleep at the wheel, no one is thinking about this. Because that would be governing and Republicans have been too busy getting reelected.
Careful, the deep state might actually be your friend, large bureaucracies are traditionally a pretty good defence against totalitarian despots. On the institutional level they and the courts are basically the only rational actor left to combat Trump's erratic behaviour.
|
On March 09 2017 07:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:
I like how we have turned the US politics thread into a discussion of the systemic bullshit of the US health care industry while our EU posters look on in sad disbelief. Yes. On some theoretical level, i know how shitty your system is. But every time i read stories like that, i am utterly disgusted. Why do people put up with that shit? Why do people defend that system? My only explanation is that they have simply never experienced anything else, and thus think that that is just the way things have to work. Basically, WTF. Even ignoring the whole ruining people's lives thing, and the fact that you pay way more for worse healthcare than any other developed nation, why are people willing to deal with their healthcare being such a constant hassle? Let me tell you how it works for me. If i am sick, i go to the doctor (Any doctor i like). I hand them my insurance card. I get treatment. Maybe they write a recipe for some meds, which i have to get from the apothecary. It is possible that i may have to pay about 10-20€ for those meds, if they are not completely covered. I head back home and lay in bed until i am healthy again. The end. I am in constant disbelief why anyone would choose the US system. Or defend it. I don't understand it. It seems utterly irrational and insane to NOT want to simply steal a healthcare system from any random european nation instead. Roll a die or whatever. Any one of them is better than your shit. And instead you have insane idiots trying to make your system even worse, and the people are cheering on that. The whole situation is incomprehensible. I think that everyone from the US should just experience being sick in a reasonable system once. I don't think that any of them would want to go back afterwards.
America is filled with temporally embarrassed millionaires that could be successful if things would just get out of their way. Good people are successful, bad people are not. So on and so on.
I know so many poor white people from my home town who resent the ACA and don’t want it, thinking it is free health care for minorities and poor people. Because they are not poor. Its just a rough patch, not a big deal. Poor people who live in the city, like black people and Hispanics are poor(PS, my home town is super racist, even for MA)
|
On March 09 2017 07:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:
I like how we have turned the US politics thread into a discussion of the systemic bullshit of the US health care industry while our EU posters look on in sad disbelief. Yes. On some theoretical level, i know how shitty your system is. But every time i read stories like that, i am utterly disgusted. Why do people put up with that shit? Why do people defend that system? My only explanation is that they have simply never experienced anything else, and thus think that that is just the way things have to work. Basically, WTF. Even ignoring the whole ruining people's lives thing, and the fact that you pay way more for worse healthcare than any other developed nation, why are people willing to deal with their healthcare being such a constant hassle? Let me tell you how it works for me. If i am sick, i go to the doctor (Any doctor i like). I hand them my insurance card. I get treatment. Maybe they write a recipe for some meds, which i have to get from the apothecary. It is possible that i may have to pay about 10-20€ for those meds, if they are not completely covered. I head back home and lay in bed until i am healthy again. The end. I am in constant disbelief why anyone would choose the US system. Or defend it. I don't understand it. It seems utterly irrational and insane to NOT want to simply steal a healthcare system from any random european nation instead. Roll a die or whatever. Any one of them is better than your shit. And instead you have insane idiots trying to make your system even worse, and the people are cheering on that. The whole situation is incomprehensible. I think that everyone from the US should just experience being sick in a reasonable system once. I don't think that any of them would want to go back afterwards.
Yeah, that's why you live in a communist hellscape. Wait, what's that? They're telling me Germany isn't a socialist hell hole? But that can't be, surely your healthcare system has ruined your economy?
|
On March 09 2017 07:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 06:36 Plansix wrote:
It is Dennis Kucinich, who is a fun guy, but not the best writer. But he isn’t wrong about how the CIA has been operating. But with congress asleep at the wheel, no one is thinking about this. Because that would be governing and Republicans have been too busy getting reelected. Careful, the deep state might actually be your friend, large bureaucracies are traditionally a pretty good defence against totalitarian despots. On the institutional level they and the courts are basically the only rational actor left to combat Trump's erratic behaviour.
I don't think I've ever heard that theory (large bureaucracies being a pretty good defence against totalitarian despots). Where/who is that from?
|
This is America, where we import the best workers and products to make our economy stronger. We pay for the best.
Except that filthy, totally functional system of social safety nets that helps drive the EU economy. That isn't American. We believe the free market and failure of inferior services will breed better goverment. So prepare for your poor schools and town governments to fail in the service of creating the best goverment possible. (Please ignore the fact that those failing neighborhoods also happen to be filled with minorities, that is just the free market at work)
|
On March 09 2017 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 07:23 Simberto wrote:On March 09 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:
I like how we have turned the US politics thread into a discussion of the systemic bullshit of the US health care industry while our EU posters look on in sad disbelief. Yes. On some theoretical level, i know how shitty your system is. But every time i read stories like that, i am utterly disgusted. Why do people put up with that shit? Why do people defend that system? My only explanation is that they have simply never experienced anything else, and thus think that that is just the way things have to work. Basically, WTF. Even ignoring the whole ruining people's lives thing, and the fact that you pay way more for worse healthcare than any other developed nation, why are people willing to deal with their healthcare being such a constant hassle? Let me tell you how it works for me. If i am sick, i go to the doctor (Any doctor i like). I hand them my insurance card. I get treatment. Maybe they write a recipe for some meds, which i have to get from the apothecary. It is possible that i may have to pay about 10-20€ for those meds, if they are not completely covered. I head back home and lay in bed until i am healthy again. The end. I am in constant disbelief why anyone would choose the US system. Or defend it. I don't understand it. It seems utterly irrational and insane to NOT want to simply steal a healthcare system from any random european nation instead. Roll a die or whatever. Any one of them is better than your shit. And instead you have insane idiots trying to make your system even worse, and the people are cheering on that. The whole situation is incomprehensible. I think that everyone from the US should just experience being sick in a reasonable system once. I don't think that any of them would want to go back afterwards. Yeah, that's why you live in a communist hellscape. Wait, what's that? They're telling me Germany isn't a socialist hell hole? But that can't be, surely your healthcare system has ruined your economy?
Devil's advocate: This healthcare system came at a cost in all the ways we're always told. Jobs were lost. As a result of this socialist garbage dump, they now have a whopping 4.2% unemployment rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
