|
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 January 11 2018 23:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:37 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 11 2018 23:27 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2018 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:On January 11 2018 23:00 oBlade wrote:
It's not rational or political, it's psychological. Kwark obviously knows Trump would never have played Call of Duty (so it's lucky Norway bought 52 jets instead of a number corresponding to an imaginary plane that doesn't exist in Call of Duty or whatever), it just feels good to make fun of him that way because there's no other consolation.
My personal thought is after new atheism divested a lot of the younger generations from religion, and belief in a god, it didn't actually strip them of credulity or teach them critical thought and so now Republican presidents (or hopefully just Trump) fills the psychological place of the devil. Right, its totally not their actions but a deluded need for a devil figure... I feel sorry for you if you actually believe that. I am not saying support of someone is mandatory. But it's possible and should be encouraged to disagree with and dislike your elected officials without yourself being deranged about it. It's also possible for them to not, themselves, be deranged. And should they be, it is cause for a lot of concern. Maybe, just maybe when you actively and intentionally run a highly divisive, aggressive, anti-truth deranged campaign and presidency, people are going to have strong reactions to that and make a big deal out of every little thing, because that is exactly the media environment you have run on, cultivated and taken advantage of. Trump made his bed, now he can lie in it. Do you think it was just Trump that made the bed? What happened to going high when they went low? Or were you a Bernie supporter? Can he still win? Trump was the biggest name behind the birther conspiracy. He isn't solely responsible, but I couldn't think of a nicer guy such a turnabout could happen to  Also screw that saying, you don't take the high road against people actively trying to destroy welfare, the environment, free press and any obstruction to outright oligarchy. You get them the hell out of power. You also haven't at all addressed the main point. People are reacting strongly to Trump because of what he has done, in particular, his total disregard for reality. Making a mistake like this in an official statement fits perfectly with his prior carelessness when it comes to facts. If he himself hadn't created the narrative that he lives in a different universe, this incident wouldn't be treated as another piece of that narrative.
The reality is that most people aren't children and reporting something with tact is going to work a lot better then what is currently happening. As cathartic as this might be to you, I really don't think it's doing the Democrats any favours.
Unless you're arguing that you should get him out of power some way that's not democratic? That's beyond the scope of this discussion.
|
|
|
On January 11 2018 23:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:47 bo1b wrote:
I don't even have a camp. The politics on my home turf I absolutely call people out on, because it's important. This is all just the opinion of an outsider looking in to what looks like a predominantly left leaning forum. You are talking to someone who often engaged conservatives on this forum and who’s brother is a Trump supporter. I’m interested in bridging gaps. I have real reason to want to take the high road. But there is a real disconnect between supporting Trump and the harm that his administration has done or is trying to do. It took my own brother a full year to understand that his support for Trump and the Republicans was supporting putting my wife’s healthcare at risk. The whole push for civility has merit. But it is often used as a way to tamp down the real anger caused by some political policies and shield people from the realities of what they advocate for.
I'm not arguing against anger, I'm arguing against bullshit reporting.
|
On January 11 2018 23:56 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:49 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2018 23:41 bo1b wrote:
This is the attitude I really have a problem with, and have been unsuccessful in communicating over the last few pages. Moreover I completely believe you can win on the high ground in the era of Trump. The left gives up so much ammo to those that oppose them with the combination of self righteousness and hypocrisy. If the specific target that we're trying to "win" against is someone who still supports Trump today, I'm genuinely interested in how you think we can achieve that. Consistent high quality reporting and presenting a candidate who appeals to those in the center, bonus points for a lick of charisma and someone who doesn't go out of their way to pander at all costs. There is a reason that this election had such low voter turnout. If Trump was unbeatable he wouldn't have barely won and in fact lost the popular election. If that white house insider book is to believed at all, not even Trump expected to win. So yeh, I completely believe that you can win without going as low as you can.
That is a pretty bad strategy for these times, and moreover it's basically already been tried: appealing to the center was what Schumer and Clinton were trying to do. It also appears to be self-serving, if I'm not mistaken, since you seem to be part of this "center".
But anyway, I was thinking we were on a more personal level, I thought we were the ones not trying to take the high ground, rather than the media and politicians. I can't really influence what the media is doing, but I can influence how I behave with Trump supporters, and I certainly can't think of a "high ground" way to reach them.
|
On January 12 2018 00:02 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:55 Plansix wrote:On January 11 2018 23:47 bo1b wrote:
I don't even have a camp. The politics on my home turf I absolutely call people out on, because it's important. This is all just the opinion of an outsider looking in to what looks like a predominantly left leaning forum. You are talking to someone who often engaged conservatives on this forum and who’s brother is a Trump supporter. I’m interested in bridging gaps. I have real reason to want to take the high road. But there is a real disconnect between supporting Trump and the harm that his administration has done or is trying to do. It took my own brother a full year to understand that his support for Trump and the Republicans was supporting putting my wife’s healthcare at risk. The whole push for civility has merit. But it is often used as a way to tamp down the real anger caused by some political policies and shield people from the realities of what they advocate for. I'm not arguing against anger, I'm arguing against bullshit reporting.
That isn’t really how you engaged me on the subject, but sure.
Trump did not create low grade journalism. The existence of a free press and the natural history of journalism pretty much assures bullshit reporting. It is the nature of the beast.
|
On January 12 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:56 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:49 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2018 23:41 bo1b wrote:
This is the attitude I really have a problem with, and have been unsuccessful in communicating over the last few pages. Moreover I completely believe you can win on the high ground in the era of Trump. The left gives up so much ammo to those that oppose them with the combination of self righteousness and hypocrisy. If the specific target that we're trying to "win" against is someone who still supports Trump today, I'm genuinely interested in how you think we can achieve that. Consistent high quality reporting and presenting a candidate who appeals to those in the center, bonus points for a lick of charisma and someone who doesn't go out of their way to pander at all costs. There is a reason that this election had such low voter turnout. If Trump was unbeatable he wouldn't have barely won and in fact lost the popular election. If that white house insider book is to believed at all, not even Trump expected to win. So yeh, I completely believe that you can win without going as low as you can. That is a pretty bad strategy for these times, and moreover it's basically already been tried: appealing to the center was what Schumer and Clinton were trying to do. It also appears to be self-serving, if I'm not mistaken, since you seem to be part of this "center". But anyway, I was thinking we were on a more personal level, I thought we were the ones not trying to take the high ground, rather than the media and politicians. I can't really influence what the media is doing, but I can influence how I behave with Trump supporters, and I certainly can't think of a "high ground" way to reach them.
I think you have 3 years to reach them right? I'd put money that there are a number of trump supporters who exist solely because of poor behaviors from the other side. If we take it as a granted that x% of people are going to vote one way or the other no matter what then swing voters are the only ones that matter. Taking the high ground to me does not mean not becoming frustrated or angry or whatever, it means being the reasonable choice out of the two. No riots on campuses, no memes disguised as news, sensationalised headlines being passed around need to stop, and really having the decency to not look at your opponent as being mentally defective while you ignore all the faults of your own team.
Apart from all of that, don't stats show Trump support is falling month by month?
The center is what the vast majority of people fall into, with very good reason historically. Clinton's big mistake wasn't appealing to the center but pandering to people outside of it, and making people who weren't so informed have a tough time to choose. Guess I am self serving, can't argue against that, I think pretty much everyone is.
On January 12 2018 00:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:02 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:55 Plansix wrote:On January 11 2018 23:47 bo1b wrote:
I don't even have a camp. The politics on my home turf I absolutely call people out on, because it's important. This is all just the opinion of an outsider looking in to what looks like a predominantly left leaning forum. You are talking to someone who often engaged conservatives on this forum and who’s brother is a Trump supporter. I’m interested in bridging gaps. I have real reason to want to take the high road. But there is a real disconnect between supporting Trump and the harm that his administration has done or is trying to do. It took my own brother a full year to understand that his support for Trump and the Republicans was supporting putting my wife’s healthcare at risk. The whole push for civility has merit. But it is often used as a way to tamp down the real anger caused by some political policies and shield people from the realities of what they advocate for. I'm not arguing against anger, I'm arguing against bullshit reporting. That isn’t really how you engaged me on the subject, but sure. Trump did not create low grade journalism. The existence of a free press and the natural history of journalism pretty much assures bullshit reporting. It is the nature of the beast.
Trump didn't create it, he definitely was a part of an election cycle that brought it to the forefront, but he wasn't the only one doing so.
|
On January 11 2018 23:25 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:14 farvacola wrote:
This is why baby's first psych takes on those whom one disagrees with should be heavily discounted.
"Feeling smart gives them a rush of dopamine," typed the poster agreeing with another who felt similarly, apparently immune from the logic of the point just made or aware of the fact that such a sentiment is, in fact, rather stupid.
Yeh, me completely disagreeing with him is in fact me agreeing with him. Here is some shitty pop literature on the effects of social media and dopamine: + Show Spoiler +Probably should have worded it better though. I don't think it's arguable that it feels good being smart. Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:15 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 22:53 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 22:13 zlefin wrote:
bo1b -> i'm not really seeing the equivalence of the 2 cases you're trying to make. they seem rather different to me.
also, got a link to coverage of this f-52 thing? I don' tthink i've seen one in the last couple pages. The equivalence is that a lot of the people outraged with the shitty coverage of Obamas presidency by fox, which included the above videos and other fantastic top tier reporting, are now turning a blind eye to whats happening with the Trump presidency. See this latest gaffe, or the Trump feeding Japanese fish video etc. Stupid pointless shit with no real end goal but to be divisive, often championed by media figureheads and then parroted by people who do zero research of their own. It's a cancer on society, and what rankles even more is that all the genuinely bad things coming out of the Trump administration are mixed with the above - why? There's so much to choose from. yeah, i'm still not seein the equivalance; they're simply NOT equivalent cases. one is what the president eats; the other is an official policy statement. also, the reporting i've seen cited on the f-52 thing simply mention it factually, and note that some people on the internet are having fun with it. i'm no tseeing it being "championed" or pushed heavily in the way some of hte obama nonsense was. and again, they're simply not equivalent cases to cover. can you cite some actual media reporting of the f-52 that is problematic? I'd say that calling Trump's gaffe on f-52s as official policy statement to be ridiculous. I thought the comparison was obvious by the way, neither of them should have been reported on at all beyond the absolute minimum.
it's part of an official policy statement. it may have been a gaffe; but it's still a gaffe; the obama case you cited was reporting on him eating dijon. there's a huge difference between sloppy work on official policy statements (which bespeaks of much more troubling things) and obama ordering fancy toppings.
callin gmy claim ridiculous is an asinine strawman which shows you're making no attempt to actually understand my point.
the comparison isn't obvious; and you've yet to substantiate that the f-52 case is bein actaully reported on beyond the bare minimum. and that what coverage is beyond the bare minimum isn't clearly in the small subsegment of light-hearted news. and at any rate, it is a far more serious matter than your cited obama case anyways.
|
On January 12 2018 00:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 23:25 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:14 farvacola wrote:
This is why baby's first psych takes on those whom one disagrees with should be heavily discounted.
"Feeling smart gives them a rush of dopamine," typed the poster agreeing with another who felt similarly, apparently immune from the logic of the point just made or aware of the fact that such a sentiment is, in fact, rather stupid.
Yeh, me completely disagreeing with him is in fact me agreeing with him. Here is some shitty pop literature on the effects of social media and dopamine: + Show Spoiler +Probably should have worded it better though. I don't think it's arguable that it feels good being smart. On January 11 2018 23:15 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 22:53 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 22:13 zlefin wrote:
bo1b -> i'm not really seeing the equivalence of the 2 cases you're trying to make. they seem rather different to me.
also, got a link to coverage of this f-52 thing? I don' tthink i've seen one in the last couple pages. The equivalence is that a lot of the people outraged with the shitty coverage of Obamas presidency by fox, which included the above videos and other fantastic top tier reporting, are now turning a blind eye to whats happening with the Trump presidency. See this latest gaffe, or the Trump feeding Japanese fish video etc. Stupid pointless shit with no real end goal but to be divisive, often championed by media figureheads and then parroted by people who do zero research of their own. It's a cancer on society, and what rankles even more is that all the genuinely bad things coming out of the Trump administration are mixed with the above - why? There's so much to choose from. yeah, i'm still not seein the equivalance; they're simply NOT equivalent cases. one is what the president eats; the other is an official policy statement. also, the reporting i've seen cited on the f-52 thing simply mention it factually, and note that some people on the internet are having fun with it. i'm no tseeing it being "championed" or pushed heavily in the way some of hte obama nonsense was. and again, they're simply not equivalent cases to cover. can you cite some actual media reporting of the f-52 that is problematic? I'd say that calling Trump's gaffe on f-52s as official policy statement to be ridiculous. I thought the comparison was obvious by the way, neither of them should have been reported on at all beyond the absolute minimum. it's part of an official policy statement. it may have been a gaffe; but it's still a gaffe; the obama case you cited was reporting on him eating dijon. there's a huge difference between sloppy work on official policy statements (which bespeaks of much more troubling things) and obama ordering fancy toppings. callin gmy claim ridiculous is an asinine strawman which shows you're making no attempt to actually understand my point. the comparison isn't obvious; and you've yet to substantiate that the f-52 case is bein actaully reported on beyond the bare minimum. and that what coverage is beyond the bare minimum isn't clearly in the small subsegment of light-hearted news. and at any rate, it is a far more serious matter than your cited obama case anyways.
How about that thing with the gorilla documentaries? Is that a good comparison? I really didn't think it was that hard a point to understand.
|
Let the endless lawsuits begin.
Seriously, this is such an abuse of the executive office. A sweeping change like this should go through congress. This will hurt every state that starts employing it and cause hospitals to close in rural areas hurting for jobs.
|
Can he get it through like this?
|
On January 12 2018 00:20 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:17 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 23:25 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:14 farvacola wrote:
This is why baby's first psych takes on those whom one disagrees with should be heavily discounted.
"Feeling smart gives them a rush of dopamine," typed the poster agreeing with another who felt similarly, apparently immune from the logic of the point just made or aware of the fact that such a sentiment is, in fact, rather stupid.
Yeh, me completely disagreeing with him is in fact me agreeing with him. Here is some shitty pop literature on the effects of social media and dopamine: + Show Spoiler +Probably should have worded it better though. I don't think it's arguable that it feels good being smart. On January 11 2018 23:15 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 22:53 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 22:13 zlefin wrote:
bo1b -> i'm not really seeing the equivalence of the 2 cases you're trying to make. they seem rather different to me.
also, got a link to coverage of this f-52 thing? I don' tthink i've seen one in the last couple pages. The equivalence is that a lot of the people outraged with the shitty coverage of Obamas presidency by fox, which included the above videos and other fantastic top tier reporting, are now turning a blind eye to whats happening with the Trump presidency. See this latest gaffe, or the Trump feeding Japanese fish video etc. Stupid pointless shit with no real end goal but to be divisive, often championed by media figureheads and then parroted by people who do zero research of their own. It's a cancer on society, and what rankles even more is that all the genuinely bad things coming out of the Trump administration are mixed with the above - why? There's so much to choose from. yeah, i'm still not seein the equivalance; they're simply NOT equivalent cases. one is what the president eats; the other is an official policy statement. also, the reporting i've seen cited on the f-52 thing simply mention it factually, and note that some people on the internet are having fun with it. i'm no tseeing it being "championed" or pushed heavily in the way some of hte obama nonsense was. and again, they're simply not equivalent cases to cover. can you cite some actual media reporting of the f-52 that is problematic? I'd say that calling Trump's gaffe on f-52s as official policy statement to be ridiculous. I thought the comparison was obvious by the way, neither of them should have been reported on at all beyond the absolute minimum. it's part of an official policy statement. it may have been a gaffe; but it's still a gaffe; the obama case you cited was reporting on him eating dijon. there's a huge difference between sloppy work on official policy statements (which bespeaks of much more troubling things) and obama ordering fancy toppings. callin gmy claim ridiculous is an asinine strawman which shows you're making no attempt to actually understand my point. the comparison isn't obvious; and you've yet to substantiate that the f-52 case is bein actaully reported on beyond the bare minimum. and that what coverage is beyond the bare minimum isn't clearly in the small subsegment of light-hearted news. and at any rate, it is a far more serious matter than your cited obama case anyways. How about that thing with the gorilla documentaries? Is that a good comparison? I really didn't think it was that hard a point to understand.
the underlying point was clear and easy to understand; the cases you had originally cited were simply NOT an example of it. you provided poor cases, and were called out on it (and you don't seem to own up to the fact that they were a terrible example)
it seems like you're tryin to be an example of golden mean fallacy (and other related fallacies) rather than look at the actuality of the situation.
as to the gorilla documentaries, I don't know what you're talking about, you'll need to provide a cite so I have some idea what you're talking about.
|
On January 12 2018 00:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:20 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:17 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 23:25 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:14 farvacola wrote:
This is why baby's first psych takes on those whom one disagrees with should be heavily discounted.
"Feeling smart gives them a rush of dopamine," typed the poster agreeing with another who felt similarly, apparently immune from the logic of the point just made or aware of the fact that such a sentiment is, in fact, rather stupid.
Yeh, me completely disagreeing with him is in fact me agreeing with him. Here is some shitty pop literature on the effects of social media and dopamine: + Show Spoiler +Probably should have worded it better though. I don't think it's arguable that it feels good being smart. On January 11 2018 23:15 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 22:53 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 22:13 zlefin wrote:
bo1b -> i'm not really seeing the equivalence of the 2 cases you're trying to make. they seem rather different to me.
also, got a link to coverage of this f-52 thing? I don' tthink i've seen one in the last couple pages. The equivalence is that a lot of the people outraged with the shitty coverage of Obamas presidency by fox, which included the above videos and other fantastic top tier reporting, are now turning a blind eye to whats happening with the Trump presidency. See this latest gaffe, or the Trump feeding Japanese fish video etc. Stupid pointless shit with no real end goal but to be divisive, often championed by media figureheads and then parroted by people who do zero research of their own. It's a cancer on society, and what rankles even more is that all the genuinely bad things coming out of the Trump administration are mixed with the above - why? There's so much to choose from. yeah, i'm still not seein the equivalance; they're simply NOT equivalent cases. one is what the president eats; the other is an official policy statement. also, the reporting i've seen cited on the f-52 thing simply mention it factually, and note that some people on the internet are having fun with it. i'm no tseeing it being "championed" or pushed heavily in the way some of hte obama nonsense was. and again, they're simply not equivalent cases to cover. can you cite some actual media reporting of the f-52 that is problematic? I'd say that calling Trump's gaffe on f-52s as official policy statement to be ridiculous. I thought the comparison was obvious by the way, neither of them should have been reported on at all beyond the absolute minimum. it's part of an official policy statement. it may have been a gaffe; but it's still a gaffe; the obama case you cited was reporting on him eating dijon. there's a huge difference between sloppy work on official policy statements (which bespeaks of much more troubling things) and obama ordering fancy toppings. callin gmy claim ridiculous is an asinine strawman which shows you're making no attempt to actually understand my point. the comparison isn't obvious; and you've yet to substantiate that the f-52 case is bein actaully reported on beyond the bare minimum. and that what coverage is beyond the bare minimum isn't clearly in the small subsegment of light-hearted news. and at any rate, it is a far more serious matter than your cited obama case anyways. How about that thing with the gorilla documentaries? Is that a good comparison? I really didn't think it was that hard a point to understand. the underlying point was clear and easy to understand; the cases you had originally cited were simply NOT an example of it. you provided poor cases, and were called out on it (and you don't seem to own up to the fact that they were a terrible example) as to the gorilla documentaries, I don't know what you're talking about, you'll need to provide a cite so I have some idea what you're talking about.
So to get this clear, you understood exactly what was being said but wanted to drag something out on the forum for what? Have you not seen pretty clear examples of reporting pointless things over the last few months?
Here is a pretty perfect example of what I mean, I think:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/367666-twitter-falls-for-parody-gorilla-channel-excerpt-from-new-trump
|
On January 12 2018 00:13 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2018 23:56 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:49 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2018 23:41 bo1b wrote:
This is the attitude I really have a problem with, and have been unsuccessful in communicating over the last few pages. Moreover I completely believe you can win on the high ground in the era of Trump. The left gives up so much ammo to those that oppose them with the combination of self righteousness and hypocrisy. If the specific target that we're trying to "win" against is someone who still supports Trump today, I'm genuinely interested in how you think we can achieve that. Consistent high quality reporting and presenting a candidate who appeals to those in the center, bonus points for a lick of charisma and someone who doesn't go out of their way to pander at all costs. There is a reason that this election had such low voter turnout. If Trump was unbeatable he wouldn't have barely won and in fact lost the popular election. If that white house insider book is to believed at all, not even Trump expected to win. So yeh, I completely believe that you can win without going as low as you can. That is a pretty bad strategy for these times, and moreover it's basically already been tried: appealing to the center was what Schumer and Clinton were trying to do. It also appears to be self-serving, if I'm not mistaken, since you seem to be part of this "center". But anyway, I was thinking we were on a more personal level, I thought we were the ones not trying to take the high ground, rather than the media and politicians. I can't really influence what the media is doing, but I can influence how I behave with Trump supporters, and I certainly can't think of a "high ground" way to reach them. I think you have 3 years to reach them right? I'd put money that there are a number of trump supporters who exist solely because of poor behaviors from the other side. If we take it as a granted that x% of people are going to vote one way or the other no matter what then swing voters are the only ones that matter. Taking the high ground to me does not mean not becoming frustrated or angry or whatever, it means being the reasonable choice out of the two. No riots on campuses, no memes disguised as news, sensationalised headlines being passed around need to stop, and really having the decency to not look at your opponent as being mentally defective while you ignore all the faults of your own team. The center is what the vast majority of people fall into, with very good reason historically. Clinton's big mistake wasn't appealing to the center but pandering to people outside of it, and making people who weren't so informed have a tough time to choose. Guess I am self serving, can't argue against that, I think pretty much everyone is.
Trump has like 35% support right? I think we're on our way to reaching them in 3 years. If the candidate we put next isn't as bad as Clinton, it'll be a landslide.
As per your second paragraph, I can attack it in two different fashions and I don't know which to pick, so I guess I'll do both of them:
1) The center is what's in the middle between a rightwing position and a leftwing position. If your rightwing party veers to the right because some dude named Reagan decided to do so, some people who used to be rightwingers are now centrists. If your leftwing party then moves to the center to try and get the votes that the rightwing party isn't entitled to anymore because it's veered to the right, then people who used to be centrists are now leftists. Every time you appeal to the center, you change what the center is, and move it closer to the other side. "Appealing to the center" in the context of today's America means appealing to people who are objectively, factually, quite rightwing and quite conservative. It is definitely not what "the vast majority of people fall into".
2) It's interesting that you think Clinton's mistake was to pander to people who are outside of the center. To think that, you have to ignore that Trump's winning strategy was to do the same thing tenfold, appealing to people who are outside of the center on the right (with the racism and the xenophobia) and appealing to people who are outside of the center on the left (with the criticism of the swamp and the elites and Wall Street). Your thesis that Clinton lost because she wasn't centrist enough is heavily dismissable when you look at how centrist the guy who beat her was.
|
On January 12 2018 00:22 bo1b wrote:
Can he get it through like this?
The way our government works, the executive branch (aka, the President) is the management branch of the government. Congress creates the agencies and government systems, the President presides over them and the country. A lot of agencies write their own guidelines and rules with oversight by congress and the executive branch. So congress doesn’t write every environmental regulation, but gives the EPA guidelines to do it.
So, in theory, I believe the agency that manages Medicaid can change the rules without approve from Congress. But they have the ability to make those sweeping changes because Congress created that agency with those powers, with the understanding that they wouldn’t abuse them. And if they did, congress would stop them(which is pretty easy for congress to do).
So they might get away with it. They will most certainly mess with the healthcare market in the short term.
|
My thesis is that Trump won due to Clinton being remarkably unlikable, combined with an incredibly effective smear campaign, combined with a ton of poor choices from the dem side.
It's interesting what you say about the center being moved to the right, as most of the western world has gotten steadily more progressive, both economically and socially. Both of which are associated with left leaning political ideas. In other words, I completely and totally disagree.
It's also interesting that you think he pandered exclusively to xenophobia. I somewhat agree that some pretty shitty people jumped along for the campaign trail, but I again have a bit more of a charitable outlook, in that he appealed to those who had been well and truly left behind economically along the midwest and all through the rust belt. Clinton may have been better for them long term, but she sure didn't tell them that effectively. As an aside I expect similar disenfranchised groups will pop up across the nation as automation kicks into gear. Will be interesting to see how politicians try to win them over.
|
On January 12 2018 00:20 Plansix wrote:Let the endless lawsuits begin. Seriously, this is such an abuse of the executive office. A sweeping change like this should go through congress. This will hurt every state that starts employing it and cause hospitals to close in rural areas hurting for jobs.
The thing is, I doubt most state governments, regardless of how conservative they are, are going to link Medicaid eligibility to employment. The voters will tell the government to get its hands off their Medicaid (irony notwithstanding). If they tried this, Kansas would turn as blue as California in the next election.
|
On January 12 2018 00:27 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:24 zlefin wrote:On January 12 2018 00:20 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:17 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 23:25 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:14 farvacola wrote:
This is why baby's first psych takes on those whom one disagrees with should be heavily discounted.
"Feeling smart gives them a rush of dopamine," typed the poster agreeing with another who felt similarly, apparently immune from the logic of the point just made or aware of the fact that such a sentiment is, in fact, rather stupid.
Yeh, me completely disagreeing with him is in fact me agreeing with him. Here is some shitty pop literature on the effects of social media and dopamine: + Show Spoiler +Probably should have worded it better though. I don't think it's arguable that it feels good being smart. On January 11 2018 23:15 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 22:53 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 22:13 zlefin wrote:
bo1b -> i'm not really seeing the equivalence of the 2 cases you're trying to make. they seem rather different to me.
also, got a link to coverage of this f-52 thing? I don' tthink i've seen one in the last couple pages. The equivalence is that a lot of the people outraged with the shitty coverage of Obamas presidency by fox, which included the above videos and other fantastic top tier reporting, are now turning a blind eye to whats happening with the Trump presidency. See this latest gaffe, or the Trump feeding Japanese fish video etc. Stupid pointless shit with no real end goal but to be divisive, often championed by media figureheads and then parroted by people who do zero research of their own. It's a cancer on society, and what rankles even more is that all the genuinely bad things coming out of the Trump administration are mixed with the above - why? There's so much to choose from. yeah, i'm still not seein the equivalance; they're simply NOT equivalent cases. one is what the president eats; the other is an official policy statement. also, the reporting i've seen cited on the f-52 thing simply mention it factually, and note that some people on the internet are having fun with it. i'm no tseeing it being "championed" or pushed heavily in the way some of hte obama nonsense was. and again, they're simply not equivalent cases to cover. can you cite some actual media reporting of the f-52 that is problematic? I'd say that calling Trump's gaffe on f-52s as official policy statement to be ridiculous. I thought the comparison was obvious by the way, neither of them should have been reported on at all beyond the absolute minimum. it's part of an official policy statement. it may have been a gaffe; but it's still a gaffe; the obama case you cited was reporting on him eating dijon. there's a huge difference between sloppy work on official policy statements (which bespeaks of much more troubling things) and obama ordering fancy toppings. callin gmy claim ridiculous is an asinine strawman which shows you're making no attempt to actually understand my point. the comparison isn't obvious; and you've yet to substantiate that the f-52 case is bein actaully reported on beyond the bare minimum. and that what coverage is beyond the bare minimum isn't clearly in the small subsegment of light-hearted news. and at any rate, it is a far more serious matter than your cited obama case anyways. How about that thing with the gorilla documentaries? Is that a good comparison? I really didn't think it was that hard a point to understand. the underlying point was clear and easy to understand; the cases you had originally cited were simply NOT an example of it. you provided poor cases, and were called out on it (and you don't seem to own up to the fact that they were a terrible example) as to the gorilla documentaries, I don't know what you're talking about, you'll need to provide a cite so I have some idea what you're talking about. So to get this clear, you understood exactly what was being said but wanted to drag something out on the forum for what? Have you not seen pretty clear examples of reporting pointless things over the last few months? Here is a pretty perfect example of what I mean, I think: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/367666-twitter-falls-for-parody-gorilla-channel-excerpt-from-new-trump
pointless stuff has ALWAYS been reported ALL the time since FOREVER, and always will be.
pointing out that your example was bad is worthwhile on its own. an example that doesn't support its thesis should be argued against.
also this example you're now citing, the actual reporting you cite is reasonable and factual, the actual reporting (rather than the people on twitter who were fooled) is fine, and is reporting on a misunderstanding many people had that had caused much conversation around the world, and it was tryin to correct that with the truth. so it still doesn't make for an equivalency with the cited obama dijon case.
|
On January 12 2018 00:31 bo1b wrote:
My thesis is that Trump won due to Clinton being remarkably unlikable, combined with an incredibly effective smear campaign, combined with a ton of poor choices from the dem side.
It's interesting what you say about the center being moved to the right, as most of the western world has gotten steadily more progressive, both economically and socially. Both of which are associated with left leaning political ideas. In other words, I completely and totally disagree.
I would agree with you about Clinton now, but that isn't what you said before, is it.
The western world is experiencing a pretty clear surge of its "far right" factions nowadays, I'm sure you have noticed that. That is a reaction to this phenomenon that you've described of becoming more progressive: people react against that.
Now in the US, it isn't the "far right" that is reacting against that, it's "the right". That tells me something about where their center is.
edit: I'd like to know in what ways you think the west is moving to the left economically; I'd say you're right socially but economically... not quite.
|
In fairness it seems to me more so that it’s the “far left” and “far right” reacting against “the center” than a more blatant rightward shift. If you want to look at Clinton’s problems you can’t disregard the Sanders bloc.
|
I didn't tell you why I thought Clinton lost until just now, as we weren't discussing it. In fact, I'm not sure I really said anything about Clinton so much as I did the left leaning media and it's followers.
For every far right faction you have theirs another group of people protesting stupid things at universities and safe spaces being formed.
I'll tell you my belief on that as well, in that it's not the center being pulled to the right, but the center being stretched to two extremes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
