The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Peter Parker on February 17, 2017, 10:33:57 AM
-
If you saw it, it was incredible. I was wondering whether whether it changed your mind?
If you didn't like Trump before, did his performance change your mind? If you liked him before, are you now concerned?
-
Nothing Trump does will change my mind. I'm surprised about how it's possible every single day to continue one-upping himself with stupid.
Those former Trump supporters who's minds have changed are probably too embarrassed to say anything.
Current Trump supporters and apologists I think deep down know something isn't right, but also too embarrassed for their own mea culpa.
-
Incredible is one word. Unhinged is another.
-
I think most folks knew Trump was batshit crazy long before all this and everything he has done up to and including the press conference has only reinforced this. What I am continually surprised by are the amount of folks still sticking up for him. Now that is some scary shit!
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
-
So, I read the transcript and he didn't come off well. But I admit to being predisposed to not believing a word that comes out of his mouth.
So you're saying your mind was really changed by that press conference?
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This.
Even happier in cases.
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This is the viewpoint I don't understand. "The Establishment." Like those who shake their fist at "The Government" but too dumb to understand how it works and what it does.
-
If you still are happy with Trump you really at this point must fall into a few categories:
- He's still better than Clinton
- I am working class and I still hope he can find a way to reverse globalism.
- I like to see shit burn because fuck Washington
- I hate liberals and their media because I listen to too much partisan talk radio so Trump is a riot.
- I vote Republican and I am ignoring the media\liberals and their whining
If anything this should just reinforce the fact that all that all the complaining about overreach by Obama being so unforgivable and bad is nothing but partisan spin and grandstanding. The base and their party are perfectly happy with the executive branch as long as they are supporting their ideological beliefs. They couldn't give a shit about the process or respecting traditional boundaries.
Don't get me wrong I am center left, and I think there are a lot of good arguments that come out of conservative camps when it comes when it comes to regulation, constitutional rights, spending and foreign policy. But jackasses like Trump just let all that important governing nuance go down the shitter in favor of chaotic, partisan, emotional politics.
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This is the viewpoint I don't understand. "The Establishment." Like those who shake their fist at "The Government" but too dumb to understand how it works and what it does.
Unfortunately populist movements are just that way. They offer simple appealing answers to complex problems. Most times they just appeal to emotions even if they are putting emphasis on phantom problems or half truths with a further from center slant. They speak loudly and clearly to our biases. Whereas more establishment parties hedge their bet and flirt with our bias but try to keep things pc.
The US didn't vote for Trump, they voted for populism over a tired establishment which has been running the same platform for decades.
I don't think the conservative liberal split has shifted much. It still seems a few percent of the countries voters at least lean liberal. If Bernie had ran in place of Hillary he would have carried the Blue rust belt states that Hillary lost by 40,000 votes, because he was running on the same promises that pushed some of the less conservative ones to Donald.
He would have completely turned off center right conservative intellectuals, but as we saw with Trumps win, that group, many of whom even went as far as to vote for Clinton didn't really matter. Probably mostly because of Geographics.
-
Has any other president seemed this unhinged?
-
I am looking forward to this week's SNL, where cast members will continue to repeat his words verbatim to uproarious laughter. It's not even that the jokes write themselves, it's that his own words are suddenly hilarious when repeated in the context of a comedy show. No jokes necessary.
Thank god for America's daily satirical television programs. They are the only thing anchoring America's consciousness against the constant pull off trump's alternative reality. If Germany or Russia or even Venezuela had these same institutions, the world would be a very different place today.
Is it sad that Lorne Michaels is America's last defense against fascism?
-
I am looking forward to this week's SNL, where cast members will continue to repeat his words verbatim to uproarious laughter. It's not even that the jokes write themselves, it's that his own words are suddenly hilarious when repeated in the context of a comedy show. No jokes necessary.
Thank god for America's daily satirical television programs. They are the only thing anchoring America's consciousness against the constant pull off trump's alternative reality. If Germany or Russia or even Venezuela had these same institutions, the world would be a very different place today.
Is it sad that Lorne Michaels is America's last defense against fascism?
I've heard they're in reruns for the next few weeks, sadly.
-
I am looking forward to this week's SNL, where cast members will continue to repeat his words verbatim to uproarious laughter. It's not even that the jokes write themselves, it's that his own words are suddenly hilarious when repeated in the context of a comedy show. No jokes necessary.
Thank god for America's daily satirical television programs. They are the only thing anchoring America's consciousness against the constant pull off trump's alternative reality. If Germany or Russia or even Venezuela had these same institutions, the world would be a very different place today.
Is it sad that Lorne Michaels is America's last defense against fascism?
I've heard they're in reruns for the next few weeks, sadly.
What?!?! Ahh damnit. SNL ratings have soared after a few down years. I was looking forward to some more "spicey."
-
I am looking forward to this week's SNL, where cast members will continue to repeat his words verbatim to uproarious laughter. It's not even that the jokes write themselves, it's that his own words are suddenly hilarious when repeated in the context of a comedy show. No jokes necessary.
Thank god for America's daily satirical television programs. They are the only thing anchoring America's consciousness against the constant pull off trump's alternative reality. If Germany or Russia or even Venezuela had these same institutions, the world would be a very different place today.
Is it sad that Lorne Michaels is America's last defense against fascism?
I've heard they're in reruns for the next few weeks, sadly.
What?!?! Ahh damnit. SNL ratings have soared after a few down years. I was looking forward to some more "spicey."
I know. If they were smart they would nix the reruns plan and do live shows for the foreseeable future. This administration is the best thing that has ever happened to them.
-
Almost as off-putting to me as the verbal diarrhea, stream-of-consciousness, lies, yelling, cries of "fake news" and everything else is the WAY he talks. He sounds like a New Jersey Mafia guy with a ninth-grade education straight out of "My Cousin Vinny." He says things in a high-pitched voice like, "So I says to the guy, I says..." It's also disturbing how he's always talking about "making deals" as though diplomacy between sovereign nations is the same thing as a deal to buy a condo building. And WTF is with the hyperbole, the need to repeat adjectives, and put everything in terms of how big or great it is? Nothing is just "many" or "very"; it's "many, many" and "very, very." Because if you repeat it, it's like, two times as many.
-
I guess replying from a teleprompter, and trying to remember talking points that was given in advance is more interesting.
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from the heart. Refreshing to see a head of state so forthright.
-
Almost as off-putting to me as the verbal diarrhea, stream-of-consciousness, lies, yelling, cries of "fake news" and everything else is the WAY he talks. He sounds like a New Jersey Mafia guy with a ninth-grade education straight out of "My Cousin Vinny." He says things in a high-pitched voice like, "So I says to the guy, I says..."
I've usually spelled that "sez" - reads a bit more accurately to the inflection.
It's also disturbing how he's always talking about "making deals" as though diplomacy between sovereign nations is the same thing as a deal to buy a condo building. And WTF is with the hyperbole, the need to repeat adjectives, and put everything in terms of how big or great it is? Nothing is just "many" or "very"; it's "many, many" and "very, very." Because if you repeat it, it's like, two times as many.
Pay attention to his style. It's deliberate, and it's effective enough to have him in the White House right now.
-
I guess replying from a teleprompter, and trying to remember talking points that was given in advance is more interesting.
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from the heart. Refreshing to see a head of state so forthright.
Lol
-
It did not change my mind.
It scares me that a guy just running his mouth is considered good and honest, when in fact he has been so non-transparent in so many of his dealings.
I'm also alarmed by how quickly Americans seem to have embraced an authoritarian cult of personality.
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. At some point I believe the Trump Train will derail in spectacular fashion. I just hope our country can survive it.
-
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. At some point I believe the Trump Train will derail in spectacular fashion. I just hope our country can survive it.
I think a better question to ask would be, "What condition is our country in such that we elected someone like Trump?"
-
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from the heart.
Can we get him a transplant?
-
I guess replying from a teleprompter, and trying to remember talking points that was given in advance is more interesting.
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from the heart. Refreshing to see a head of state so forthright.
I am not impressed by people speaking from their "heart." I am impressed when people speak with grounding in knowledge and subject matter expertise. Trump strikes me as someone who spouts off with whatever springs to mind and thinks that it is brilliant just because he said it.
-
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. At some point I believe the Trump Train will derail in spectacular fashion. I just hope our country can survive it.
I think a better question to ask would be, "What condition is our country in such that we elected someone like Trump?"
Yeah. Enough people saw the government and press as non-responsive and out-of-touch with their experiences that they just decided to implode the whole edifice.
I wish someone more stable and civic-minded than Trump had been there to channel this feeling and be a real leader. Someone who was TRULY anti-elitist and who didn't have a habit of ripping off the common man for his own personal gain.
Instead, we have a president who is running the government into the ground when he's not sniping at department stores and minor celebrities on Twitter. It's just bizarre. I used to find some dark humor in his tantrums and incompetence, but I can't anymore.
-
It's a good year to start a garden.
-
I guess replying from a teleprompter, and trying to remember talking points that was given in advance is more interesting.
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from the heart. Refreshing to see a head of state so forthright.
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from his ass.
Fixed your post.
Forthright? LOL. Please, this dumbass sociopath is the biggest liar of a politician I've ever witnessed and the fact checking studies indicate 3/4 of his statements are false. Not to mention the lack of transparency. And somehow Hilary got the rep as the dishonest one when only 1/4 of her statements were false.
-
I guess replying from a teleprompter, and trying to remember talking points that was given in advance is more interesting.
Trump doesn't need talking points because what he says comes from the heart. Refreshing to see a head of state so forthright.
I'm not sure you understand what a talking point is. Or being forthright. Might want to Google those terms.
-
I've basically decided that Trump supporters actually aren't interested in what Trump says or does or how it affects them, as long as people who they perceive to be their enemies react negatively. A sort of political "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy.
That's a shame, because I don't consider residents of dying rust belt towns or folks who have watched family members die of opioid overdoses or rich white people or poor hispanic people or anyone else my enemies. I want them all to do well and succeed and I have some ideas of how best to do that, but I'm willing to admit that I'm not always going to be right and the folks on the other side of the political aisle have some great points and their ways to run things can actually work too. I didn't cheer when people freaked out that Obama was elected or crow with delight because "you lost". We're in this together.
I get that median wages haven't improved in 40 years, that sucks. Acting crazy and making shit up won't help anyone, though, no matter how much you resent me drinking craft beer and wearing ironic t-shirts.
So when I see Trump give an objectively crazy press conference, and people cheer about it, it makes me wonder if they think I'm THEIR enemy. Because there's really no other way to interpret it.
-W
-
I've basically decided that Trump supporters actually aren't interested in what Trump says or does or how it affects them, as long as people who they perceive to be their enemies react negatively. A sort of political "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy.
That's a shame, because I don't consider residents of dying rust belt towns or folks who have watched family members die of opioid overdoses or rich white people or poor hispanic people or anyone else my enemies. I want them all to do well and succeed and I have some ideas of how best to do that, but I'm willing to admit that I'm not always going to be right and the folks on the other side of the political aisle have some great points and their ways to run things can actually work too. I didn't cheer when people freaked out that Obama was elected or crow with delight because "you lost". We're in this together.
I get that median wages haven't improved in 40 years, that sucks. Acting crazy and making shit up won't help anyone, though, no matter how much you resent me drinking craft beer and wearing ironic t-shirts.
So when I see Trump give an objectively crazy press conference, and people cheer about it, it makes me wonder if they think I'm THEIR enemy. Because there's really no other way to interpret it.
-W
I agree. They like pissing off liberals more than solving their problems. Granted this is because they think liberals caused those problems and/or don't care about them, hence why they are The Enemy.
-
Wanted to point out that there's probably a fair portion of Trump "supporters" who have no idea what he's up to, if my family members are any indication. I put "supporters" in quotes because it depends on your definition, I guess. I have family members who voted for Trump but they didn't think he was great or anything, so they probably wouldn't self-identify as "supporters." Anyway, they have little or no clue what he's up to (I asked them), as they don't watch the news or follow politics, and they have no idea the craziness that's ensued since his election.
-
Yes, Trump is better than I expected. He gets called antisemetic, racist, pervert, thief, Russian agent.. its all bogus
What do the Orthodox Jews say: https://youtu.be/q--TSu6knoY?t=2m
Oh boy someone other than a presidential appointee negotiated with Russians on tape (and its a congressman) https://youtu.be/nfCjGnYZqlk
Watch.. next they will be saying Rex Tillerson is a Russian agent. Because they want war with Russia or Iran. Like we haven't evaded enough countries over there.
Love you Trump.. bought a dollar bill with your face on it.
"As far as I'm concerned, if they had any real ability they wouldn't be fighting me, they'd be doing something constructive themselves." -- Donald J. Trump, Art of the Deal pg. 41 hardback edition
peace
-
Yes, Trump is better than I expected. He gets called antisemetic, racist, pervert, thief, Russian agent.. its all bogus
Antisemitic is questionable, though some of his white house staff are openly self-professed and admitted antisemites. Racist is well documented by court cases. Pervert is well documented by pussy grabbing. Thief is probably debatable, unless you mean in the corporate malfeasance sense of the word. Russian agent is one I haven't heard, more like "compromised" and "unwitting asset" rather than agent.
-
I tried to watch it, I really did. After three 'tremendous's and at least five 'very's' and a 'bigly' (Is that even word??), I just had to shut it off...
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This.
Even happier in cases.
+1 This is it. People were so angry that they decided to blow up Washington D.C.
-
Yes, Trump is better than I expected. He gets called antisemetic, racist, pervert, thief, Russian agent.. its all bogus
What do the Orthodox Jews say: https://youtu.be/q--TSu6knoY?t=2m
Oh boy someone other than a presidential appointee negotiated with Russians on tape (and its a congressman) https://youtu.be/nfCjGnYZqlk
Watch.. next they will be saying Rex Tillerson is a Russian agent. Because they want war with Russia or Iran. Like we haven't evaded enough countries over there.
Love you Trump.. bought a dollar bill with your face on it.
"As far as I'm concerned, if they had any real ability they wouldn't be fighting me, they'd be doing something constructive themselves." -- Donald J. Trump, Art of the Deal pg. 41 hardback edition
peace
Your unplug from social media only lasted a month?!?
-W
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This.
Even happier in cases.
+1 This is it. People were so angry that they decided to blow up Washington D.C.
With Goldman Sachs executives and lawyers, Big Oil CEOs, longtime Senators and House members, former Bush appointees, and billionaires...
He's fighting "The Man" all right! No career politicians in that group.
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This.
Even happier in cases.
+1 This is it. People were so angry that they decided to blow up Washington D.C.
With Goldman Sachs executives and lawyers, Big Oil CEOs, longtime Senators and House members, former Bush appointees, and billionaires...
He's fighting "The Man" all right! No career politicians in that group.
Well, at least he's pissing off liberals amirite?
-
All the people I know that voted for Trump said they did it as a middle finger to the establishment. They are still happy.
This.
Even happier in cases.
+1 This is it. People were so angry that they decided to blow up Washington D.C.
With Goldman Sachs executives and lawyers, Big Oil CEOs, longtime Senators and House members, former Bush appointees, and billionaires...
He's fighting "The Man" all right! No career politicians in that group.
I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons.
Goldman Sachs-- yeah well, you cant exclude every large institution if you want talent, but I admit that I would prefer he picked some regional banker executives (the ones that didn't cause the financial crisis but had very burdensome regulations put on them killing their competitiveness and pushing their customers to those who did cause the crisis by implementing Dodd Frank on them eventhough they didn't do anything.. yeah)
You can not deny its the most pro business cabinet ever.. in history.. YUGE!
Rex is the best cabinet pick I have ever personally witnessed. Sorry folks, energy dependence is why we are in the Middle East. (Petrodollar too) We wouldn't be there if we used our own resources. The ones that people in the states they live in would vote to use, but Obama locked off access to it in his last few days like a derelict idealist. I suppose we should go to world government so we can tell others how to use energy to prevent global warming and make them "free" by telling them what they socially can do and what their "personal rights" that involve "personal beliefs" should be. I can't believe the Left can't see how dangerous their thinking can be.
-
Goldman Sachs-- yeah well, you cant exclude every large institution if you want talent
I would be less upset about appointing Goldman Sachs bankers to run the country if he hadn't campaigned so forcefully on "draining the swamp". He complained so loudly about the very thing he is now promoting.
cause the crisis by implementing Dodd Frank on them
Wait, you thin Dodd-Frank caused the financial crisis? You're aware that it was passed in 2010 in response to the financial crisis, right?
Donald Trump is literally trying to repeal the law designed to prevent another financial crisis. In what twisted reality does this cause you to blame Democrats?
You can not deny its the most pro business cabinet ever..
I don't deny it, I'm disgusted by it. Drain the Swamp my fucking ass, we're following Russia down the path to plutocracy. Who really wants a government run by billionaries who only run it for their own personal benefit? That's not what America is about.
We wouldn't be there if we used our own resources.
Are you aware of how close Obama got us to US energy independence? Under his tenure we went from importing roughly 70% of our energy to roughly 10% of our energy. Isn't this a good thing, even to an Obama-hater?
make them "free" by telling them what they socially can do and what their "personal rights" that involve "personal beliefs" should be. I can't believe the Left can't see how dangerous their thinking can be.
This is so confusing to me. Why do conservatives believe that liberalism, an entire movement explicitly devoted to personal freedoms, is somehow infringing their freedoms? While at the same time promoting military invasions, voter suppression, and restrictions on who they can marry or what they can do with their own bodies?
-
His wording is convoluted, but he's saying by putting the Dodd Frank act onto Goldman, it's pushing their customers from Goldman who didn't cause the crisis to those who did.
The "by putting dodd Frank on them" applies to the first part, Goldman, not the second, those who caused the crisis.
Post to be deleted shortly so I'm not following this thread.
Also he's banned. Please PM me if he pops up again. Stop feeding the trolls, please.
-
His wording is convoluted, but he's saying by putting the Dodd Frank act onto Goldman, it's pushing their customers from Goldman who didn't cause the crisis to those who did.
The "by putting dodd Frank on them" applies to the first part, Goldman, not the second, those who caused the crisis.
Post to be deleted shortly so I'm not following this thread.
Also he's banned. Please PM me if he pops up again. Stop feeding the trolls, please.
Don't really see refuting propaganda as feeding trolls, personally.
-
Alright, let me put it another way then.
The point of these forums is to discuss Mustachianism. Not politics.
If someone is contributing to these forums, and incidentally has some political discussions, fine.
If the sole purpose of their account appears to push a political viewpoint, or post propaganda, as you put it, it would be more appropriate for them to find a forum for political discussion than clog up these forums.
-
This is so confusing to me. Why do conservatives believe that liberalism, an entire movement explicitly devoted to select personal freedoms, is somehow infringing their freedoms?
IFYP. The perception I get is that liberalism is not about personal freedoms. Anything that starts a whole mess of "triggering" and the need to prevent people from saying things that cause certain groups to trigger is not about personal freedoms. Forcing people to do things they find morally repugnant is infringing on their freedoms. There is no way a society can have personal freedoms and have no one be offended. It's not in our nature as people. Conservatives would rather have people out there saying what they want and have it be perfectly okay to say it (legally speaking), or perfectly okay to choose what they will or won't do for services.
One friend said to me "If they can call me a stupid racist red-state voter without knowing me or why I vote the way I do, I don't see why I can't call them libt**ds or elitist assholes." (Note to all, this is a quote, not an intention to attribute this label to anyone and I am not endorsing its use.) As to your second comment, many people believe that a baby in the womb is not the mother's own body, but that's a whole different topic so I'll leave it there.
They are super happy with Trump because all the liberals will call him stupid, idiot, racist, pervert etc, but he has the name and support to say whatever the F he wants and calls them out on their stupid name calling.
We can't repeatedly call people stupid and tell them they don't matter, to shut-up, that they are racists, and sexists etc. and not expect them not to lash out. Welcome to the lashing out. I hope it ends soon.
-
Ultimately Trump seems to be the culmination of decades of conservative talk radio and blogging hating liberals and traditional media to the point of telling their followers that none of us can be trusted on any issue ever.
We now have a President who will believe and perpetuate obviously false and harmful information that aligns with a world view that has made him popular.
It is easily the saddest and most disgusting thing I have seen in my short political lifetime. I am used to politicians spinning their actions to look good, but this level of bullshit is outrageous. Bush, Obama, Clinton and Bush Senior never had anything close to this level of bullshit. Trump is doing real damage to the public discourse and legitimizing our worst news sources. This shit is literally going to hurt us years after he has left office.
-
Ultimately Trump seems to be the culmination of decades of conservative talk radio and blogging hating liberals and traditional media to the point of telling their followers that none of us can be trusted on any issue ever.
We now have a President who will believe and perpetuate obviously false and harmful information that aligns with a world view that has made him popular.
It is easily the saddest and most disgusting thing I have seen in my short political lifetime. I am used to politicians spinning their actions to look good, but this level of bullshit is outrageous. Bush, Obama, Clinton and Bush Senior never had anything close to this level of bullshit. Trump is doing real damage to the public discourse and legitimizing our worst news sources. This shit is literally going to hurt us years after he has left office.
Exactly. And this is the shit that really pisses me off. Conservatives have been calling liberals hateful names and mocking them for *decades*. There is an entire, multi-million dollar industry of cable news and talk radio that is dedicated to conservative thirst for hating liberals.
Look, I'm not going to go through the "he started it" argument, but it is absolutely freaking disingenuous to say "well, liberals, this is what you get when you make fun of conservatives and call them bad things." I mean, come the hell on. I remember being mercilessly mocked by my own family as a teenager and young adult -- including by my uncles and aunts, people who were in their forties at the time -- insulting my tastes, my political beliefs, my lifestyle choices, my decision to go to college, and insinuating that I was a (insert your slur here)-lover. I recognize that is one person's anecdote, but for God's sake, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk did not emerge in a vacuum. So, while I can understand the tendency to say, "hey, conservatives don't like to hear that they're acting like racists and bigots in their choices of candidates and positions to support," I'm just not buying that the liberals started this line of attack. If anything, we just aren't as goddamn good at it.
-
Why do conservatives believe that liberalism, an entire movement explicitly devoted to personal freedoms, is somehow infringing their freedoms?
This recent article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/opinion/rethinking-our-patriotism.html) helped answer this for me, as sort of an aside (it was not the main point of the article).
The answer is they have a different definition of what is required for freedom.
Specifically these paragraphs:
In fact, our major political divisions rest on radically different conceptions of “freedom.”
In the broadest terms, those on the right cherish a nostalgic dream that hopes for a return to a golden past of traditional values and individual responsibility, whereas those on the left project a utopian future in which we reject our history of oppression and create new values of diversity and collective action. More specifically, some think freedom is essentially the right to seek wealth and happiness with minimal governmental restraint, whereas others say freedom requires governmental guarantees of basic economic security and full respect for the rights of marginalized groups.
I would suggest that today our fundamental political conflict is over the place of the capitalist economic system in a democracy. The right sees capitalism as the paradigm of freedom: entrepreneurs creating the wealth that enriches both themselves and the nation. The left acknowledges an essential economic role for capitalism — at least for the time being — but also sees it as a fundamental danger to freedom, a constant push away from democracy and toward an oligarchy of the wealthy.
(Emphasis added.)
If one group thinks a UBI will promote the most freedom, while the other thinks being taxes less will, there's a fundamental clash.
If one thinks allowing gays not to be discriminated against by people baking wedding cakes will promote freedom (for the gays), the other side thinks not regulating those bakers will promote freedom (for the bakers).
So if the liberals are trying to push personal freedoms, the right may see it as a restriction on their freedoms, based on different definitions of freedom and different ideas of what leads to the most freedom.
(Disclaimer: May be deleted. Quote it if you want it.)
-
Perhaps of interest here: How America Lost Faith in Expertise (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-america-lost-faith-expertise)
It’s not just that people don’t know a lot about science or politics or geography. They don’t, but that’s an old problem. The bigger concern today is that Americans have reached a point where ignorance—at least regarding what is generally considered established knowledge in public policy—is seen as an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to demonstrate their independence from nefarious elites—and insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong.
-
I'm happy with the way he slapped the media, but I think the way in which he says things is still unproductive.
"The leaks are true...the media provides fake news". Well, no. If the leaks are true then the media is not providing fake news.
What he should've said is that conclusions that the media jumps to and the narratives they provide are inaccurate and fake.
He's right for calling out the media on its bs, but he continues to not think about things before he says them, per usual.
-
Perhaps of interest here: How America Lost Faith in Expertise (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-america-lost-faith-expertise)
It’s not just that people don’t know a lot about science or politics or geography. They don’t, but that’s an old problem. The bigger concern today is that Americans have reached a point where ignorance—at least regarding what is generally considered established knowledge in public policy—is seen as an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to demonstrate their independence from nefarious elites—and insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong.
People lost faith in expertise because experts sold their influence in support of agendas. Despite the incessant claims of the liberal elite that most people are uneducated and stupid, everyone does have an innate instinct with regards to when they are being told half-truths to manipulate them into a decision.
Used car salesmen come across as greasy for a reason.
To put it another way, someone who has read every published study on a particular topic, and who enters a conversation with someone they believe to be stupid, and then selectively presents the information from all of those studies in such a way as to manipulate that person into a decision, could conclude that anyone not coming to that decision is an idiot or is irrational.
The error being made there is that just because the audience can't articulate exactly how it is being deceived, doesn't mean it doesn't know it is being deceived.
Regardless of how much you agree with the agenda in question, you cannot honestly claim that any establishment at this point is just out there telling it straight. The very concept of political science has become, in essence, the science of manipulation. The backlash against that has been messy, true. It was entirely predictable, and it is not irrational.
I will always be skeptical of any expert that whores themself out to a political party. My lack of trust has to do with their inherent untrustworthiness, not some lack of education on my part.
Coming to me with a story, and then stamping your feet because I don't believe you, because how could I possibly not believe, it isn't like I might have information you don't?
That's how a child reacts when their manipulation fails. This is how the left is reacting to their failed manipulation. This is also, by the by, how the right is reacting.
I know you ate the cookie. The cookies are gone. Only the two of us had access to the cookies. I didn't eat the cookie.
You have an elaborate story where it also wasn't you who ate the cookie, and you told it to me. But the thing is I do know I didn't eat the cookie. And I know the cookie is gone. So you, Mr. Four-your-old who can't see the chocolate on his face, you are busted.
-
Can you provide some concrete examples? I spent most of my adult life around science and scientists (I am a former statistician who advised on data analysis for all sorts of things) and while many scientists have political opinions... they really are pretty dedicated overall to telling it like it is (including when they just don't have an answer). There are exceptions, of course, but in general, at least within the realm of science/engineering - the experts are experts for a reason and ignoring them really is stupid.
For example, climate/atmospheric scientists weren't wrong about the ozone problem, and it was recognized as such, and it was solved, and it was never political. Nobody claimed they were all motivated by money or by some sinister conspiracy or anything like that. Contrast that with (literally the same scientists in many cases) the CO2/climate change debate now... similarly convincing science, not a similar response politically at all.
Now, economics and social sciences are a different story. I personally don't consider them (from psychology/economics down to sociology) sciences at all. They are interesting fields of study, but as yet not really all that useful for actually doing anything IRL. So the experts there are just basically people who are interesting wrt a specific subject, not people who should be making policy. That's just me, though.
-W
-
People lost faith in expertise because experts sold their influence in support of agendas. Despite the incessant claims of the liberal elite that most people are uneducated and stupid, everyone does have an innate instinct with regards to when they are being told half-truths to manipulate them into a decision.
But then how does that explain Trump voters this time? Oops...I must be the liberal elite!
-
I've watched a few Trump voters come to the realization on their own that this guy is batshit crazy and won't likely accomplish much after all. They mostly seem to get quiet and don't pontificate as much.
And I have watched a few get even more enthusiastic about Trump - protective of the guy even when his crazy is showing (see Twitters about Obama recently).
All in all its been a very interesting period of people watching.
I seldom engage anymore in debate. Most people won't admit that they were wrong or are disappointed in their choices about anything, let alone politics. Its not likely to lead to an adult conversation about the pros or cons of a particular topic where someone comes away enlightened.
-
I seldom engage anymore in debate. Most people won't admit that they were wrong or are disappointed in their choices about anything, let alone politics. Its not likely to lead to an adult conversation about the pros or cons of a particular topic where someone comes away enlightened.
Agreed. I mostly only debate here, and I know I am just wasting my time mostly. The in-group solidarity in the Trump camp is going to "trump" any reason or logic I could come up with so for the sake of my sanity, I rarely engage.
-
Can you provide some concrete examples? I spent most of my adult life around science and scientists (I am a former statistician who advised on data analysis for all sorts of things) and while many scientists have political opinions... they really are pretty dedicated overall to telling it like it is (including when they just don't have an answer). There are exceptions, of course, but in general, at least within the realm of science/engineering - the experts are experts for a reason and ignoring them really is stupid.
For example, climate/atmospheric scientists weren't wrong about the ozone problem, and it was recognized as such, and it was solved, and it was never political. Nobody claimed they were all motivated by money or by some sinister conspiracy or anything like that. Contrast that with (literally the same scientists in many cases) the CO2/climate change debate now... similarly convincing science, not a similar response politically at all.
-snip-
-W
What made the Ozone thing not political is that it... wasn't political. You didn't have a lunatic former vice president (inherently political) make a clearly misleading and easily debunked slideshow... which immediately sapped the legitimacy of the science right when public awareness was on it's upswing.
That, and the solutions sold about global warming smacked of a federal government cash and power grab. I could almost see the liberal left orgasming because they finally had a stick to force everyone to bend to their will of centralizing planning, eliminating the freedom of people to move themselves with their own car, and gutting the remainder of US industry. Infact I had a particularly liberal classmate write several essays to that effect.
-
That, and the solutions sold about global warming smacked of a federal government cash and power grab. I could almost see the liberal left orgasming because they finally had a stick to force everyone to bend to their will of centralizing planning, eliminating the freedom of people to move themselves with their own car, and gutting the remainder of US industry. Infact I had a particularly liberal classmate write several essays to that effect.
That point would make great sense (and IMO, does to a significant extent - the solutions proposed from the left are pretty much garbage) but the problem is that instead of proposing alternate solutions from a market-based perspective (ie, just tax the shit out of carbon and refund the money via lower sales/income/etc taxes, probably) we get simple denial that there's a problem at all, or that there even could be a problem.
THAT is the difference in response between the CFC/Ozone issue and climate change I'm talking about. Political conservatives who believed the scientists and collaborated in solving the previous problem now for some reason don't believe them. Instead they accuse the scientists of dishonesty (why? They have a long history of honesty).
-W
-
I've watched a few Trump voters come to the realization on their own that this guy is batshit crazy and won't likely accomplish much after all. They mostly seem to get quiet and don't pontificate as much.
And I have watched a few get even more enthusiastic about Trump - protective of the guy even when his crazy is showing (see Twitters about Obama recently).
All in all its been a very interesting period of people watching.
I seldom engage anymore in debate. Most people won't admit that they were wrong or are disappointed in their choices about anything, let alone politics. Its not likely to lead to an adult conversation about the pros or cons of a particular topic where someone comes away enlightened.
I've felt this way about most voters and their politicians of choice over the past decade or so. Perhaps it was going on before that, but I was not as politically aware as I am now.
-
If the Ozone thing were happening today, conservatives would be flipping out over the idea that the evil big bad government would consider making companies use a different refrigerant. That is over-regulation by god and a job-killer. What about all of those jobs lost in making CFCs?
Polarization.
Imagine the problems we could solve if we weren't all tearing ourselves to pieces on a daily basis?
-
That, and the solutions sold about global warming smacked of a federal government cash and power grab. I could almost see the liberal left orgasming because they finally had a stick to force everyone to bend to their will of centralizing planning, eliminating the freedom of people to move themselves with their own car, and gutting the remainder of US industry. Infact I had a particularly liberal classmate write several essays to that effect.
That point would make great sense (and IMO, does to a significant extent - the solutions proposed from the left are pretty much garbage) but the problem is that instead of proposing alternate solutions from a market-based perspective (ie, just tax the shit out of carbon and refund the money via lower sales/income/etc taxes, probably) we get simple denial that there's a problem at all, or that there even could be a problem.
THAT is the difference in response between the CFC/Ozone issue and climate change I'm talking about. Political conservatives who believed the scientists and collaborated in solving the previous problem now for some reason don't believe them. Instead they accuse the scientists of dishonesty (why? They have a long history of honesty).
-W
Fair enough. It's easier to deny the problem exists than it is to come up with policy ideas. Not to mention there have been a number of occurrences that, rightly or wrongly, have provided just enough ammunition to those who want to undermine the credibility of climate studies for their own profit.
-
Yeah, though the policy idea (tax carbon, pay back some economically smart way so it's revenue neutral) is pretty simple if you're opposed to left-wing solutions.
It is a shame when one entire side of a debate won't engage with it, and the other side only proposed idiotic moralistic solutions.
-W
-
Cap and trade was the compromise.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was the compromise. NAFTA was the compromise. Common Core was the compromise. The ACA was the compromise.
And yes, Cap and Trade was the compromise.
This is why I think conservatives have secretly won the culture war. Every single idea from a right wing think tank that Democrats have turned into law, the conservatives have moved even farther right than that, and now oppose what used to be their own ideas. Meanwhile, when was the last time the Republicans made a law out of an idea from a left wing think tank? Never?
-
Cap and trade was the compromise.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was the compromise. NAFTA was the compromise. Common Core was the compromise. The ACA was the compromise.
And yes, Cap and Trade was the compromise.
This is why I think conservatives have secretly won the culture war. Every single idea from a right wing think tank that Democrats have turned into law, the conservatives have moved even farther right than that, and now oppose what used to be their own ideas. Meanwhile, when was the last time the Republicans made a law out of an idea from a left wing think tank? Never?
Maybe they have particularly shitty, untenable ideas?
-
Maybe they have particularly shitty, untenable ideas?
But they're not! Democrats have totally passed a whole slew of their own legislation against Republican opposition. They also sometimes pass Republican ideas (like the ACA).
For example, when Democrats had full control of government from 2008 to 2010, they passed a whole slew of legislation related to women's rights (e.g. the Lilly Lidbetter, with all but 3 Republicans opposed), economic reform (e.g. the economic stimulus bill, 100% of Republicans opposed), and gay rights (e.g. the hate crimes prevention act, opposed by most but not all Republicans). They also officially ended the Bush-era torture tactics, negotiated some new arms reduction treaties, and banned gifts from lobbyists to all white house staff. I think these were all good things, and an ethical Republican administration could have adopted at least SOME of those Democratic ideas, if they weren't so worried about opposing the secret Kenyan Muslim traitor in the white house at all costs.
But they ARE worried about it, so they can't adopt any of those good ideas. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats have good ideas to offer, and everything to do with feeding red meat to their fringe base constituents.
-
If you saw it, it was incredible. I was wondering whether whether it changed your mind?
If you didn't like Trump before, did his performance change your mind? If you liked him before, are you now concerned?
Yes, it was incredible as in "impossible to believe." I don't pay attention to his words. I only look at his actions, so it did not change my mind. He's still racist, bigoted, etc.
-
Maybe they have particularly shitty, untenable ideas?
But they're not! Democrats have totally passed a whole slew of their own legislation against Republican opposition. They also sometimes pass Republican ideas (like the ACA).
For example, when Democrats had full control of government from 2008 to 2010, they passed a whole slew of legislation related to women's rights (e.g. the Lilly Lidbetter, with all but 3 Republicans opposed), economic reform (e.g. the economic stimulus bill, 100% of Republicans opposed), and gay rights (e.g. the hate crimes prevention act, opposed by most but not all Republicans). They also officially ended the Bush-era torture tactics, negotiated some new arms reduction treaties, and banned gifts from lobbyists to all white house staff. I think these were all good things, and an ethical Republican administration could have adopted at least SOME of those Democratic ideas, if they weren't so worried about opposing the secret Kenyan Muslim traitor in the white house at all costs.
But they ARE worried about it, so they can't adopt any of those good ideas. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats have good ideas to offer, and everything to do with feeding red meat to their fringe base constituents.
I don't see the argument that ideas are good just because they can be formed into a bill and passed through congress. Plenty of bad policies make it into law.
-
If you saw it, it was incredible. I was wondering whether whether it changed your mind?
If you didn't like Trump before, did his performance change your mind? If you liked him before, are you now concerned?
By what standard is the OP judging Trump's speech as incredible? Is it that he stuck to the teleprompter? That he didn't foam at the mouth??
I was amused by the obvious checking-off-the-boxes by the speechwriters: negative attention on ignoring Melania at inauguration, need a positive shout-out to her (check); looked bad to forget the Jews at the Holocaust Memorial speech, so let's denounce the grave desecrations (check); need to move away from Doomsday tone (whoops, blew that one). Amusement turned to disgust at the cynical milking of that poor widow's loss -- well past the point where she was visibly uncomfortable -- while taking no responsibility for authorizing the under-intelligenced raid that got her husband killed.
Why would my mind be changed by Trump managing to behave like an adult for one hour? We've seen him manage it once or twice before, and he always reverted to his usual self afterwards. Didn't take long to walk back his statement about everyone having healthcare and weasel-word it into "access to" healthcare. And remember the speech line about the time for petty fights being over? I guess what he "meant to say" (thank you Sean Spicer) was that it's now time for unprecedentedly large and insane things, like unfounded accusations of Obama wire-tapping him during the election.
But mostly, I wasn't impressed by the content of the speech itself. Lots of things that sound good if you don't know any better like Ryan's health care plan, the usual fantasy about wall-building, and other same-old-same-old. I am very concerned for the United States in the long term.