Did Trump's 2/16 Press Conference Change Your Mind?

[accolay]

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!

[Just Joe]

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.

[golden1]

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. 

[ncornilsen]

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. 

[waltworks]

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

[Metric Mouse]

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.

[golden1]

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?

[ncornilsen]

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.

[waltworks]

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

[sol]

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?

[Metric Mouse]

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?

[sol]

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. 

[oldtoyota]

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.

[Metric Mouse]

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.

[SpeedReader]

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.