Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

idonno
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:47 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:What sort of person treats an accusation as true only when it's politically convenient to do so?
Based on history, I'd say the majority of the U.S. population.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:You sound like a Christian. Fuck that. Unlike you, I don't have pretensions of pacifism. So I don't get my hate on when things don't go the way I would like. We'll see who is what come December 12.

...

Hippo, Hillary had choices available to her that most women don't. She didn't have to carry Bill's baggage. If Bill was along for the ride it was because she saw value in keeping him close. Despite his proclivities. However this has become pointless.
I'm sorry, but I seriously don't have the patience to wade through your typical smug condescending word-salad and figure out whatever it is you're actually trying to say.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8876
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:01 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:What sort of person treats an accusation as true only when it's politically convenient to do so?
Based on history, I'd say the majority of the U.S. population.

I think you should expand that superlative to "the entire world."

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:04 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:That's pretty pessimistic... "She loved him despite his flaws and crimes" seems much more reasonable. I'm also not sure what choices Hillary had that "most women don't"... Her choices were to stay with him or leave him. Are those not the same choices any person has when their spouse does something wrong?
All women may not have that choice, for any number of reasons. And all spouses won't reside in the White House.

On another note Empty Suit finally weighs in on the subject, in pretty much the fashion you would expect. And in another footnote the BBC has an interesting piece up.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:29 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:How the fuck did we end up in a political climate where there's a legitimate risk that a known sexual predator and pedophile will be elected to congress? Where the President and his fucking shills put political expediency above not electing a rapist? How the fuck is anyone defending this? How utterly fucking grotesque has the religious right become? Republicans? Are they all just walking, talking garbage? I don't even know, anymore. I see Newt Gingrich on the news and my immediate response is "Shut up and die of old age, you disgusting piece of shit". I don't have anyone close to me like that who's a strong Republican, so maybe that's why, right now, I feel like we'd all be better off if the Republican party ceased to exist.
Maybe "if everyone who voted Trump and everyone over the age of majority who supports Moore ceased to exist" would do better. Given that it'd create a lot of single parents and orphans, it'd be quite expensive even without disposal costs, but cutting off the mushrooms won't stop the wood rotting.

sardia wrote:Trump won Alabama 62% to 34%, and Moore took that margin and pedophiled his way into a 50/50 tie. We'll know more in a week or two if it will continue to drop or revert back.
So the individual alleged to have used his powerful position to sexually assault minors is still supported by ... well, thirty-some percent of the electorate, perhaps? Without the turnout figures, it's hard to do the maths. Also, if that's a 'phone poll a lot of voters (R) may have decided to answer the telephone (R) as if they were voters with consciences and still be locked onto a course of casting their votes (R) for whichever candidate (R) most closely matches their (R).

The Great Hippo wrote:I try to stay away from moral absolutism, but as far as ethical axioms go, "Don't support the serial sexual assaulter who used his position of authority to threaten, abuse, and rape children" seems like a pretty fucking good one.

I am extraordinarily comfortable calling anyone who disagrees a piece of human fucking garbage.


" ... human ... " ... ? Genetically, perhaps.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10174
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:20 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I had a choice between a woman married to a sexual predator and a man who is a sexual predator. I picked the woman.


When both sides have some baggage, it obscures the issue, and makes it less of a deciding factor. Even though it wasn't her, I dare say that Bill's errors did Hillary no favors. Not because they were the primary problem...I think most people voted as they did for pretty normal partisan reasons, and that things like this were more excuses to justify whatever, but when you have really dramatic situations like in Alabama, it makes it harder for people to justify that cognitive dissonance. They want to think of themselves as good people. Maybe they don't vote democrat, but just stay home when they would have voted otherwise.

The very fact that election is at all in dispute, in Alabama, demonstrates that there is indeed a lot of concern over the issue.

The partisan bias still exists, of course. You seem to expect otherwise, and be dismayed that this is not the case. This seems unreasonable. I cannot imagine any other discovery that would have threatened the Republican stranglehold of power the way this has.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:28 pm UTC

If you genuinely believe Moore is innocent, it's reasonable to still support him. It's a position I disagree with, but I don't see those who hold it as human garbage (or worse).
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:12 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:If you genuinely believe Moore is innocent, it's reasonable to still support him. It's a position I disagree with, but I don't see those who hold it as human garbage (or worse).
How many accusers are we up to, now? Twelve? All with credible stories corroborated by friends, family, and coworkers? Corroborated by people who don't even know them, but know Moore? Corroborated by things like that creepy message and signature he left in a teenager's yearbook when he was thirty two? Corroborated by the fact that the fucking MALL banned him for harassing teenage girls?

At what point do we get to say, "yes, okay, we should believe these people"? Like, should his victims have recorded the incidents for posterity or something? Gotten him to notarize a document confirming that he was sexually assaulting them? Is that what it takes for Alabama evangelicals to believe victims over a guy who wears a cowboy hat and waves a gun on stage?

Any adult who looks at all of this and decides that Roy Moore is the *real* victim here is not "being reasonable". They are being *human garbage*.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:01 am UTC

If you've spent the last two decades watching and listening to media convincing you that the Democratic party is trying to send this country to heck, you're going to ignoreforgive trespasses within the party that's trying to do right by the lord. Like sardia summarized from the 538 article and what Clare and the others were saying in the most recent podcast, social conservatives vote for policies. And Roy Moore, by damn, promotes the policies they want.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cyanyoshi » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:21 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:If you genuinely believe Moore is innocent, it's reasonable to still support him. It's a position I disagree with, but I don't see those who hold it as human garbage (or worse).
How many accusers are we up to, now? Twelve? All with credible stories corroborated by friends, family, and coworkers? Corroborated by people who don't even know them, but know Moore? Corroborated by things like that creepy message and signature he left in a teenager's yearbook when he was thirty two? Corroborated by the fact that the fucking MALL banned him for harassing teenage girls?

At what point do we get to say, "yes, okay, we should believe these people"? Like, should his victims have recorded the incidents for posterity or something? Gotten him to notarize a document confirming that he was sexually assaulting them? Is that what it takes for Alabama evangelicals to believe victims over a guy who wears a cowboy hat and waves a gun on stage?

Any adult who looks at all of this and decides that Roy Moore is the *real* victim here is not "being reasonable". They are being *human garbage*.


It's really easy to not accept any of this evidence if the personalities you trust either ignore those accusations completely, or insist that it's all lies meant to disparage Moore and his socially conservative base. Hardly anyone actively seeks out information that challenges their beliefs.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:35 am UTC

Liri wrote:If you've spent the last two decades watching and listening to media convincing you that the Democratic party is trying to send this country to heck, you're going to ignoreforgive trespasses within the party that's trying to do right by the lord. Like sardia summarized from the 538 article and what Clare and the others were saying in the most recent podcast, social conservatives vote for policies. And Roy Moore, by damn, promotes the policies they want.
cyanyoshi wrote:It's really easy to not accept any of this evidence if the personalities you trust either ignore those accusations completely, or insist that it's all lies meant to disparage Moore and his socially conservative base. Hardly anyone actively seeks out information that challenges their beliefs.
This makes sense, and my logic-brain realize that my anger does not address the problem; telling people that I think they're human garbage won't convince them to change their behavior. Thinking of them as human garbage is not at all conducive to an environment where sexual predators don't get elected to Congress. My hatred and indignation are not helping.

Just that -- at this point -- this entire year has felt like one long, unbroken descent into the maw of madness. I very much like to think of people as being good and decent; I don't want to think of people as shitty. But when people keep making shitty choices -- again and again, with an almost fetishistic, willful glee -- I don't know what else to think.

If there's any evangelicals out there who are horrified by the allegations toward Moore -- who believe the victims -- who hear about this and go "Well, fuck this guy, then" -- they're the ones I want to embrace. Those are people I can get along with; the ones I can work with, the ones I can respect and shake hands with. The ones who can remind me that being a socially conservative Christian does not make you a hypocritical piece of shit. That even if we disagree vehemently on some stuff, we can all at least agree that sexual predators should not be elected to Congress.

Like, this shouldn't be a political thing; it shouldn't be a conservative vs liberal thing, or even a goddamn fucking theist vs atheist thing. This is baseline shit. This is 2 + 2 = 4 level shit. We should not elect people who sexually abuse children.

If we can't agree on that, then we can't agree on anything. We might as well all just give up, go home, and wait to die.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8876
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:01 am UTC

I'm trying to figure out a scenario in which you are wrong, Hippo, but every scenario in which the child rapist is the least awful candidate is one where burning the entire system to the ground and then burning the ashes just to be sure is the better option.

Which would explain all those Giant Meteor 2016 stickers.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3977
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:41 am UTC

Problem is, when voters honestly try to burn it all to the ground, they do so by electing Trump.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:04 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Problem is, when voters honestly try to burn it all to the ground, they do so by electing Trump.

I think this gives those voters a pass when the dirty secret is that a lot of America is just racist and sexist, plain and simple. https://twitter.com/natesilver538/statu ... 32?lang=en
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upsh ... ocrat.html
Trump's geographic pattern of support is not just about demographics — educational attainment, for example. It is not necessarily the typical pattern for a populist, either. In fact, it’s almost the exact opposite of Ross Perot’s support in 1992, which was strongest in the West and New England, and weakest in the South and industrial North.
But it is still a familiar pattern. It is similar to a map of the tendency toward racism by region, according to measures like the prevalence of Google searches for racial slurs and racist jokes, or scores on implicit association tests.
“This type of animus towards African-Americans is far more common than just about anyone would have guessed,” said Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, the economist who first used Google search data to measure racial animus and argued that Barack Obama lost four percentage points in 2008 because of racial animus (a number I have argued is too high).

Now what to do about those voters, who are numerous, and vote at high levels? I dunno. You can't arrest them all, it would rival the number of blacks in jail. (Not to mention that the police/armed forces/people with guns are part of the problem) They're numerous enough that we can't ignore/outvote them normally. The only obvious solution is also the most painful: Wait them out as midterm elections saps their focus and strength.
As for presidential elections, I'm torn between going back to the old white men for office standard, or if we can risk sexism costing female candidates support. In close races, like 2016, it's too terrible to repeat.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:26 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Problem is, when voters honestly try to burn it all to the ground, they do so by electing Trump.

I am not friends with them, but I know people who are so radically Left that they voted for Trump hoping the awfulness would inspire a new social cohesion and progressive awakening.

In some respects, the sexual harassment revelations are the kind of result they were hoping for. Would this be happening with Clinton in the WH? Maybe, but it's certainly debatable. Same with the Russian interference in the election. Would Facebook, Twitter, Google be being held to account (sort of)? And imagine, too, if Clinton had won and we were facing the 2018 midterms. The GOP might've gained veto-proof majorities in both houses.

So, they weren't totally wrong, but I don't think we have any sort of perspective to guess at how close they were to being right.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2546
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:25 pm UTC

Liri wrote:but I know people who are so radically Left that they voted for Trump hoping the awfulness would inspire a new social cohesion and progressive awakening.
I think that all kinds of people have recently seized upon the idea that the cards they were dealt were insufficiently like what they want, then taken the option to overturn the card table in expectation that in the resulting fuss they can get themselves a better hand.

(The player that is the Establishment was happy enough to try their luck, but faced with table-flipper opponents who are Into The Shining Future and Back To The Golden Past and I Prefer Blackjack To Poker in nature, that table is getting flipped anyway, and the result is going to dissapoint at least three of the players, including most (if not all) of the flippers.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8876
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:04 pm UTC

The Democratic establishment decided that, against everyone's wishes, only Clinton and a living strawman were allowed to run in the race, but somehow, the living strawman was far more relatable and likable than her, so the Dems had to pull some dirty tricks to prevent the living strawman from upsetting "Clinton 2.0: VOTE HOW WE TELL YOU DAMMIT!" The Republican establishment tried to get "Bush III: The Jebbening", but voters didn't care how much better the second sequel was supposedly than the first sequel, they were fed up with it. In the meantime, the media knew that the Dems were not likely to win because Obama failed to live up to his promise of being a magical wish-granting leprechaun that'd undo 40 years of damage to the economy and give everyone giant penises, so to support the Dems they had to discredit the Republicans. Rather than spend any time exploring all the candidates, they focused only on the chump candidate under the impression that people would forever associate the chump with the candidate that actually won. The result was that the chump got all the free publicity in the world without having spent a dime; note that the election actually had one of the biggest upsets in terms of funding, with Hillary raising nearly twice as much as the chump, with a lot coming from whatever the hell the "Paloma Partners" and "Pritzger Group" are. Then the media ran nothing but attack stories, often justified but to the average American it resulted in a backlash against the media, because first it was constant attention then nothing but negative press, and people hate being manipulated, so it was all "fake news" and they elected him out of spite.

ericgrau
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:14 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ericgrau » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The Democratic establishment decided that, against everyone's wishes, only Clinton and a living strawman were allowed to run in the race, but somehow, the living strawman was far more relatable and likable than her, so the Dems had to pull some dirty tricks to prevent the living strawman from upsetting "Clinton 2.0: VOTE HOW WE TELL YOU DAMMIT!" The Republican establishment tried to get "Bush III: The Jebbening", but voters didn't care how much better the second sequel was supposedly than the first sequel, they were fed up with it. In the meantime, the media knew that the Dems were not likely to win because Obama failed to live up to his promise of being a magical wish-granting leprechaun that'd undo 40 years of damage to the economy and give everyone giant penises, so to support the Dems they had to discredit the Republicans. Rather than spend any time exploring all the candidates, they focused only on the chump candidate under the impression that people would forever associate the chump with the candidate that actually won. The result was that the chump got all the free publicity in the world without having spent a dime; note that the election actually had one of the biggest upsets in terms of funding, with Hillary raising nearly twice as much as the chump, with a lot coming from whatever the hell the "Paloma Partners" and "Pritzger Group" are. Then the media ran nothing but attack stories, often justified but to the average American it resulted in a backlash against the media, because first it was constant attention then nothing but negative press, and people hate being manipulated, so it was all "fake news" and they elected him out of spite.

I find your points intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Paloma and Pritzker are big wealthy investment/bank-ish groups. So the 1% tried to elect her I guess.

I don't keep up with politics much and think Trump is probably a bad guy. But when I try to read an article about him I find a serious factual flaw that's easy to debunk in the first couple sentences. So the BS red flags go up and I stop reading and get back out of politics. Maybe ragging on him is en vogue and they don't care about the details.

The Great Hippo wrote:I think the only thing stopping me from becoming some sort of extreme anti-theist is that there's a couple of people I know and love who are Christian, and I know this probably makes them feel even more sick than it's making me. I don't have anyone close to me like that who's a strong Republican, so maybe that's why, right now, I feel like we'd all be better off if the Republican party ceased to exist.

Hey now, wait, if we did that we'd be really embarrassed about all the 1 political party countries we kept ragging on before for lack of free choice. Then we might have to finally admit that two isn't that far off from one.

Lumping anti-religion hate into the mix is a free bonus. Sometimes I think many Republican and religious speakers are planted strawmen. Like maybe they even believe what they say, but the opposing groups help make and place true extremists into higher positions. Like "life begins at conception" isn't any dumber than "life begins at birth", but there aren't nearly as many idiots saying the second one as there are saying the first.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:25 am UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:If you genuinely believe Moore is innocent, it's reasonable to still support him. It's a position I disagree with, but I don't see those who hold it as human garbage (or worse).
How many accusers are we up to, now? Twelve? All with credible stories corroborated by friends, family, and coworkers? Corroborated by people who don't even know them, but know Moore? Corroborated by things like that creepy message and signature he left in a teenager's yearbook when he was thirty two? Corroborated by the fact that the fucking MALL banned him for harassing teenage girls?

At what point do we get to say, "yes, okay, we should believe these people"? Like, should his victims have recorded the incidents for posterity or something? Gotten him to notarize a document confirming that he was sexually assaulting them? Is that what it takes for Alabama evangelicals to believe victims over a guy who wears a cowboy hat and waves a gun on stage?

Any adult who looks at all of this and decides that Roy Moore is the *real* victim here is not "being reasonable". They are being *human garbage*.


It's really easy to not accept any of this evidence if the personalities you trust either ignore those accusations completely, or insist that it's all lies meant to disparage Moore and his socially conservative base. Hardly anyone actively seeks out information that challenges their beliefs.
I saw someone quite sincerely arguing that the Franken allegations were clearly a conservative conspiracy to distract from Moore.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:26 am UTC

Seriously? There is a picture. What did this person say about the picture?

Photoshop? A doppelganger?

:|

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3758
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:00 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:Seriously? There is a picture. What did this person say about the picture?

Photoshop? A doppelganger?

:|


We're talking conspiracy theory here. The two big parties have annual fundraising in the billions, it's not really a stretch to think the cabbalistic leaders of those parties in their hooded robes could spend a few thousand on a high-profile photoshop job.

Mind you, that rationale is popular way to dismiss any photographic evidence of malfeasance in any political party, or even corporate boardroom.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10174
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:If you genuinely believe Moore is innocent, it's reasonable to still support him. It's a position I disagree with, but I don't see those who hold it as human garbage (or worse).
How many accusers are we up to, now? Twelve? All with credible stories corroborated by friends, family, and coworkers? Corroborated by people who don't even know them, but know Moore? Corroborated by things like that creepy message and signature he left in a teenager's yearbook when he was thirty two? Corroborated by the fact that the fucking MALL banned him for harassing teenage girls?

At what point do we get to say, "yes, okay, we should believe these people"? Like, should his victims have recorded the incidents for posterity or something? Gotten him to notarize a document confirming that he was sexually assaulting them? Is that what it takes for Alabama evangelicals to believe victims over a guy who wears a cowboy hat and waves a gun on stage?

Any adult who looks at all of this and decides that Roy Moore is the *real* victim here is not "being reasonable". They are being *human garbage*.


Now, while this isn't my personal view, I can easily imagine someone saying that anyone can probably write something creepy once, and that verbal stories come out about a ton of celebrities, but it isn't proven in a court yet.

Bias is strong, and people are often not inclined to believe ill of their chosen side due to accusations, number of them aside. It's fairly easy to frame a discussion wildly differently, if you so choose. Not to mention, many of these people may not be aware of the entire scope. If you consume most of your news from sources within the conservative bubble, you may have gathered a different impression of the evidence/accusations than those who have not.

Being wrong isn't quite the same thing as being garbage, discouraging though it is.

The Great Hippo wrote:Just that -- at this point -- this entire year has felt like one long, unbroken descent into the maw of madness. I very much like to think of people as being good and decent; I don't want to think of people as shitty. But when people keep making shitty choices -- again and again, with an almost fetishistic, willful glee -- I don't know what else to think.


That this represents an improvement in politics.

I'm serious. Look, we've *always* had scandals and outrage, and accusations that culture is going to the dogs, and civilization will fail shortly thereafter. In practice, progress marches onward, and society has, for the most part, improved.

Look, we're at a place where at least a good chunk of Republicans in freaking Alabama are willing to take seriously a politicians bad behavior, even when he's their favorite. This represents a ton of progress. He ain't the first politician to be a creep, not by a long shot. What matters is that getting caught is now serious enough to matter even for people in the safest of seats. This has not always been the case.

If we can't agree on that, then we can't agree on anything. We might as well all just give up, go home, and wait to die.


Nah. Look, some people straight up have a might makes right viewpoint. Or are contrarian, and will vote for the most awful things. Agreement is always sort of short of universal by some margin, and terrible people have always been among us.

If you give up, they won't.

Agreement is not required to do good.

Liri wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Problem is, when voters honestly try to burn it all to the ground, they do so by electing Trump.

I am not friends with them, but I know people who are so radically Left that they voted for Trump hoping the awfulness would inspire a new social cohesion and progressive awakening.


I've heard this logic a lot from people post-election. The "maybe the defeat will be so bad it'll actually be a win in the long term" logic.

It seems pretty sketchy. A really bad president might make the next election easier for a party, but it hasn't generally led to a massive societal change. So, I'm not sure that this was a great reason to vote Trump.

As far as conspiracy theories go, sure, they pop out whenever someone gets caught doin' wrong. Doesn't matter how strained the logic is, it allows you to blame familiar enemies, reassure yourself that the world makes sense, and continue on without changing a thing.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1178
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:16 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Internetmeme » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I've heard this logic a lot from people post-election. The "maybe the defeat will be so bad it'll actually be a win in the long term" logic.

It seems pretty sketchy. A really bad president might make the next election easier for a party, but it hasn't generally led to a massive societal change. So, I'm not sure that this was a great reason to vote Trump.


Well, people seem to actually be paying attention to politics nowadays for the most part. The people on the right who had been paying attention to sketchy stuff that happened during the Obama administration are still paying attention (except for the most die-hard Trump supporters, but any candidate is going to have their evangelists). The people on the left who only saw the previous administration through rose-colored glasses are also paying attention to Capitol Hill. And those in the center are watching the fireworks go on between both sides.

Literally everything that Trump does is passed under a lot of scrutiny by (mostly the left-leaning) media outlets. Anything he does that's sketchy, people immediately notice. At the very least, political activism seems to be a lot higher. Had Clinton won the election, I don't think anyone would be paying nearly as much attention to her as they've been paying to Trump. That said, I hope this enhanced level of scrutiny continues to happen in good faith, and doesn't just devolve into conspiracy theories like the right-leaning media's coverage of Obama turned into.
Spoiler:

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:39 pm UTC

Internetmeme wrote:That said, I hope this enhanced level of scrutiny continues to happen in good faith, and doesn't just devolve into conspiracy theories like the right-leaning media's coverage of Obama turned into.

Given the amount of crazy shit Trump does on a daily basis, I'm not sure how anyone would find time to print conspiracy theories about him.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:06 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Internetmeme wrote:That said, I hope this enhanced level of scrutiny continues to happen in good faith, and doesn't just devolve into conspiracy theories like the right-leaning media's coverage of Obama turned into.

Given the amount of crazy shit Trump does on a daily basis, I'm not sure how anyone would find time to print conspiracy theories about him.

I've seen disingenuous coverage of some things by less-than-reputable outlets. Which, exactly, is totally counterproductive.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Internetmeme » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:20 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Mutex wrote:
Internetmeme wrote:That said, I hope this enhanced level of scrutiny continues to happen in good faith, and doesn't just devolve into conspiracy theories like the right-leaning media's coverage of Obama turned into.

Given the amount of crazy shit Trump does on a daily basis, I'm not sure how anyone would find time to print conspiracy theories about him.

I've seen disingenuous coverage of some things by less-than-reputable outlets. Which, exactly, is totally counterproductive.


Completely agreed; what bad-faith coverage does is undermine and discredit the opinions of one's own side. The right had a lot of legitimate criticisms about Obama during the last 8 years, but because of the rampant conspiracy theories surround him, his place of birth, whether or not he's a Muslim/Communist/FEMA spy, etc., those criticisms were completely drowned out in the noise. It stifled debate, because those with legitimate criticisms immediately started off (in the minds of the audience/other side) on the same level as those baseless conspiracies.

Sort of like now, how it's impossible to agree with anything Trump does (or disagree with any criticism), because that immediately puts you on the footing of the worst of his supporters, even if you disagree with everything else he does. I think it's reflective of the us-and-them and sports-team mentality that has infected politics in America lately.
Spoiler:

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7313
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:12 pm UTC

Completely agreed; what bad-faith coverage does is undermine and discredit the opinions of one's own side. The right had a lot of legitimate criticisms about Obama during the last 8 years, but because of the rampant conspiracy theories surround him, his place of birth, whether or not he's a Muslim/Communist/FEMA spy, etc., those criticisms were completely drowned out in the noise.

Also, they won all elections and their birther-in-chief is now president. I would score that as "bad-faith coverage: highly effective"

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5641
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:32 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Also, they won all elections and their birther-in-chief is now president. I would score that as "bad-faith coverage: highly effective"
It works half the time, every time.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:17 am UTC

Since I no longer have any faith in the idea that people understand what it is that I say when I say it, this is for my own amusement.

Has anybody noticed that photographs of Empty Suit in right minded media always make him look like a racoon, one with orange eyes. Never very Presidential. Goofy smiles, closed eyes and bad angles. I wonder if this is intentional? I think it would make an interesting research topic.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5641
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:36 am UTC

Of course it's intentional. People like (will buy media depicting) their president in the manner they want to perceive him. On another angle, ever notice that you never see him from the back? I've heard that he prohibits his bald spot from being in view.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10174
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:44 pm UTC

Internetmeme wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I've heard this logic a lot from people post-election. The "maybe the defeat will be so bad it'll actually be a win in the long term" logic.

It seems pretty sketchy. A really bad president might make the next election easier for a party, but it hasn't generally led to a massive societal change. So, I'm not sure that this was a great reason to vote Trump.


Well, people seem to actually be paying attention to politics nowadays for the most part. The people on the right who had been paying attention to sketchy stuff that happened during the Obama administration are still paying attention (except for the most die-hard Trump supporters, but any candidate is going to have their evangelists). The people on the left who only saw the previous administration through rose-colored glasses are also paying attention to Capitol Hill. And those in the center are watching the fireworks go on between both sides.

Literally everything that Trump does is passed under a lot of scrutiny by (mostly the left-leaning) media outlets. Anything he does that's sketchy, people immediately notice. At the very least, political activism seems to be a lot higher. Had Clinton won the election, I don't think anyone would be paying nearly as much attention to her as they've been paying to Trump. That said, I hope this enhanced level of scrutiny continues to happen in good faith, and doesn't just devolve into conspiracy theories like the right-leaning media's coverage of Obama turned into.


People always pay attention to politics, sort of. It feels like the coverage of political things has always been pretty non-stop. Look back on the Bush years, were liberals paying attention to what he did? Sure.

Does anything change as a result? Ehhhh. The attention does not seem to be a significant hindrance to Trump doing as he pleases.

morriswalters wrote:Since I no longer have any faith in the idea that people understand what it is that I say when I say it, this is for my own amusement.

Has anybody noticed that photographs of Empty Suit in right minded media always make him look like a racoon, one with orange eyes. Never very Presidential. Goofy smiles, closed eyes and bad angles. I wonder if this is intentional? I think it would make an interesting research topic.


Oh, of course it's intentional. Right wing media(particularly the more extreme sorts) certainly favored less flattering photos of Obama. Photos are by no means exempt from the endless back and forth.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:10 am UTC


User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:16 am UTC


My favorite part is where they secretly recorded her secret recording of the reporters. Especially the part where the WAPO guy leaves his bag in front of OKeefe's purse that contains the hidden camera. Spy games are funny when people get caught.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3977
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:53 am UTC

Honestly the stuff that article describes Veritas doing sounds like good best-practices for keeping the media honest. Like penetration testing in computer security. You're trying to see if something you want to rely on (the computer system or the media) would fail in the face of certain kinds of attacks, by perpetrating those attacks, and then rather than exploiting that weakness for your own gain, publishing the fact that the supposedly-secure system is faulty in that way, so that it can be better secured. And WaPo proved that they are secure, which is good to know, because it would be awful for everyone coming forth with honest claims against Moore et al if it turned out that news outlets like WaPo would have published them even had they been false. This action "against" WaPo strengthens the veracity of the true allegations they have published.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

elasto
Posts: 3130
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:15 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Honestly the stuff that article describes Veritas doing sounds like good best-practices for keeping the media honest. Like penetration testing in computer security.

That's true, but only because WaPo saw through their ruse. Would Veritas really have reported the results if WaPo hadn't taken the bait but otherwise remained in the dark..?

If all Veritas does is publicise the times the media falls short, it does nothing to improve the opinion of the MSM by the general public. It's misrepresentative in a not dissimilar way to this.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:49 am UTC

elasto wrote:That's true, but only because WaPo saw through their ruse. Would Veritas really have reported the results if WaPo hadn't taken the bait but otherwise remained in the dark..?
This, and also -- Veritas is not operating on good faith.
Pfhorrest wrote:Like penetration testing in computer security. You're trying to see if something you want to rely on (the computer system or the media) would fail in the face of certain kinds of attacks, by perpetrating those attacks, and then rather than exploiting that weakness for your own gain, publishing the fact that the supposedly-secure system is faulty in that way, so that it can be better secured.
Veritas isn't a media watchdog organization; they're part of an alternative media that wants us to listen to them, instead. So this is more like a rival computer security firm trying to hack your system to prove to everyone they're better. If they succeed, they're going to put together a presentation that shows you in the worst light possible; even if they don't succeed, they'll try to aggressively manipulate the data to still make it look like they did.

But if they fail utterly and completely, like they did here? They'll do everything they can to either 1) Obscure the fact that they even tried, or 2) Rewrite the narrative to make it look like a 'success'.

You're right to point out the need for watchdog media organizations -- we need guys who call the news on their constant parade of bullshit. But Veritas aren't those guys. They're just the guys trying to cover up the sexual assault of children on account of it being inconvenient to their political narrative. Y'know -- the 'pro-child molestation' group? That's them. That's who these guys are.

Man, I really miss the days back when opposition to things like "Nazism" and "child molestation" were uncontroversial.

elasto
Posts: 3130
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:35 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Veritas isn't a media watchdog organization; they're part of an alternative media that wants us to listen to them, instead. So this is more like a rival computer security firm trying to hack your system to prove to everyone they're better. If they succeed, they're going to put together a presentation that shows you in the worst light possible; even if they don't succeed, they'll try to aggressively manipulate the data to still make it look like they did.

Yeah, this is a better way to put it than I did.

I suppose there was never really was any 'golden age' but I do feel like there is a particular lack of respect and decency these days - a cut-throat partisanship and winning-at-all costs mentality whether that's in politics or the media.

I feel like, yeah, politicians have always been rivals and it's always been 'winner takes all' to a very great extent, but at least there was more of a respect for the institution itself - both by the participants and the general public.

And America seems to be leading the field here; I can't imagine, say, BBC and ITN news in the UK setting up undercover stings on each other trying to entrap. There is more of a mutual respect here I feel - along with a belief that the best way to combat falling standards across the industry is to raise your own - rather than to distract the public from your failings by merely trying to highlight the failings of others.

'But, Mom, Jimmy does it too!' never wins any awards. That's a race to the bottom from which noone wins.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:07 pm UTC

Everyone might be interested in this article recently posted by the BBC about the difference in laws relating to speech contrasting the UK and the US. It makes a cogent point.

The WaPo news just shows that they vet and that they are paying attention to the hazards.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8876
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:16 pm UTC

How is project veritas anything new? Yellow journalism and propaganda isn't just old, but if anything likely predates actual journalism.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests