by Ugh
One would think with a 15+ month Presidential campaign we should know Where They Stand on the IssuesTM, especially the winner. But alas, it seems heartfelt policy positions are not really part of GOP President-Elect Trump's id nor were they of much interest to the MSM in the lead up to November 8th. What does he really believe? Is he a blank slate? Will he sign any bill that comes across his desk? Does he even know he can veto a bill? Who knows! He's just going to MAGA through winning, so don't worry your pretty little head.
I don't think Trump even knows. It's clear he never expected to win even the GOP Primary, much less the Presidency, and now here he is – a resentful narcissistic know-nothing blowhard who both craves approval but will lash out at anyone who disrespects him (at least in the moment).* The GOP congress looks at him and has decided that they can now pass their dream agenda that involves massive corporate and The 1% (or really the 0.1%) tax cuts while destroying Medicare and the Affordable Care Act (insert Dr. Evil laugh here, or maybe Vincent Price in Thriller). Plus SCOTUS!
OTOH, to the extent the GOP cares about the U.S. government and democracy beyond their access to power within that framework (and I have my doubts about how much there is there), they are playing a dangerous game with Trump, the justice system, his political advisers/cabinet appointments (a significant % of whom seem to be paranoid and/or believe in conspiracy theories), foreign policy, rampant corruption, and the national security state. Sadly, they are not likely to be the losers in this game.
And he's not even President yet….
*Official diagnosis in the DSM-IV. Really! Look it up!
Historically Trump’s goals have been (a) make lots of money for Trump and (b) aggrandize the Trump brand. These may be in service of some inner narcissistic daemon, I’m not a shrink so I don’t know. The salient behaviors are more than enough to contend with.
Basically I think Trump is going to do whatever flatters his vanity and makes him ever-larger craploads of money.
That worries me far less than the agendas of the people around him. Priebus is basically the interface to the institutional (R) party, I don’t think he will be contributing all that much to basic policy-making. He’s there to help keep the (R)’s from freaking the hell out.
The guys to watch are Bannon and Kushner.
Bannon seems wants to break everything and turn the US into some kind of national-socialist project. I don’t know how big of a table he intends to set with that. I.e., I don’t know if he’s personally anti-black, anti-semitic, anti-whatever, or whether people who aren’t European whites will be welcome in his great big plan for us all. I’m sure we’ll find out.
Kushner is a puzzle to me, I don’t know what he wants. Other than being close to money and power.
Good luck to all.
Historically Trump’s goals have been (a) make lots of money for Trump and (b) aggrandize the Trump brand. These may be in service of some inner narcissistic daemon, I’m not a shrink so I don’t know. The salient behaviors are more than enough to contend with.
Basically I think Trump is going to do whatever flatters his vanity and makes him ever-larger craploads of money.
That worries me far less than the agendas of the people around him. Priebus is basically the interface to the institutional (R) party, I don’t think he will be contributing all that much to basic policy-making. He’s there to help keep the (R)’s from freaking the hell out.
The guys to watch are Bannon and Kushner.
Bannon seems wants to break everything and turn the US into some kind of national-socialist project. I don’t know how big of a table he intends to set with that. I.e., I don’t know if he’s personally anti-black, anti-semitic, anti-whatever, or whether people who aren’t European whites will be welcome in his great big plan for us all. I’m sure we’ll find out.
Kushner is a puzzle to me, I don’t know what he wants. Other than being close to money and power.
Good luck to all.
Historically Trump’s goals have been (a) make lots of money for Trump and (b) aggrandize the Trump brand. These may be in service of some inner narcissistic daemon, I’m not a shrink so I don’t know. The salient behaviors are more than enough to contend with.
Basically I think Trump is going to do whatever flatters his vanity and makes him ever-larger craploads of money.
That worries me far less than the agendas of the people around him. Priebus is basically the interface to the institutional (R) party, I don’t think he will be contributing all that much to basic policy-making. He’s there to help keep the (R)’s from freaking the hell out.
The guys to watch are Bannon and Kushner.
Bannon seems wants to break everything and turn the US into some kind of national-socialist project. I don’t know how big of a table he intends to set with that. I.e., I don’t know if he’s personally anti-black, anti-semitic, anti-whatever, or whether people who aren’t European whites will be welcome in his great big plan for us all. I’m sure we’ll find out.
Kushner is a puzzle to me, I don’t know what he wants. Other than being close to money and power.
Good luck to all.
Tabula Rosa never had so true a meaning.
What will Trump actually do? We’ll have to wait and see how he feels each day he wakes. Don’t try to think beyond that because I honestly believe he doesn’t.
Tabula Rosa never had so true a meaning.
What will Trump actually do? We’ll have to wait and see how he feels each day he wakes. Don’t try to think beyond that because I honestly believe he doesn’t.
Tabula Rosa never had so true a meaning.
What will Trump actually do? We’ll have to wait and see how he feels each day he wakes. Don’t try to think beyond that because I honestly believe he doesn’t.
Again, I would highly recommend the work of Sarah Kendzior, someone who did her doctoral work in Uzbekistan, and who has more recently been a journalist in St. Louis, MO. So far, her take has been very accurate, and her recommendations for resistance are worth studying.
Again, I would highly recommend the work of Sarah Kendzior, someone who did her doctoral work in Uzbekistan, and who has more recently been a journalist in St. Louis, MO. So far, her take has been very accurate, and her recommendations for resistance are worth studying.
Again, I would highly recommend the work of Sarah Kendzior, someone who did her doctoral work in Uzbekistan, and who has more recently been a journalist in St. Louis, MO. So far, her take has been very accurate, and her recommendations for resistance are worth studying.
Kendzior.
Everything she says here seems right on the money to me.
“Fascism is always made by disappointed people” said Hemingway, who knew whereof he spoke.
We are more or less looking it in the face right now.
Either that, or I’ve come unhinged again. Silly russell!
Good luck to all.
Kendzior.
Everything she says here seems right on the money to me.
“Fascism is always made by disappointed people” said Hemingway, who knew whereof he spoke.
We are more or less looking it in the face right now.
Either that, or I’ve come unhinged again. Silly russell!
Good luck to all.
Kendzior.
Everything she says here seems right on the money to me.
“Fascism is always made by disappointed people” said Hemingway, who knew whereof he spoke.
We are more or less looking it in the face right now.
Either that, or I’ve come unhinged again. Silly russell!
Good luck to all.
I was not a Hillary fan for the simple reason that nominating a NE urban corridor person — governors from that region, VPs, Senators of long standing — has been a disaster for the Democrats for 50 years. But I voted for her because there needed to be someone to put a check on the Congressional Republicans, who have lost their collective mind.
Trump’s appointments so far suggest that he intends to give the Congressional Republicans their head. Himself, personally, he’ll bask in the glow of the Presidency, watch the Trump real estate and branding empire grow, and sign the bills put in front of him. What I’m really not looking forward to is whatever happens when the Congressional Republicans decide that they’re going to punish California.
I was not a Hillary fan for the simple reason that nominating a NE urban corridor person — governors from that region, VPs, Senators of long standing — has been a disaster for the Democrats for 50 years. But I voted for her because there needed to be someone to put a check on the Congressional Republicans, who have lost their collective mind.
Trump’s appointments so far suggest that he intends to give the Congressional Republicans their head. Himself, personally, he’ll bask in the glow of the Presidency, watch the Trump real estate and branding empire grow, and sign the bills put in front of him. What I’m really not looking forward to is whatever happens when the Congressional Republicans decide that they’re going to punish California.
I was not a Hillary fan for the simple reason that nominating a NE urban corridor person — governors from that region, VPs, Senators of long standing — has been a disaster for the Democrats for 50 years. But I voted for her because there needed to be someone to put a check on the Congressional Republicans, who have lost their collective mind.
Trump’s appointments so far suggest that he intends to give the Congressional Republicans their head. Himself, personally, he’ll bask in the glow of the Presidency, watch the Trump real estate and branding empire grow, and sign the bills put in front of him. What I’m really not looking forward to is whatever happens when the Congressional Republicans decide that they’re going to punish California.
It’s going to be interesting to see a DOJ led by someone who likely thinks Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr were wrongly decided (not to mention Roe v. Wade) and the entirety of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
I’ll reserve judgment on Herr Sessions’ view of Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act.
It’s going to be interesting to see a DOJ led by someone who likely thinks Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr were wrongly decided (not to mention Roe v. Wade) and the entirety of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
I’ll reserve judgment on Herr Sessions’ view of Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act.
It’s going to be interesting to see a DOJ led by someone who likely thinks Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr were wrongly decided (not to mention Roe v. Wade) and the entirety of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
I’ll reserve judgment on Herr Sessions’ view of Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act.
I don’t want the Trump administration and the Republicans in congress to break sh1t, but if they do, I hope the people who stayed home or voted reluctantly for Trump or voted 3rd party in protest wake the fnck and hand the Democrats at least the senate in 2 years. Probably wishful (sort of) thinking on my part.
I don’t want the Trump administration and the Republicans in congress to break sh1t, but if they do, I hope the people who stayed home or voted reluctantly for Trump or voted 3rd party in protest wake the fnck and hand the Democrats at least the senate in 2 years. Probably wishful (sort of) thinking on my part.
I don’t want the Trump administration and the Republicans in congress to break sh1t, but if they do, I hope the people who stayed home or voted reluctantly for Trump or voted 3rd party in protest wake the fnck and hand the Democrats at least the senate in 2 years. Probably wishful (sort of) thinking on my part.
I should add that I realize the math is bad for Democrats in 2 years, thus the wishful (sort of) thinking.
I should add that I realize the math is bad for Democrats in 2 years, thus the wishful (sort of) thinking.
I should add that I realize the math is bad for Democrats in 2 years, thus the wishful (sort of) thinking.
Here’s something that may or may not be on the agenda. He could reverse himself or double down. Who the hell can tell which?
Here’s something that may or may not be on the agenda. He could reverse himself or double down. Who the hell can tell which?
Here’s something that may or may not be on the agenda. He could reverse himself or double down. Who the hell can tell which?
Sessions appears to belong to the long tradition of Dixiecrats who believe that, having lost the Civil War militarily, they should find a way to reverse the result by political means. At least in their own states, with spreading the effects to other states a plus.
Sessions appears to belong to the long tradition of Dixiecrats who believe that, having lost the Civil War militarily, they should find a way to reverse the result by political means. At least in their own states, with spreading the effects to other states a plus.
Sessions appears to belong to the long tradition of Dixiecrats who believe that, having lost the Civil War militarily, they should find a way to reverse the result by political means. At least in their own states, with spreading the effects to other states a plus.
not to mention Roe
Roe, hell.
They’ll come after Griswold v. Connecticut, and the right to privacy.
The VRA is already in ruins; they hate Brown.
And Title IX
I don’t know if I can stand to watch all this happen. And just when I retire, after paying in for a lifetime, they’re
reformingprivatisingdestroying Medicare.They’ll take us back to the Lochner era if they can.
not to mention Roe
Roe, hell.
They’ll come after Griswold v. Connecticut, and the right to privacy.
The VRA is already in ruins; they hate Brown.
And Title IX
I don’t know if I can stand to watch all this happen. And just when I retire, after paying in for a lifetime, they’re
reformingprivatisingdestroying Medicare.They’ll take us back to the Lochner era if they can.
not to mention Roe
Roe, hell.
They’ll come after Griswold v. Connecticut, and the right to privacy.
The VRA is already in ruins; they hate Brown.
And Title IX
I don’t know if I can stand to watch all this happen. And just when I retire, after paying in for a lifetime, they’re
reformingprivatisingdestroying Medicare.They’ll take us back to the Lochner era if they can.
Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare (Obama)! Remember that?
Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare (Obama)! Remember that?
Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare (Obama)! Remember that?
Overall, I think Ugh is pretty close. Trump’s priorities remain proving himself by
a) making lots of money (so as to prove that he is as important as the Manhattan folks who look down on him),
b) spreading the Trump brand (just another way to prove that people think he is important), and
c) getting revenge on anyone who has opposed (or disrespected) him (so as to prove that he is too important to be trifled with).
All of it is really about his personal insecurities.
I think he has a few beliefs beyond that. But they are flexible, especially if they seem to conflict with the priorities in a specific case.
When it comes to bills that Congress sends him, I think he will veto a few now and then, just to remind Congressmen that he is important and has the power to do so. Most likely, he will pick bills authored by members who opposed him, thus getting revenge on them as well.
Ryan can probably get his Medicare privatization . . . provided he is willing to have someone else’s name on the bill. Because, as a less than whole-hearted Trump supporter, he makes a great candidate for a revenge veto. On top of the fact that, as Speaker, he also makes a target for a “proof of importance” veto. I wonder if he realizes that?
Overall, I think Ugh is pretty close. Trump’s priorities remain proving himself by
a) making lots of money (so as to prove that he is as important as the Manhattan folks who look down on him),
b) spreading the Trump brand (just another way to prove that people think he is important), and
c) getting revenge on anyone who has opposed (or disrespected) him (so as to prove that he is too important to be trifled with).
All of it is really about his personal insecurities.
I think he has a few beliefs beyond that. But they are flexible, especially if they seem to conflict with the priorities in a specific case.
When it comes to bills that Congress sends him, I think he will veto a few now and then, just to remind Congressmen that he is important and has the power to do so. Most likely, he will pick bills authored by members who opposed him, thus getting revenge on them as well.
Ryan can probably get his Medicare privatization . . . provided he is willing to have someone else’s name on the bill. Because, as a less than whole-hearted Trump supporter, he makes a great candidate for a revenge veto. On top of the fact that, as Speaker, he also makes a target for a “proof of importance” veto. I wonder if he realizes that?
Overall, I think Ugh is pretty close. Trump’s priorities remain proving himself by
a) making lots of money (so as to prove that he is as important as the Manhattan folks who look down on him),
b) spreading the Trump brand (just another way to prove that people think he is important), and
c) getting revenge on anyone who has opposed (or disrespected) him (so as to prove that he is too important to be trifled with).
All of it is really about his personal insecurities.
I think he has a few beliefs beyond that. But they are flexible, especially if they seem to conflict with the priorities in a specific case.
When it comes to bills that Congress sends him, I think he will veto a few now and then, just to remind Congressmen that he is important and has the power to do so. Most likely, he will pick bills authored by members who opposed him, thus getting revenge on them as well.
Ryan can probably get his Medicare privatization . . . provided he is willing to have someone else’s name on the bill. Because, as a less than whole-hearted Trump supporter, he makes a great candidate for a revenge veto. On top of the fact that, as Speaker, he also makes a target for a “proof of importance” veto. I wonder if he realizes that?
Part of me thinks that Ryan doesn’t really believe he can get Medicare privatization — but it will make people think that block-granting Medicaid isn’t so bad by comparison.
Part of me thinks that Ryan doesn’t really believe he can get Medicare privatization — but it will make people think that block-granting Medicaid isn’t so bad by comparison.
Part of me thinks that Ryan doesn’t really believe he can get Medicare privatization — but it will make people think that block-granting Medicaid isn’t so bad by comparison.
“On top of the fact that, as Speaker, he also makes a target for a “proof of importance” veto. I wonder if he realizes that?”
I am sure that almost everyone knows that a good suck up is more effective than a criticism when it comes to Trump. Bernie should get better at it, he could get lots of his agenda. Schumer has already started sucking up on infrastructure and a few other things, but he needs to stop pushing the idea that “these are Democratic policies” or Mitch will just kill those too.
Politicians are really bad at politics sometimes.
“On top of the fact that, as Speaker, he also makes a target for a “proof of importance” veto. I wonder if he realizes that?”
I am sure that almost everyone knows that a good suck up is more effective than a criticism when it comes to Trump. Bernie should get better at it, he could get lots of his agenda. Schumer has already started sucking up on infrastructure and a few other things, but he needs to stop pushing the idea that “these are Democratic policies” or Mitch will just kill those too.
Politicians are really bad at politics sometimes.
“On top of the fact that, as Speaker, he also makes a target for a “proof of importance” veto. I wonder if he realizes that?”
I am sure that almost everyone knows that a good suck up is more effective than a criticism when it comes to Trump. Bernie should get better at it, he could get lots of his agenda. Schumer has already started sucking up on infrastructure and a few other things, but he needs to stop pushing the idea that “these are Democratic policies” or Mitch will just kill those too.
Politicians are really bad at politics sometimes.
Part of me thinks that Ryan doesn’t really believe he can get Medicare privatization
Voucherizing Medicare has been part of every budget Ryan has presented or been involved with for like the last 8 years.
Part of me thinks that Ryan doesn’t really believe he can get Medicare privatization
Voucherizing Medicare has been part of every budget Ryan has presented or been involved with for like the last 8 years.
Part of me thinks that Ryan doesn’t really believe he can get Medicare privatization
Voucherizing Medicare has been part of every budget Ryan has presented or been involved with for like the last 8 years.
[Ryan] also makes a target for a “proof of importance”
vetodrone strike.And here we thought Trump would be an unmitigated disaster.
[Ryan] also makes a target for a “proof of importance”
vetodrone strike.And here we thought Trump would be an unmitigated disaster.
[Ryan] also makes a target for a “proof of importance”
vetodrone strike.And here we thought Trump would be an unmitigated disaster.
i think we’re going to learn that Trump is exactly as bad as was predicted but in many more ways than anyone had bothered asking him about.
because being a celebrity game show host obviates the need to answer policy questions.
i think we’re going to learn that Trump is exactly as bad as was predicted but in many more ways than anyone had bothered asking him about.
because being a celebrity game show host obviates the need to answer policy questions.
i think we’re going to learn that Trump is exactly as bad as was predicted but in many more ways than anyone had bothered asking him about.
because being a celebrity game show host obviates the need to answer policy questions.
He clearly doesn’t understand the added meaning his pronouncements have now that he’s the president-elect of the United States. I assume over time, they’ll come to have less meaning than is commensurate with his position, which I guess is both good and bad. In general, I’d like people to take our president(-elect) seriously, but not so much when his name is Donald Trump.
He clearly doesn’t understand the added meaning his pronouncements have now that he’s the president-elect of the United States. I assume over time, they’ll come to have less meaning than is commensurate with his position, which I guess is both good and bad. In general, I’d like people to take our president(-elect) seriously, but not so much when his name is Donald Trump.
He clearly doesn’t understand the added meaning his pronouncements have now that he’s the president-elect of the United States. I assume over time, they’ll come to have less meaning than is commensurate with his position, which I guess is both good and bad. In general, I’d like people to take our president(-elect) seriously, but not so much when his name is Donald Trump.
Voucherizing Medicare has been part of every budget Ryan has presented or been involved with for like the last 8 years.
But knew that there was no chance of passing it in any of those. Absent a veto backstop, at least three Republican Senators from retirement states, or upper Great Plains states where the base is aging and counting on Medicare as we know it, will refuse to go along — but will accept a block-grant version of Medicaid (despite what it will do to their states’ budgets in the middle term) in its place.
Voucherizing Medicare has been part of every budget Ryan has presented or been involved with for like the last 8 years.
But knew that there was no chance of passing it in any of those. Absent a veto backstop, at least three Republican Senators from retirement states, or upper Great Plains states where the base is aging and counting on Medicare as we know it, will refuse to go along — but will accept a block-grant version of Medicaid (despite what it will do to their states’ budgets in the middle term) in its place.
Voucherizing Medicare has been part of every budget Ryan has presented or been involved with for like the last 8 years.
But knew that there was no chance of passing it in any of those. Absent a veto backstop, at least three Republican Senators from retirement states, or upper Great Plains states where the base is aging and counting on Medicare as we know it, will refuse to go along — but will accept a block-grant version of Medicaid (despite what it will do to their states’ budgets in the middle term) in its place.
We, and the rest of the world, pretty much have to take Trump’s Tweets seriously. After all, it seems like they are going to be his preferred method of communicating — as opposed to something like a news conference.
They appear to be the only way we are going to have to get a read on what he is likely to do. There doesn’t seem to be much of a policy agenda, especially internationally. So it’s either follow the Tweets and guess, or guess blind . . . until there is an action to tell you what the intention was (assuming there was intention, of course).
We, and the rest of the world, pretty much have to take Trump’s Tweets seriously. After all, it seems like they are going to be his preferred method of communicating — as opposed to something like a news conference.
They appear to be the only way we are going to have to get a read on what he is likely to do. There doesn’t seem to be much of a policy agenda, especially internationally. So it’s either follow the Tweets and guess, or guess blind . . . until there is an action to tell you what the intention was (assuming there was intention, of course).
We, and the rest of the world, pretty much have to take Trump’s Tweets seriously. After all, it seems like they are going to be his preferred method of communicating — as opposed to something like a news conference.
They appear to be the only way we are going to have to get a read on what he is likely to do. There doesn’t seem to be much of a policy agenda, especially internationally. So it’s either follow the Tweets and guess, or guess blind . . . until there is an action to tell you what the intention was (assuming there was intention, of course).
So it’s either follow the Tweets and guess, or guess blind . . . until there is an action to tell you what the intention was (assuming there was intention, of course).
But, over time, if they don’t really give you a clue, you’ll come to realize that there isn’t much point in following them. They appear to be mostly scattershot expressions of fleeting whims.
Perhaps you won’t come to ignore them entirely. But it’s likely you won’t give them the weight that you would to something our current president says.
So it’s either follow the Tweets and guess, or guess blind . . . until there is an action to tell you what the intention was (assuming there was intention, of course).
But, over time, if they don’t really give you a clue, you’ll come to realize that there isn’t much point in following them. They appear to be mostly scattershot expressions of fleeting whims.
Perhaps you won’t come to ignore them entirely. But it’s likely you won’t give them the weight that you would to something our current president says.
So it’s either follow the Tweets and guess, or guess blind . . . until there is an action to tell you what the intention was (assuming there was intention, of course).
But, over time, if they don’t really give you a clue, you’ll come to realize that there isn’t much point in following them. They appear to be mostly scattershot expressions of fleeting whims.
Perhaps you won’t come to ignore them entirely. But it’s likely you won’t give them the weight that you would to something our current president says.
Absent a veto backstop, at least three Republican Senators from retirement states, or upper Great Plains states where the base is aging and counting on Medicare as we know it, will refuse to go along
That may well be.
All of that said, there is no question in my mind that Ryan would love to see Medicare voucherized. And, that if he can find a way to make it happen, he will.
Whether he can make that happen or not is sort of a separate question.
Absent a veto backstop, at least three Republican Senators from retirement states, or upper Great Plains states where the base is aging and counting on Medicare as we know it, will refuse to go along
That may well be.
All of that said, there is no question in my mind that Ryan would love to see Medicare voucherized. And, that if he can find a way to make it happen, he will.
Whether he can make that happen or not is sort of a separate question.
Absent a veto backstop, at least three Republican Senators from retirement states, or upper Great Plains states where the base is aging and counting on Medicare as we know it, will refuse to go along
That may well be.
All of that said, there is no question in my mind that Ryan would love to see Medicare voucherized. And, that if he can find a way to make it happen, he will.
Whether he can make that happen or not is sort of a separate question.
I think Trump’s Cabinet picks show that he has anagenda, or at least he is willing to swallow the agenda of the Congressional Repubicana whole.
It’s Bannon that interests me. I can’t get a fix on his agenda. He has called himself a populist, but supports deregulating Wall Street and tax cuts for the rich. He hates Ryan, hates the Republican party, says that they are unChristian crony capitalists (he’s right about that) but here he is the man behind that unChristian crony capitalist Trump. He calls himself a Leninist adn says he wants to tear the government down. he has made openly racist statements ans has connections with white supremists. Is his long term goal white supremacy? I do wonder if we are in the Weimar Republic. Or is Bannon Rasputin to Trumps’ Nicholas? (Nicholas in the sense of being a clueless family man who had no idea how to govern. It’s a very limited comparison).
I think Trump’s Cabinet picks show that he has anagenda, or at least he is willing to swallow the agenda of the Congressional Repubicana whole.
It’s Bannon that interests me. I can’t get a fix on his agenda. He has called himself a populist, but supports deregulating Wall Street and tax cuts for the rich. He hates Ryan, hates the Republican party, says that they are unChristian crony capitalists (he’s right about that) but here he is the man behind that unChristian crony capitalist Trump. He calls himself a Leninist adn says he wants to tear the government down. he has made openly racist statements ans has connections with white supremists. Is his long term goal white supremacy? I do wonder if we are in the Weimar Republic. Or is Bannon Rasputin to Trumps’ Nicholas? (Nicholas in the sense of being a clueless family man who had no idea how to govern. It’s a very limited comparison).
I think Trump’s Cabinet picks show that he has anagenda, or at least he is willing to swallow the agenda of the Congressional Repubicana whole.
It’s Bannon that interests me. I can’t get a fix on his agenda. He has called himself a populist, but supports deregulating Wall Street and tax cuts for the rich. He hates Ryan, hates the Republican party, says that they are unChristian crony capitalists (he’s right about that) but here he is the man behind that unChristian crony capitalist Trump. He calls himself a Leninist adn says he wants to tear the government down. he has made openly racist statements ans has connections with white supremists. Is his long term goal white supremacy? I do wonder if we are in the Weimar Republic. Or is Bannon Rasputin to Trumps’ Nicholas? (Nicholas in the sense of being a clueless family man who had no idea how to govern. It’s a very limited comparison).
Bannon.
Bannon.
Bannon.
We, and the rest of the world, pretty much have to take Trump’s Tweets seriously. After all, it seems like they are going to be his preferred method of communicating
I, for one, look forward to the massive catastrophe that results when someone manages to hack Trump’s Twitter account.
We, and the rest of the world, pretty much have to take Trump’s Tweets seriously. After all, it seems like they are going to be his preferred method of communicating
I, for one, look forward to the massive catastrophe that results when someone manages to hack Trump’s Twitter account.
We, and the rest of the world, pretty much have to take Trump’s Tweets seriously. After all, it seems like they are going to be his preferred method of communicating
I, for one, look forward to the massive catastrophe that results when someone manages to hack Trump’s Twitter account.
Paul Ryan is a lying fraud.
Paul Ryan is a lying fraud.
Paul Ryan is a lying fraud.
Does “lying fraud” count as a double negative, he asks, no one in particular…
Does “lying fraud” count as a double negative, he asks, no one in particular…
Does “lying fraud” count as a double negative, he asks, no one in particular…
“dead lying fraud” is a triple hat trick.
“dead lying fraud” is a triple hat trick.
“dead lying fraud” is a triple hat trick.
Finally, a girl is no one
Finally, a girl is no one
Finally, a girl is no one
the egg whisked me away
the egg whisked me away
the egg whisked me away
Some good advice for journalists covering the bullshitter in chief…
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/11/a-reflexive-liar-in-command-guidelines-for-the-media/508832/
Some good advice for journalists covering the bullshitter in chief…
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/11/a-reflexive-liar-in-command-guidelines-for-the-media/508832/
Some good advice for journalists covering the bullshitter in chief…
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/11/a-reflexive-liar-in-command-guidelines-for-the-media/508832/
Thanks, Nigel. I love James Fallows, but hadn’t seen that one. I’m sending it to friends.
Thanks, Nigel. I love James Fallows, but hadn’t seen that one. I’m sending it to friends.
Thanks, Nigel. I love James Fallows, but hadn’t seen that one. I’m sending it to friends.
Thank you Russel. That was fascinating.
So…maybe the populism of Bannon is genuine? I do think that he could be successful if he does push a real job building program and fights off Medicare voucherism. I think most people won’t notice or won;t care about rampant corruption, pollution, environmental degradation, global warming ans so on if the Trtump admin delivers lots of good paying construction jobs. The irony is that the By promoting a real jobs profram, he is promoting what the Democrats have always wanted. I don;t think his criticms of the Democratic party has much validity. I also donlt see how his populism jibes with deregualting wall street, cutting taxes fro rich people, decimating Medicaid and so on But I thin that is it quite likely that the Repubicn party will go for the job creation and that Trump will be able to build a base of popularity fro that unless he totally fucks up on some other issue ike a war or voucherizing Medicare. Bannon seems to be a very smart guy.
Thank you Russel. That was fascinating.
So…maybe the populism of Bannon is genuine? I do think that he could be successful if he does push a real job building program and fights off Medicare voucherism. I think most people won’t notice or won;t care about rampant corruption, pollution, environmental degradation, global warming ans so on if the Trtump admin delivers lots of good paying construction jobs. The irony is that the By promoting a real jobs profram, he is promoting what the Democrats have always wanted. I don;t think his criticms of the Democratic party has much validity. I also donlt see how his populism jibes with deregualting wall street, cutting taxes fro rich people, decimating Medicaid and so on But I thin that is it quite likely that the Repubicn party will go for the job creation and that Trump will be able to build a base of popularity fro that unless he totally fucks up on some other issue ike a war or voucherizing Medicare. Bannon seems to be a very smart guy.
Thank you Russel. That was fascinating.
So…maybe the populism of Bannon is genuine? I do think that he could be successful if he does push a real job building program and fights off Medicare voucherism. I think most people won’t notice or won;t care about rampant corruption, pollution, environmental degradation, global warming ans so on if the Trtump admin delivers lots of good paying construction jobs. The irony is that the By promoting a real jobs profram, he is promoting what the Democrats have always wanted. I don;t think his criticms of the Democratic party has much validity. I also donlt see how his populism jibes with deregualting wall street, cutting taxes fro rich people, decimating Medicaid and so on But I thin that is it quite likely that the Repubicn party will go for the job creation and that Trump will be able to build a base of popularity fro that unless he totally fucks up on some other issue ike a war or voucherizing Medicare. Bannon seems to be a very smart guy.
And I think Bannon matters more than Trump does.
And I think Bannon matters more than Trump does.
And I think Bannon matters more than Trump does.
Bannon is no doubt a smart guy. Building a stable and sustainable economy, which can provide people at all economic levels with rewarding and useful ways to make a living, is a goal worth pursuing.
Bannon is also too freaking friendly with Nazis for my taste, and does not appear to have a high regard for the institutions of republican self-governance.
So, on the whole, not a guy I like. Speaking for myself.
I agree that Trump’s inner circle matters more than Trump himself. His vanity makes him open to manipulation.
Bannon is no doubt a smart guy. Building a stable and sustainable economy, which can provide people at all economic levels with rewarding and useful ways to make a living, is a goal worth pursuing.
Bannon is also too freaking friendly with Nazis for my taste, and does not appear to have a high regard for the institutions of republican self-governance.
So, on the whole, not a guy I like. Speaking for myself.
I agree that Trump’s inner circle matters more than Trump himself. His vanity makes him open to manipulation.
Bannon is no doubt a smart guy. Building a stable and sustainable economy, which can provide people at all economic levels with rewarding and useful ways to make a living, is a goal worth pursuing.
Bannon is also too freaking friendly with Nazis for my taste, and does not appear to have a high regard for the institutions of republican self-governance.
So, on the whole, not a guy I like. Speaking for myself.
I agree that Trump’s inner circle matters more than Trump himself. His vanity makes him open to manipulation.
I suspect Bannon’s vision of AMerica is a lot like Alabama
I suspect Bannon’s vision of AMerica is a lot like Alabama
I suspect Bannon’s vision of AMerica is a lot like Alabama
People have all kinds of opinions about things and I’m really kind of fine with it. I don’t expect everybody to think like me.
I draw the line at fucking fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists. Or, frankly, any kind of supremacist. We had that conversation 70 years ago.
If you think your skin color makes you smarter than anybody else, you’ve just proved yourself wrong. If you think the rest of us are going to put up with your bullshit, you’ve just doubled down on it.
Bannon can talk all he wants about how he is, personally, not into the white supremacy thing. I say lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
I don’t trust the guy any further than I can throw him.
Trump’s victory has given about a thousand kinds of asshole the idea that their moment has arrived. Their moment will never arrive.
There’s a whole other issue, which is the autocratic kleptocracy thing. Trump and Putin seem to have some kind of mutual admiration society thing going, and it makes total sense to me. I suspect that Putin is Trump’s model – nationalistic propaganda in the service of personal aggrandizement and kleptocratic crony corruption.
WTF do I know, I’m just some guy on the internet, but IMO that is the direction Trump is going to go in. Not out of ideology but out of instinct.
Bannon wants to break everything and usher in a regime of economic and social nationalism. Trump wants to make himself and his kids even filthy stinking rich-er than they already are, and he wants every head to turn his way when he walks into the room.
I don’t know what Kushner is about at this point. I’m sure it’ll become evident at some point.
These people are the freaking Borgias. We’re elected the freaking Sopranos – the whole tribe, not just Tony – as POTUS.
Good luck to all.
People have all kinds of opinions about things and I’m really kind of fine with it. I don’t expect everybody to think like me.
I draw the line at fucking fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists. Or, frankly, any kind of supremacist. We had that conversation 70 years ago.
If you think your skin color makes you smarter than anybody else, you’ve just proved yourself wrong. If you think the rest of us are going to put up with your bullshit, you’ve just doubled down on it.
Bannon can talk all he wants about how he is, personally, not into the white supremacy thing. I say lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
I don’t trust the guy any further than I can throw him.
Trump’s victory has given about a thousand kinds of asshole the idea that their moment has arrived. Their moment will never arrive.
There’s a whole other issue, which is the autocratic kleptocracy thing. Trump and Putin seem to have some kind of mutual admiration society thing going, and it makes total sense to me. I suspect that Putin is Trump’s model – nationalistic propaganda in the service of personal aggrandizement and kleptocratic crony corruption.
WTF do I know, I’m just some guy on the internet, but IMO that is the direction Trump is going to go in. Not out of ideology but out of instinct.
Bannon wants to break everything and usher in a regime of economic and social nationalism. Trump wants to make himself and his kids even filthy stinking rich-er than they already are, and he wants every head to turn his way when he walks into the room.
I don’t know what Kushner is about at this point. I’m sure it’ll become evident at some point.
These people are the freaking Borgias. We’re elected the freaking Sopranos – the whole tribe, not just Tony – as POTUS.
Good luck to all.
People have all kinds of opinions about things and I’m really kind of fine with it. I don’t expect everybody to think like me.
I draw the line at fucking fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists. Or, frankly, any kind of supremacist. We had that conversation 70 years ago.
If you think your skin color makes you smarter than anybody else, you’ve just proved yourself wrong. If you think the rest of us are going to put up with your bullshit, you’ve just doubled down on it.
Bannon can talk all he wants about how he is, personally, not into the white supremacy thing. I say lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
I don’t trust the guy any further than I can throw him.
Trump’s victory has given about a thousand kinds of asshole the idea that their moment has arrived. Their moment will never arrive.
There’s a whole other issue, which is the autocratic kleptocracy thing. Trump and Putin seem to have some kind of mutual admiration society thing going, and it makes total sense to me. I suspect that Putin is Trump’s model – nationalistic propaganda in the service of personal aggrandizement and kleptocratic crony corruption.
WTF do I know, I’m just some guy on the internet, but IMO that is the direction Trump is going to go in. Not out of ideology but out of instinct.
Bannon wants to break everything and usher in a regime of economic and social nationalism. Trump wants to make himself and his kids even filthy stinking rich-er than they already are, and he wants every head to turn his way when he walks into the room.
I don’t know what Kushner is about at this point. I’m sure it’ll become evident at some point.
These people are the freaking Borgias. We’re elected the freaking Sopranos – the whole tribe, not just Tony – as POTUS.
Good luck to all.
here is a test case:
Trump’s company currently holds a lease on the old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Ave in DC. That is the building that is currently the DC Trump hotel.
The contract on the lease states quite plainly that no elected official of the government of the US can be a party to a lease on that property, or can receive any benefit from a lease on that property.
When Trump is inaugurated on 1/20/2017, he will be an elected official of the United States. To say the least.
What’s going to happen?
This is example 1 of about a million. Trump’s tenure in office is going to be an unending parade of legal and constitutional cluster***ks.
here is a test case:
Trump’s company currently holds a lease on the old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Ave in DC. That is the building that is currently the DC Trump hotel.
The contract on the lease states quite plainly that no elected official of the government of the US can be a party to a lease on that property, or can receive any benefit from a lease on that property.
When Trump is inaugurated on 1/20/2017, he will be an elected official of the United States. To say the least.
What’s going to happen?
This is example 1 of about a million. Trump’s tenure in office is going to be an unending parade of legal and constitutional cluster***ks.
here is a test case:
Trump’s company currently holds a lease on the old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Ave in DC. That is the building that is currently the DC Trump hotel.
The contract on the lease states quite plainly that no elected official of the government of the US can be a party to a lease on that property, or can receive any benefit from a lease on that property.
When Trump is inaugurated on 1/20/2017, he will be an elected official of the United States. To say the least.
What’s going to happen?
This is example 1 of about a million. Trump’s tenure in office is going to be an unending parade of legal and constitutional cluster***ks.
This fits in with his picks for DOJ, HHS and Education:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-picks-el-chapo-to-run-d-e-a
This fits in with his picks for DOJ, HHS and Education:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-picks-el-chapo-to-run-d-e-a
This fits in with his picks for DOJ, HHS and Education:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-picks-el-chapo-to-run-d-e-a
OTOH, to the extent the GOP cares about the U.S. government and democracy beyond their access to power within that framework (and I have my doubts about how much there is there), they are playing a dangerous game with Trump, the justice system, his political advisers/cabinet appointments (a significant % of whom seem to be paranoid and/or believe in conspiracy theories), foreign policy, rampant corruption, and the national security state.
The GOP has been playing dangerous games for a long time. Trump is the effect, not the cause.
OTOH, to the extent the GOP cares about the U.S. government and democracy beyond their access to power within that framework (and I have my doubts about how much there is there), they are playing a dangerous game with Trump, the justice system, his political advisers/cabinet appointments (a significant % of whom seem to be paranoid and/or believe in conspiracy theories), foreign policy, rampant corruption, and the national security state.
The GOP has been playing dangerous games for a long time. Trump is the effect, not the cause.
OTOH, to the extent the GOP cares about the U.S. government and democracy beyond their access to power within that framework (and I have my doubts about how much there is there), they are playing a dangerous game with Trump, the justice system, his political advisers/cabinet appointments (a significant % of whom seem to be paranoid and/or believe in conspiracy theories), foreign policy, rampant corruption, and the national security state.
The GOP has been playing dangerous games for a long time. Trump is the effect, not the cause.
I suspect Bannon’s vision of AMerica is a lot like Alabama
I said this very thing earlier this evening to some friends.
I draw the line at fucking fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists. Or, frankly, any kind of supremacist. We had that conversation 70 years ago.
This.
These people are the freaking Borgias.
Yep.
What I want to know is how are we organizing a resistance to this thing.
I wrote a few emails to some electors to vote for Hillary, and intend to continue to send one to every elector whose email address has been published. I imagine that’s a waste of time, but wouldn’t it be nice to nip this thing in the bud, and in a way that didn’t involve the rest of the crew, like Pence and all. (Maybe the R Congress will step up and impeach Trump – unlikely – but even so, we’ve got the fascist agenda still intact.)
Next step (and started today by sending money) is to support Ralph Northam, Virginia’s 2017 Democratic candidate for governor. Treading water if he wins, because our statehouse is bad news. (Also have to work on them, obv.)
Next thing is 2018 midterms. Hard slog, but we have to do our best.
Unfortunately, with this election stuff, what kind of elections will we have by then? I was a poll watcher (lawyer – protect the vote) for the Democrats in VA on election day, and was impressed by people’s good will, and the integrity of the process. But they did make some mistakes. One voter was denied a provisional ballot who should have been issued one, and but for the intervention it would have happened again. This was not bad faith on anyone’s part, so I do have a lot of confidence in the system – the polls are managed by volunteers – all good people. But Jeff Sessions is one scary man with regard to voter suppression, and Virginia passed some horrendous voter ID bills. Also, it was obvious that our voter registration system lost some people from the rolls.
How are we going to combat ordinary mistakes as well as willful voter suppression? It’s going to be hard.
Trump’s propaganda machine is colossal. Plus Putin is helping. (I contacted my Congresspeople today and complained that we haven’t gotten the run down on the Putin thing. Why don’t we know exactly what the Trump-Putin relationship is, and whether it’s actionable? Freaking FBI? Obama needs to clear this up before inauguration day.)
I suspect Bannon’s vision of AMerica is a lot like Alabama
I said this very thing earlier this evening to some friends.
I draw the line at fucking fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists. Or, frankly, any kind of supremacist. We had that conversation 70 years ago.
This.
These people are the freaking Borgias.
Yep.
What I want to know is how are we organizing a resistance to this thing.
I wrote a few emails to some electors to vote for Hillary, and intend to continue to send one to every elector whose email address has been published. I imagine that’s a waste of time, but wouldn’t it be nice to nip this thing in the bud, and in a way that didn’t involve the rest of the crew, like Pence and all. (Maybe the R Congress will step up and impeach Trump – unlikely – but even so, we’ve got the fascist agenda still intact.)
Next step (and started today by sending money) is to support Ralph Northam, Virginia’s 2017 Democratic candidate for governor. Treading water if he wins, because our statehouse is bad news. (Also have to work on them, obv.)
Next thing is 2018 midterms. Hard slog, but we have to do our best.
Unfortunately, with this election stuff, what kind of elections will we have by then? I was a poll watcher (lawyer – protect the vote) for the Democrats in VA on election day, and was impressed by people’s good will, and the integrity of the process. But they did make some mistakes. One voter was denied a provisional ballot who should have been issued one, and but for the intervention it would have happened again. This was not bad faith on anyone’s part, so I do have a lot of confidence in the system – the polls are managed by volunteers – all good people. But Jeff Sessions is one scary man with regard to voter suppression, and Virginia passed some horrendous voter ID bills. Also, it was obvious that our voter registration system lost some people from the rolls.
How are we going to combat ordinary mistakes as well as willful voter suppression? It’s going to be hard.
Trump’s propaganda machine is colossal. Plus Putin is helping. (I contacted my Congresspeople today and complained that we haven’t gotten the run down on the Putin thing. Why don’t we know exactly what the Trump-Putin relationship is, and whether it’s actionable? Freaking FBI? Obama needs to clear this up before inauguration day.)
I suspect Bannon’s vision of AMerica is a lot like Alabama
I said this very thing earlier this evening to some friends.
I draw the line at fucking fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists. Or, frankly, any kind of supremacist. We had that conversation 70 years ago.
This.
These people are the freaking Borgias.
Yep.
What I want to know is how are we organizing a resistance to this thing.
I wrote a few emails to some electors to vote for Hillary, and intend to continue to send one to every elector whose email address has been published. I imagine that’s a waste of time, but wouldn’t it be nice to nip this thing in the bud, and in a way that didn’t involve the rest of the crew, like Pence and all. (Maybe the R Congress will step up and impeach Trump – unlikely – but even so, we’ve got the fascist agenda still intact.)
Next step (and started today by sending money) is to support Ralph Northam, Virginia’s 2017 Democratic candidate for governor. Treading water if he wins, because our statehouse is bad news. (Also have to work on them, obv.)
Next thing is 2018 midterms. Hard slog, but we have to do our best.
Unfortunately, with this election stuff, what kind of elections will we have by then? I was a poll watcher (lawyer – protect the vote) for the Democrats in VA on election day, and was impressed by people’s good will, and the integrity of the process. But they did make some mistakes. One voter was denied a provisional ballot who should have been issued one, and but for the intervention it would have happened again. This was not bad faith on anyone’s part, so I do have a lot of confidence in the system – the polls are managed by volunteers – all good people. But Jeff Sessions is one scary man with regard to voter suppression, and Virginia passed some horrendous voter ID bills. Also, it was obvious that our voter registration system lost some people from the rolls.
How are we going to combat ordinary mistakes as well as willful voter suppression? It’s going to be hard.
Trump’s propaganda machine is colossal. Plus Putin is helping. (I contacted my Congresspeople today and complained that we haven’t gotten the run down on the Putin thing. Why don’t we know exactly what the Trump-Putin relationship is, and whether it’s actionable? Freaking FBI? Obama needs to clear this up before inauguration day.)
Don’t forget Foster Campbell in Louisiana. 10 days to go for that Senate seat. Massively uphill climb, but very worth it even if we just get closer than expected (“Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated” and all that).
Don’t forget Foster Campbell in Louisiana. 10 days to go for that Senate seat. Massively uphill climb, but very worth it even if we just get closer than expected (“Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated” and all that).
Don’t forget Foster Campbell in Louisiana. 10 days to go for that Senate seat. Massively uphill climb, but very worth it even if we just get closer than expected (“Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated” and all that).
It’s the same over here in the UK: nobody ever thought that Brexit would succeed (including the chief Brexiteers, Gove and Johnson seemed genuinely shocked when the result came in) and now nobody has any clue about what to do.
This is actually pretty unprecedented in the recent history of advanced, long established democracies, at least as far as I remember. It has a very banana republic military coup feel to it. So we get reflexive populist bones thrown (immigrants! terrorism! the working man!) while power and money are rapidly consolidated in the hands of even fewer people than before.
Having to read the tea leaves from the president elect’s twitter feed or clumsy staffer’s notes exposed to the camera (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/29/greg-clark-minister-dismisses-having-cake-and-eating-it-brexit-notes) is just further proof THAT THEY REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING – slowly realizing this is scaring the @#$ out of me.
It’s the same over here in the UK: nobody ever thought that Brexit would succeed (including the chief Brexiteers, Gove and Johnson seemed genuinely shocked when the result came in) and now nobody has any clue about what to do.
This is actually pretty unprecedented in the recent history of advanced, long established democracies, at least as far as I remember. It has a very banana republic military coup feel to it. So we get reflexive populist bones thrown (immigrants! terrorism! the working man!) while power and money are rapidly consolidated in the hands of even fewer people than before.
Having to read the tea leaves from the president elect’s twitter feed or clumsy staffer’s notes exposed to the camera (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/29/greg-clark-minister-dismisses-having-cake-and-eating-it-brexit-notes) is just further proof THAT THEY REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING – slowly realizing this is scaring the @#$ out of me.
It’s the same over here in the UK: nobody ever thought that Brexit would succeed (including the chief Brexiteers, Gove and Johnson seemed genuinely shocked when the result came in) and now nobody has any clue about what to do.
This is actually pretty unprecedented in the recent history of advanced, long established democracies, at least as far as I remember. It has a very banana republic military coup feel to it. So we get reflexive populist bones thrown (immigrants! terrorism! the working man!) while power and money are rapidly consolidated in the hands of even fewer people than before.
Having to read the tea leaves from the president elect’s twitter feed or clumsy staffer’s notes exposed to the camera (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/29/greg-clark-minister-dismisses-having-cake-and-eating-it-brexit-notes) is just further proof THAT THEY REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING – slowly realizing this is scaring the @#$ out of me.
Don’t forget Foster Campbell in Louisiana.
Right. Done!
Don’t forget Foster Campbell in Louisiana.
Right. Done!
Don’t forget Foster Campbell in Louisiana.
Right. Done!
These people are the freaking Borgias.
…but without the basic competence and tender humanitarianism.
These people are the freaking Borgias.
…but without the basic competence and tender humanitarianism.
These people are the freaking Borgias.
…but without the basic competence and tender humanitarianism.
…or the appreciation for the arts.
What would the Sistine Chapel look like, if The Donald had been in the pope’s* place then?
*not a Borgia but also not a nice guy.
…or the appreciation for the arts.
What would the Sistine Chapel look like, if The Donald had been in the pope’s* place then?
*not a Borgia but also not a nice guy.
…or the appreciation for the arts.
What would the Sistine Chapel look like, if The Donald had been in the pope’s* place then?
*not a Borgia but also not a nice guy.
I think this is a really good, thoughtful piece:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/27/trump-realism-vs-moral-politics-choice-we-face/
I think this is a really good, thoughtful piece:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/27/trump-realism-vs-moral-politics-choice-we-face/
I think this is a really good, thoughtful piece:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/27/trump-realism-vs-moral-politics-choice-we-face/
…but without the basic competence and tender humanitarianism.
or their taste in art…
…but without the basic competence and tender humanitarianism.
or their taste in art…
…but without the basic competence and tender humanitarianism.
or their taste in art…
Why does watching the Trump Administration fumble around what should be a well-run organizational process make me think of the ancient Greeks and their notions of “hubris” and “nemesis.”
Why does watching the Trump Administration fumble around what should be a well-run organizational process make me think of the ancient Greeks and their notions of “hubris” and “nemesis.”
Why does watching the Trump Administration fumble around what should be a well-run organizational process make me think of the ancient Greeks and their notions of “hubris” and “nemesis.”
GFtNC, reading that was interesting, but what I take from it more than anything is how far and fast the screw has turned for an awful lot of the pragmatic, realistic, incrementalist centerists. Two months ago, they were still lecturing us on the folly of ideological purity, the necessity of compromise, and the importance of setting aside one’s principles. Now? Moral purity is a moral imperative and there can be nothing but unwavering, uncompromising resistance.
If they want to help, that’s well and good. But their come-to-Jesus moment is still about power. They’d best not be so naive as to think their self-serving attitude will be forgotten, nor that they hold any of the moral authority they previously claimed and will unhesitatingly claim once more when they inevitably decide it’s time to train their sights on the near enemy instead of the far.
GFtNC, reading that was interesting, but what I take from it more than anything is how far and fast the screw has turned for an awful lot of the pragmatic, realistic, incrementalist centerists. Two months ago, they were still lecturing us on the folly of ideological purity, the necessity of compromise, and the importance of setting aside one’s principles. Now? Moral purity is a moral imperative and there can be nothing but unwavering, uncompromising resistance.
If they want to help, that’s well and good. But their come-to-Jesus moment is still about power. They’d best not be so naive as to think their self-serving attitude will be forgotten, nor that they hold any of the moral authority they previously claimed and will unhesitatingly claim once more when they inevitably decide it’s time to train their sights on the near enemy instead of the far.
GFtNC, reading that was interesting, but what I take from it more than anything is how far and fast the screw has turned for an awful lot of the pragmatic, realistic, incrementalist centerists. Two months ago, they were still lecturing us on the folly of ideological purity, the necessity of compromise, and the importance of setting aside one’s principles. Now? Moral purity is a moral imperative and there can be nothing but unwavering, uncompromising resistance.
If they want to help, that’s well and good. But their come-to-Jesus moment is still about power. They’d best not be so naive as to think their self-serving attitude will be forgotten, nor that they hold any of the moral authority they previously claimed and will unhesitatingly claim once more when they inevitably decide it’s time to train their sights on the near enemy instead of the far.
Also really good, from hilzoy’s twitter feed:
http://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/
Also really good, from hilzoy’s twitter feed:
http://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/
Also really good, from hilzoy’s twitter feed:
http://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/
NV, I think different times require different behaviours. It’s not always wrong to compromise, it’s not always the slippery slope to tyranny. Life is not always (or even often) black and white, and behaving as if it is can also lead to terrible consequences. I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump, the world and certainly the USA would be a safer, saner place (albeit very far from perfect), and you could have gone on finding ways to bring about the change you wanted, and maybe you would have succeeded. But we will never know. And we must just hope that the seemingly inevitable disaster about to ensue takes down less of what we, and you, value, than looks possible or likely.
NV, I think different times require different behaviours. It’s not always wrong to compromise, it’s not always the slippery slope to tyranny. Life is not always (or even often) black and white, and behaving as if it is can also lead to terrible consequences. I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump, the world and certainly the USA would be a safer, saner place (albeit very far from perfect), and you could have gone on finding ways to bring about the change you wanted, and maybe you would have succeeded. But we will never know. And we must just hope that the seemingly inevitable disaster about to ensue takes down less of what we, and you, value, than looks possible or likely.
NV, I think different times require different behaviours. It’s not always wrong to compromise, it’s not always the slippery slope to tyranny. Life is not always (or even often) black and white, and behaving as if it is can also lead to terrible consequences. I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump, the world and certainly the USA would be a safer, saner place (albeit very far from perfect), and you could have gone on finding ways to bring about the change you wanted, and maybe you would have succeeded. But we will never know. And we must just hope that the seemingly inevitable disaster about to ensue takes down less of what we, and you, value, than looks possible or likely.
GftNC, thanks for the links. Masha Gessen is an incredibly important voice right now – this is the second piece in the NY Review of Books that’s essential reading. And Timothy Snyder’s list is one that I have saved to be a touchstone.
GftNC, thanks for the links. Masha Gessen is an incredibly important voice right now – this is the second piece in the NY Review of Books that’s essential reading. And Timothy Snyder’s list is one that I have saved to be a touchstone.
GftNC, thanks for the links. Masha Gessen is an incredibly important voice right now – this is the second piece in the NY Review of Books that’s essential reading. And Timothy Snyder’s list is one that I have saved to be a touchstone.
” believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump…”
Depends on the state they live in. Clinton won the popular vote by a comfortable and last I heard, increasing margin.
I live in a safe state for Clinton and voted for her anyway, not because it made the slightest difference in terms of who won, but because in the seemingly unlikely event (which turned out to be the case) that she lost the electoral college people would still look at the popular vote and argue that Trump didn’t have a mandate. This might matter a little bit. I knew that the press never ever bothers to look at votes for third party candidates except to add up the numbers and see if they made a difference for the two major candidates in some state. So if I wanted my infinitesimal contribution to count in the “mandate” argument, I had to give it to Clinton. Not that Stein was all that appealing anyway. Johnson was out for all sorts of reasons, though I did like the fact that he was unlikely to bomb places he had never heard of, which would make most of the planet safe from American explosives.
And NV is right about the moral purity angle. Morality is invoked or not invoked on grounds that make people cynical about politics in general. It’d be better if people focused on the rights and wrongs of issues rather than constantly calibrating what they say or get outraged about depending on the needs of some candidate and that’s true even with Trump, who is so far shaping up to be a really horrible President in almost every way. I constantly recommend Daniel Larison on foreign policy precisely because he isn’t in the least partisan. He has a very strong set of opinions on issues, and supports or criticizes people based on what they say on those issues. He praised Obama on Iran, condemned him on Yemen, condemned Clinton on no-fly zones in Syria. Needless to say, he is very critical of Trump’s possible picks in the foreign policy field. To the extent that Trump had a fp position, it was all over the map. But his candidates for the various positions are mostly militarists. Larison has credibility because you know he simply calls things as he sees them, a behavior pattern that is not very common in the pundit class.
” believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump…”
Depends on the state they live in. Clinton won the popular vote by a comfortable and last I heard, increasing margin.
I live in a safe state for Clinton and voted for her anyway, not because it made the slightest difference in terms of who won, but because in the seemingly unlikely event (which turned out to be the case) that she lost the electoral college people would still look at the popular vote and argue that Trump didn’t have a mandate. This might matter a little bit. I knew that the press never ever bothers to look at votes for third party candidates except to add up the numbers and see if they made a difference for the two major candidates in some state. So if I wanted my infinitesimal contribution to count in the “mandate” argument, I had to give it to Clinton. Not that Stein was all that appealing anyway. Johnson was out for all sorts of reasons, though I did like the fact that he was unlikely to bomb places he had never heard of, which would make most of the planet safe from American explosives.
And NV is right about the moral purity angle. Morality is invoked or not invoked on grounds that make people cynical about politics in general. It’d be better if people focused on the rights and wrongs of issues rather than constantly calibrating what they say or get outraged about depending on the needs of some candidate and that’s true even with Trump, who is so far shaping up to be a really horrible President in almost every way. I constantly recommend Daniel Larison on foreign policy precisely because he isn’t in the least partisan. He has a very strong set of opinions on issues, and supports or criticizes people based on what they say on those issues. He praised Obama on Iran, condemned him on Yemen, condemned Clinton on no-fly zones in Syria. Needless to say, he is very critical of Trump’s possible picks in the foreign policy field. To the extent that Trump had a fp position, it was all over the map. But his candidates for the various positions are mostly militarists. Larison has credibility because you know he simply calls things as he sees them, a behavior pattern that is not very common in the pundit class.
” believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump…”
Depends on the state they live in. Clinton won the popular vote by a comfortable and last I heard, increasing margin.
I live in a safe state for Clinton and voted for her anyway, not because it made the slightest difference in terms of who won, but because in the seemingly unlikely event (which turned out to be the case) that she lost the electoral college people would still look at the popular vote and argue that Trump didn’t have a mandate. This might matter a little bit. I knew that the press never ever bothers to look at votes for third party candidates except to add up the numbers and see if they made a difference for the two major candidates in some state. So if I wanted my infinitesimal contribution to count in the “mandate” argument, I had to give it to Clinton. Not that Stein was all that appealing anyway. Johnson was out for all sorts of reasons, though I did like the fact that he was unlikely to bomb places he had never heard of, which would make most of the planet safe from American explosives.
And NV is right about the moral purity angle. Morality is invoked or not invoked on grounds that make people cynical about politics in general. It’d be better if people focused on the rights and wrongs of issues rather than constantly calibrating what they say or get outraged about depending on the needs of some candidate and that’s true even with Trump, who is so far shaping up to be a really horrible President in almost every way. I constantly recommend Daniel Larison on foreign policy precisely because he isn’t in the least partisan. He has a very strong set of opinions on issues, and supports or criticizes people based on what they say on those issues. He praised Obama on Iran, condemned him on Yemen, condemned Clinton on no-fly zones in Syria. Needless to say, he is very critical of Trump’s possible picks in the foreign policy field. To the extent that Trump had a fp position, it was all over the map. But his candidates for the various positions are mostly militarists. Larison has credibility because you know he simply calls things as he sees them, a behavior pattern that is not very common in the pundit class.
I just want to know if all the regular working folks who voted for Trump are going to cheer the deregulation and privatization that will only further concentrate the nation’s wealth in fewer hands. Will they cheer military aggression that will kill and maim their young family members and friends? Will they enjoy they pollution they’ll be exposed to, and the lack of access to the health care they’ll need all the more because of it? Will they be happy to send their kids to sh1tty for-profit schools? Will they delight in the suppression of their wages and the destruction of the social programs they’ll be even more reliant on?
Will they be so happy about kicking some ass in the ME and rounding up Mexicans and throwing more black people in jail and getting to keep the guns no one was going to take from them that they’ll overlook how much sh1ttier their lives will have become? Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
I just want to know if all the regular working folks who voted for Trump are going to cheer the deregulation and privatization that will only further concentrate the nation’s wealth in fewer hands. Will they cheer military aggression that will kill and maim their young family members and friends? Will they enjoy they pollution they’ll be exposed to, and the lack of access to the health care they’ll need all the more because of it? Will they be happy to send their kids to sh1tty for-profit schools? Will they delight in the suppression of their wages and the destruction of the social programs they’ll be even more reliant on?
Will they be so happy about kicking some ass in the ME and rounding up Mexicans and throwing more black people in jail and getting to keep the guns no one was going to take from them that they’ll overlook how much sh1ttier their lives will have become? Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
I just want to know if all the regular working folks who voted for Trump are going to cheer the deregulation and privatization that will only further concentrate the nation’s wealth in fewer hands. Will they cheer military aggression that will kill and maim their young family members and friends? Will they enjoy they pollution they’ll be exposed to, and the lack of access to the health care they’ll need all the more because of it? Will they be happy to send their kids to sh1tty for-profit schools? Will they delight in the suppression of their wages and the destruction of the social programs they’ll be even more reliant on?
Will they be so happy about kicking some ass in the ME and rounding up Mexicans and throwing more black people in jail and getting to keep the guns no one was going to take from them that they’ll overlook how much sh1ttier their lives will have become? Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
They’d best not be so naive as to think their self-serving attitude will be forgotten, nor that they hold any of the moral authority they previously claimed and will unhesitatingly claim once more when they inevitably decide it’s time to train their sights on the near enemy instead of the far.
oh don’t you worry. i won’t forget.
They’d best not be so naive as to think their self-serving attitude will be forgotten, nor that they hold any of the moral authority they previously claimed and will unhesitatingly claim once more when they inevitably decide it’s time to train their sights on the near enemy instead of the far.
oh don’t you worry. i won’t forget.
They’d best not be so naive as to think their self-serving attitude will be forgotten, nor that they hold any of the moral authority they previously claimed and will unhesitatingly claim once more when they inevitably decide it’s time to train their sights on the near enemy instead of the far.
oh don’t you worry. i won’t forget.
Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
ding.ding.ding.
Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
ding.ding.ding.
Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
ding.ding.ding.
Donald, for what it’s worth, I think your decision in this election was made with integrity and made sense. NV has integrity too, but I’m not sure her decisions and attitudes always make perfect sense in the real world. Pundits have the luxury, if they choose to use it, to make impartial judgements on politicians’ individual decisions, and one can respect those who do so and with whose judgements one agrees. Politicians are constantly having to make judgements balancing greater and lesser evils, and frequently cannot identify which is which until later. Some of these politicians are wiser than others, and some act in better faith than others, but none are morally pure because they are operating in a complicated, morally impure world. As voters, and politically aware people, we have to do that most difficult but important of things: discriminate. Which candidate will benefit the greatest number of people? Which candidate is likely to be in it for personal and class enrichment? Which candidate will do, to paraphrase the Hippocratic oath, least harm? In some elections, there’s not much to choose between them. This was not such an election, and it is wrong to castigate the people who put forward this proposition as hypocritical when they discriminate between the need to compromise when harm can still be minimised, and the need to stand firm when harm has been enabled, is being threatened, and is advancing.
Donald, for what it’s worth, I think your decision in this election was made with integrity and made sense. NV has integrity too, but I’m not sure her decisions and attitudes always make perfect sense in the real world. Pundits have the luxury, if they choose to use it, to make impartial judgements on politicians’ individual decisions, and one can respect those who do so and with whose judgements one agrees. Politicians are constantly having to make judgements balancing greater and lesser evils, and frequently cannot identify which is which until later. Some of these politicians are wiser than others, and some act in better faith than others, but none are morally pure because they are operating in a complicated, morally impure world. As voters, and politically aware people, we have to do that most difficult but important of things: discriminate. Which candidate will benefit the greatest number of people? Which candidate is likely to be in it for personal and class enrichment? Which candidate will do, to paraphrase the Hippocratic oath, least harm? In some elections, there’s not much to choose between them. This was not such an election, and it is wrong to castigate the people who put forward this proposition as hypocritical when they discriminate between the need to compromise when harm can still be minimised, and the need to stand firm when harm has been enabled, is being threatened, and is advancing.
Donald, for what it’s worth, I think your decision in this election was made with integrity and made sense. NV has integrity too, but I’m not sure her decisions and attitudes always make perfect sense in the real world. Pundits have the luxury, if they choose to use it, to make impartial judgements on politicians’ individual decisions, and one can respect those who do so and with whose judgements one agrees. Politicians are constantly having to make judgements balancing greater and lesser evils, and frequently cannot identify which is which until later. Some of these politicians are wiser than others, and some act in better faith than others, but none are morally pure because they are operating in a complicated, morally impure world. As voters, and politically aware people, we have to do that most difficult but important of things: discriminate. Which candidate will benefit the greatest number of people? Which candidate is likely to be in it for personal and class enrichment? Which candidate will do, to paraphrase the Hippocratic oath, least harm? In some elections, there’s not much to choose between them. This was not such an election, and it is wrong to castigate the people who put forward this proposition as hypocritical when they discriminate between the need to compromise when harm can still be minimised, and the need to stand firm when harm has been enabled, is being threatened, and is advancing.
Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
I think that will last for a couple years. But if things are really shtty four years from now, they could vote Dem (if they’re allowed to vote), similar to what happened in 2008, although I hope things aren’t that shtty again.
Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
I think that will last for a couple years. But if things are really shtty four years from now, they could vote Dem (if they’re allowed to vote), similar to what happened in 2008, although I hope things aren’t that shtty again.
Or will they just blame the bad stuff on Obama somehow?
I think that will last for a couple years. But if things are really shtty four years from now, they could vote Dem (if they’re allowed to vote), similar to what happened in 2008, although I hope things aren’t that shtty again.
Just to point this out, Obama is still President, not a single thing has changed in America yet. Trump’s picks mostly reflect standard Republican positions, school vouchers, enforcing immigration law, lessening fed power, replace ACA,etc.
Other than Bannon, which I believe is a short term appointment that won’t merit replacement, and the potential stupidity of Petraeus, the picks look like a Republican Administration.
I’m not sure this reflects the end of the republic.
Just to point this out, Obama is still President, not a single thing has changed in America yet. Trump’s picks mostly reflect standard Republican positions, school vouchers, enforcing immigration law, lessening fed power, replace ACA,etc.
Other than Bannon, which I believe is a short term appointment that won’t merit replacement, and the potential stupidity of Petraeus, the picks look like a Republican Administration.
I’m not sure this reflects the end of the republic.
Just to point this out, Obama is still President, not a single thing has changed in America yet. Trump’s picks mostly reflect standard Republican positions, school vouchers, enforcing immigration law, lessening fed power, replace ACA,etc.
Other than Bannon, which I believe is a short term appointment that won’t merit replacement, and the potential stupidity of Petraeus, the picks look like a Republican Administration.
I’m not sure this reflects the end of the republic.
Sessions?
Sessions?
Sessions?
Maybe not the end of the republic, but not much that’s going to benefit the people he was supposedly looking out for. A standard Republican administration, or possibly one that is even a bit further to the right, looks to serve the oligarchy.
He didn’t run on the current establishment-Republican positions, which are even worse for working people than the ones in decades past. He ran on shaking up the establishment, ending crony capitalism, and taking on the “elites,” among other things. That doesn’t appear to be what is going to happen, does it?
Maybe not the end of the republic, but not much that’s going to benefit the people he was supposedly looking out for. A standard Republican administration, or possibly one that is even a bit further to the right, looks to serve the oligarchy.
He didn’t run on the current establishment-Republican positions, which are even worse for working people than the ones in decades past. He ran on shaking up the establishment, ending crony capitalism, and taking on the “elites,” among other things. That doesn’t appear to be what is going to happen, does it?
Maybe not the end of the republic, but not much that’s going to benefit the people he was supposedly looking out for. A standard Republican administration, or possibly one that is even a bit further to the right, looks to serve the oligarchy.
He didn’t run on the current establishment-Republican positions, which are even worse for working people than the ones in decades past. He ran on shaking up the establishment, ending crony capitalism, and taking on the “elites,” among other things. That doesn’t appear to be what is going to happen, does it?
he’s shaking things up and draining the swamp by putting McConnell’s wife, a Goldman exec, and the chairman of the Republican Party into his cabinet.
he’s shaking things up and draining the swamp by putting McConnell’s wife, a Goldman exec, and the chairman of the Republican Party into his cabinet.
he’s shaking things up and draining the swamp by putting McConnell’s wife, a Goldman exec, and the chairman of the Republican Party into his cabinet.
The National Security appointments (CIA, national security advisor and deputy) are those that David Addington, John Bolton, and Bejamin Netanyahu would pick. 2 of those 3 being republican I guess this is a GOP administration.
The National Security appointments (CIA, national security advisor and deputy) are those that David Addington, John Bolton, and Bejamin Netanyahu would pick. 2 of those 3 being republican I guess this is a GOP administration.
The National Security appointments (CIA, national security advisor and deputy) are those that David Addington, John Bolton, and Bejamin Netanyahu would pick. 2 of those 3 being republican I guess this is a GOP administration.
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland? Who would pick her?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/–93931
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland? Who would pick her?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/–93931
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland? Who would pick her?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/–93931
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland?
Putin.
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland?
Putin.
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland?
Putin.
Marty,
What do you think about the environmental area? Apparently this guy Ebell is a serious nut case on environmental issues, especially climate change.
The general silence on this topic that pervaded the campaign is astonishing.
And how in the world could Florida(!!) vote for a dentist like Trump?
Marty,
What do you think about the environmental area? Apparently this guy Ebell is a serious nut case on environmental issues, especially climate change.
The general silence on this topic that pervaded the campaign is astonishing.
And how in the world could Florida(!!) vote for a dentist like Trump?
Marty,
What do you think about the environmental area? Apparently this guy Ebell is a serious nut case on environmental issues, especially climate change.
The general silence on this topic that pervaded the campaign is astonishing.
And how in the world could Florida(!!) vote for a dentist like Trump?
It’s good to know that the number of straight up anti-muslim bigots appointed by Trump represent regular old GOP SOP.
It’s good to know that the number of straight up anti-muslim bigots appointed by Trump represent regular old GOP SOP.
It’s good to know that the number of straight up anti-muslim bigots appointed by Trump represent regular old GOP SOP.
GFTNC,
yeah, Sessions is not good. He is a throwback Dixiecrat/Wallace Republican that I think is the worst choice Trump has made. I am hoping the breadth of his actual interest in the job is muted, but I will be donating to the aclu and the southern poverty law center anyway.
I also think the media is once again playing to Trump’s strength, focusing on tweets and recounts and other trivia while making Sessions a one day story.
The only upside is the Democrats will get to question him and that might get more coverage.
GFTNC,
yeah, Sessions is not good. He is a throwback Dixiecrat/Wallace Republican that I think is the worst choice Trump has made. I am hoping the breadth of his actual interest in the job is muted, but I will be donating to the aclu and the southern poverty law center anyway.
I also think the media is once again playing to Trump’s strength, focusing on tweets and recounts and other trivia while making Sessions a one day story.
The only upside is the Democrats will get to question him and that might get more coverage.
GFTNC,
yeah, Sessions is not good. He is a throwback Dixiecrat/Wallace Republican that I think is the worst choice Trump has made. I am hoping the breadth of his actual interest in the job is muted, but I will be donating to the aclu and the southern poverty law center anyway.
I also think the media is once again playing to Trump’s strength, focusing on tweets and recounts and other trivia while making Sessions a one day story.
The only upside is the Democrats will get to question him and that might get more coverage.
BTW, McConnell wife and the Goldman exec were fine picks. Goldman has a long history of training Treasury Secretary’s. Elaine is an experienced bureaucrat and a smart political move.
BTW, McConnell wife and the Goldman exec were fine picks. Goldman has a long history of training Treasury Secretary’s. Elaine is an experienced bureaucrat and a smart political move.
BTW, McConnell wife and the Goldman exec were fine picks. Goldman has a long history of training Treasury Secretary’s. Elaine is an experienced bureaucrat and a smart political move.
“Trump’s picks mostly reflect standard Republican positions”
so, the whole anti-establishment, draining the swamp outsider thing was bogus?
we’ll see what happens with Bannon and kushner. Bannon got him where he is, don’t know if trump will be in a hurry to cut him loose.
I’m not sure how he gets around the nepotism issue with Kushner, maybe if he doesn’t get paid the law doesn’t apply.
we’ll also see what “arm’s length” looks like regarding the business. “my kids will run it” is not really a credible hands-off position, especially when son-in-law is a senior advisor.
But yes, a more or less generic (R) cabinet by modern standards. we should expect generic (R) results.
“Trump’s picks mostly reflect standard Republican positions”
so, the whole anti-establishment, draining the swamp outsider thing was bogus?
we’ll see what happens with Bannon and kushner. Bannon got him where he is, don’t know if trump will be in a hurry to cut him loose.
I’m not sure how he gets around the nepotism issue with Kushner, maybe if he doesn’t get paid the law doesn’t apply.
we’ll also see what “arm’s length” looks like regarding the business. “my kids will run it” is not really a credible hands-off position, especially when son-in-law is a senior advisor.
But yes, a more or less generic (R) cabinet by modern standards. we should expect generic (R) results.
“Trump’s picks mostly reflect standard Republican positions”
so, the whole anti-establishment, draining the swamp outsider thing was bogus?
we’ll see what happens with Bannon and kushner. Bannon got him where he is, don’t know if trump will be in a hurry to cut him loose.
I’m not sure how he gets around the nepotism issue with Kushner, maybe if he doesn’t get paid the law doesn’t apply.
we’ll also see what “arm’s length” looks like regarding the business. “my kids will run it” is not really a credible hands-off position, especially when son-in-law is a senior advisor.
But yes, a more or less generic (R) cabinet by modern standards. we should expect generic (R) results.
Marty, good for you. I looked into donating to the ACLU, but couldn’t see if they accepted donations from non-US nationals – let me know if you ever find out. What about Kathleen “Hillary is spying on me with black helicopters” McFarland?
Marty, good for you. I looked into donating to the ACLU, but couldn’t see if they accepted donations from non-US nationals – let me know if you ever find out. What about Kathleen “Hillary is spying on me with black helicopters” McFarland?
Marty, good for you. I looked into donating to the ACLU, but couldn’t see if they accepted donations from non-US nationals – let me know if you ever find out. What about Kathleen “Hillary is spying on me with black helicopters” McFarland?
I also think the media is once again playing to Trump’s strength, focusing on tweets and recounts and other trivia while making Sessions a one day story.
on this we agree 10000%.
I also think the media is once again playing to Trump’s strength, focusing on tweets and recounts and other trivia while making Sessions a one day story.
on this we agree 10000%.
I also think the media is once again playing to Trump’s strength, focusing on tweets and recounts and other trivia while making Sessions a one day story.
on this we agree 10000%.
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland?
Maybe she’s securing Trump’s bedroom windows….
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland?
Maybe she’s securing Trump’s bedroom windows….
What about the Deputy National Security Advisor, Kathleen Mcfarland?
Maybe she’s securing Trump’s bedroom windows….
I think that standard Republican policies do end the Republic as we know it by transforming us from a two-party representative government with too much influence from lobbyists to at a national level a one party kleptocracy.
Not enough attention is being giving to voter suppression laws.
I think that standard Republican policies do end the Republic as we know it by transforming us from a two-party representative government with too much influence from lobbyists to at a national level a one party kleptocracy.
Not enough attention is being giving to voter suppression laws.
I think that standard Republican policies do end the Republic as we know it by transforming us from a two-party representative government with too much influence from lobbyists to at a national level a one party kleptocracy.
Not enough attention is being giving to voter suppression laws.
I read the links on McFarland. She sounds like a nut, but the Putin piece she wrote ( linked in the haaretzpiece sapient linked) actually made some sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/putin-is-one-who-really-deserves-that-nobel-peace-prize.html
Not endorsing every word, of course. And otherwise she seems unhinged.
Flynn apparently wrote a book with famous Reagan era kook Michael Ledeen. My favorite food pundit Larison is disturbed by that and other things.
Girl from north country–I don’t agree with some of that. I don’t think that all the morally questionable decisions made by the US government can be blamed on the bad old complex world we live in. Some of our lousy foreign policy stances have more to do with internal US politics and the problem exists in both parties, though I agree that the Republicans are generally worse. And it seems easier sometimes simply to go along with a decision made by an ally. The Saudi war in Yemen was largely ignored inside the US including by the very same pundits who wanted us to bomb Assad for committing similar crimes. That is hypocrisy. It’s how liberal hawks think. hell, it is how ideologues of all stripes think and Americans are no different from, oh, Russians who support Putin. Under those circumstances, where criticism inside the US is muted, the temptation for government officials is to take the path of least resistance and support the ally and hope not that many people notice. The official line was that the Saudis were just hitting civilians by accident, until the massive funeral bombing. That’s hypocrisy too. I read that the British government also denied Saudi war crimes for awhile. No, that wasn’t something forced on the British government by the cold cruel world.
Trump’s selections so far suggest that he will probably be worse on Yemen. It might be good if it becomes a liberal cause and not just with some senators, but Trump is likely going to be bad on so many other issues it is unlikely to rise to the top of our concerns.
I read the links on McFarland. She sounds like a nut, but the Putin piece she wrote ( linked in the haaretzpiece sapient linked) actually made some sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/putin-is-one-who-really-deserves-that-nobel-peace-prize.html
Not endorsing every word, of course. And otherwise she seems unhinged.
Flynn apparently wrote a book with famous Reagan era kook Michael Ledeen. My favorite food pundit Larison is disturbed by that and other things.
Girl from north country–I don’t agree with some of that. I don’t think that all the morally questionable decisions made by the US government can be blamed on the bad old complex world we live in. Some of our lousy foreign policy stances have more to do with internal US politics and the problem exists in both parties, though I agree that the Republicans are generally worse. And it seems easier sometimes simply to go along with a decision made by an ally. The Saudi war in Yemen was largely ignored inside the US including by the very same pundits who wanted us to bomb Assad for committing similar crimes. That is hypocrisy. It’s how liberal hawks think. hell, it is how ideologues of all stripes think and Americans are no different from, oh, Russians who support Putin. Under those circumstances, where criticism inside the US is muted, the temptation for government officials is to take the path of least resistance and support the ally and hope not that many people notice. The official line was that the Saudis were just hitting civilians by accident, until the massive funeral bombing. That’s hypocrisy too. I read that the British government also denied Saudi war crimes for awhile. No, that wasn’t something forced on the British government by the cold cruel world.
Trump’s selections so far suggest that he will probably be worse on Yemen. It might be good if it becomes a liberal cause and not just with some senators, but Trump is likely going to be bad on so many other issues it is unlikely to rise to the top of our concerns.
I read the links on McFarland. She sounds like a nut, but the Putin piece she wrote ( linked in the haaretzpiece sapient linked) actually made some sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/putin-is-one-who-really-deserves-that-nobel-peace-prize.html
Not endorsing every word, of course. And otherwise she seems unhinged.
Flynn apparently wrote a book with famous Reagan era kook Michael Ledeen. My favorite food pundit Larison is disturbed by that and other things.
Girl from north country–I don’t agree with some of that. I don’t think that all the morally questionable decisions made by the US government can be blamed on the bad old complex world we live in. Some of our lousy foreign policy stances have more to do with internal US politics and the problem exists in both parties, though I agree that the Republicans are generally worse. And it seems easier sometimes simply to go along with a decision made by an ally. The Saudi war in Yemen was largely ignored inside the US including by the very same pundits who wanted us to bomb Assad for committing similar crimes. That is hypocrisy. It’s how liberal hawks think. hell, it is how ideologues of all stripes think and Americans are no different from, oh, Russians who support Putin. Under those circumstances, where criticism inside the US is muted, the temptation for government officials is to take the path of least resistance and support the ally and hope not that many people notice. The official line was that the Saudis were just hitting civilians by accident, until the massive funeral bombing. That’s hypocrisy too. I read that the British government also denied Saudi war crimes for awhile. No, that wasn’t something forced on the British government by the cold cruel world.
Trump’s selections so far suggest that he will probably be worse on Yemen. It might be good if it becomes a liberal cause and not just with some senators, but Trump is likely going to be bad on so many other issues it is unlikely to rise to the top of our concerns.
“Favorite food pundit” was my iPad’s spellcheck/creative writing program at work.
“Favorite food pundit” was my iPad’s spellcheck/creative writing program at work.
“Favorite food pundit” was my iPad’s spellcheck/creative writing program at work.
http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/#.WDxsikT8vUQ.twitter
http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/#.WDxsikT8vUQ.twitter
http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/#.WDxsikT8vUQ.twitter
I don’t think that all the morally questionable decisions made by the US government can be blamed on the bad old complex world we live in.
That’s hypocrisy too. I read that the British government also denied Saudi war crimes for awhile. No, that wasn’t something forced on the British government by the cold cruel world.
Notwithstanding your sarcasm and condescension, I never said that all questionable decisions should be blamed on the complex world within which they are made, nor did I imply that “the cold cruel world” was forcing anybody to do anything. What I said was that the world is complex, there is often no good alternative but a choice of bad ones, and that politicians (some of whom but not all are certainly venal or even actively malevolent) operate in a quagmire which often makes the idea of a “pure” or “moral” choice of action absurd. And yet we must have politicians, and they must make choices to take, or avoid, action. And some of these politicians, when you examine their histories, are preferable to others, and in a worst-case scenario it is better to choose the least harmful.
I don’t think that all the morally questionable decisions made by the US government can be blamed on the bad old complex world we live in.
That’s hypocrisy too. I read that the British government also denied Saudi war crimes for awhile. No, that wasn’t something forced on the British government by the cold cruel world.
Notwithstanding your sarcasm and condescension, I never said that all questionable decisions should be blamed on the complex world within which they are made, nor did I imply that “the cold cruel world” was forcing anybody to do anything. What I said was that the world is complex, there is often no good alternative but a choice of bad ones, and that politicians (some of whom but not all are certainly venal or even actively malevolent) operate in a quagmire which often makes the idea of a “pure” or “moral” choice of action absurd. And yet we must have politicians, and they must make choices to take, or avoid, action. And some of these politicians, when you examine their histories, are preferable to others, and in a worst-case scenario it is better to choose the least harmful.
I don’t think that all the morally questionable decisions made by the US government can be blamed on the bad old complex world we live in.
That’s hypocrisy too. I read that the British government also denied Saudi war crimes for awhile. No, that wasn’t something forced on the British government by the cold cruel world.
Notwithstanding your sarcasm and condescension, I never said that all questionable decisions should be blamed on the complex world within which they are made, nor did I imply that “the cold cruel world” was forcing anybody to do anything. What I said was that the world is complex, there is often no good alternative but a choice of bad ones, and that politicians (some of whom but not all are certainly venal or even actively malevolent) operate in a quagmire which often makes the idea of a “pure” or “moral” choice of action absurd. And yet we must have politicians, and they must make choices to take, or avoid, action. And some of these politicians, when you examine their histories, are preferable to others, and in a worst-case scenario it is better to choose the least harmful.
GftNC, thanks for your voice here.
GftNC, thanks for your voice here.
GftNC, thanks for your voice here.
wonkie, that’s a sad, but beautiful and inspiring piece by Bill Moyers. Being true to history is a worthy task.
wonkie, that’s a sad, but beautiful and inspiring piece by Bill Moyers. Being true to history is a worthy task.
wonkie, that’s a sad, but beautiful and inspiring piece by Bill Moyers. Being true to history is a worthy task.
GftNC, Ditto
It’s far too easy, when just typing something on the Internet, to see everything thru a lens of how things should be, without regard to the realities of the world that we live in. In a perfect world, every decision would be given sufficient attention to make sure that it is correct. And with enough information in hand, at the time the decision is taken, to do so.
But that isn’t real, however much we might prefer it to be. And there is no realistic prospect of it becoming so.
GftNC, Ditto
It’s far too easy, when just typing something on the Internet, to see everything thru a lens of how things should be, without regard to the realities of the world that we live in. In a perfect world, every decision would be given sufficient attention to make sure that it is correct. And with enough information in hand, at the time the decision is taken, to do so.
But that isn’t real, however much we might prefer it to be. And there is no realistic prospect of it becoming so.
GftNC, Ditto
It’s far too easy, when just typing something on the Internet, to see everything thru a lens of how things should be, without regard to the realities of the world that we live in. In a perfect world, every decision would be given sufficient attention to make sure that it is correct. And with enough information in hand, at the time the decision is taken, to do so.
But that isn’t real, however much we might prefer it to be. And there is no realistic prospect of it becoming so.
FWIW on KT,I think she’s smart and a little weird. In her position I can see the first out weighing the second.
Ebell, idk, he agrees with some of my positions but in a job where too much certainty of position can be a negative. To say that some of the scientists are hyperbolic on the timing and extent of the impacts is a rational assessment based on probabilities and confidence levels.
To deny the reality of warming and some influence on that from fossil fuel use is silly.
I don’t know which of those positions is his core position. And I’ve been busy working for a change so I really haven’t had time to look at it.
FWIW on KT,I think she’s smart and a little weird. In her position I can see the first out weighing the second.
Ebell, idk, he agrees with some of my positions but in a job where too much certainty of position can be a negative. To say that some of the scientists are hyperbolic on the timing and extent of the impacts is a rational assessment based on probabilities and confidence levels.
To deny the reality of warming and some influence on that from fossil fuel use is silly.
I don’t know which of those positions is his core position. And I’ve been busy working for a change so I really haven’t had time to look at it.
FWIW on KT,I think she’s smart and a little weird. In her position I can see the first out weighing the second.
Ebell, idk, he agrees with some of my positions but in a job where too much certainty of position can be a negative. To say that some of the scientists are hyperbolic on the timing and extent of the impacts is a rational assessment based on probabilities and confidence levels.
To deny the reality of warming and some influence on that from fossil fuel use is silly.
I don’t know which of those positions is his core position. And I’ve been busy working for a change so I really haven’t had time to look at it.
Sessions is a terrible choice for the country, but let’s not forget that he’s probably Trump’s best possible choice for his reelection campaign. Sessions has a long history of working towards minority disenfranchisement, by hook or by crook (going after a civil rights organizer who was trying to help elderly people vote, for example). And he’s passionate about it.
Personally, I think one of the biggest questions for 2020 will be if the electorate actually becomes less white in line with demographic change or if the impact of voter suppression dominates. Absent a push for a national Voter ID law, my hunch is that the effect of voter suppression will be concentrated in swing states. That will lead to a bigger baseline disconnect between the electoral and popular votes, but I suppose that would help Trump make even more history (winning twice as a popular vote loser).
Sessions is a terrible choice for the country, but let’s not forget that he’s probably Trump’s best possible choice for his reelection campaign. Sessions has a long history of working towards minority disenfranchisement, by hook or by crook (going after a civil rights organizer who was trying to help elderly people vote, for example). And he’s passionate about it.
Personally, I think one of the biggest questions for 2020 will be if the electorate actually becomes less white in line with demographic change or if the impact of voter suppression dominates. Absent a push for a national Voter ID law, my hunch is that the effect of voter suppression will be concentrated in swing states. That will lead to a bigger baseline disconnect between the electoral and popular votes, but I suppose that would help Trump make even more history (winning twice as a popular vote loser).
Sessions is a terrible choice for the country, but let’s not forget that he’s probably Trump’s best possible choice for his reelection campaign. Sessions has a long history of working towards minority disenfranchisement, by hook or by crook (going after a civil rights organizer who was trying to help elderly people vote, for example). And he’s passionate about it.
Personally, I think one of the biggest questions for 2020 will be if the electorate actually becomes less white in line with demographic change or if the impact of voter suppression dominates. Absent a push for a national Voter ID law, my hunch is that the effect of voter suppression will be concentrated in swing states. That will lead to a bigger baseline disconnect between the electoral and popular votes, but I suppose that would help Trump make even more history (winning twice as a popular vote loser).
I don’t know which of those positions is his core position.
His core position is to do nothing. He might conceal that behind the notion of, “Maybe in a couple of hundred year it will be an issue,” but mostly he’s on the energy industry payroll and wants to keep the paychecks coming.
We are facing a disaster. It’s possible it won’t be as bad as the worst forecasts, though it might be, but to ignore the risk is insanely irresponsible.
If Florida wants help, let’s tell them the free market will solve their flooding problems, just like Scott, Rubio, and Trump promised.
I don’t know which of those positions is his core position.
His core position is to do nothing. He might conceal that behind the notion of, “Maybe in a couple of hundred year it will be an issue,” but mostly he’s on the energy industry payroll and wants to keep the paychecks coming.
We are facing a disaster. It’s possible it won’t be as bad as the worst forecasts, though it might be, but to ignore the risk is insanely irresponsible.
If Florida wants help, let’s tell them the free market will solve their flooding problems, just like Scott, Rubio, and Trump promised.
I don’t know which of those positions is his core position.
His core position is to do nothing. He might conceal that behind the notion of, “Maybe in a couple of hundred year it will be an issue,” but mostly he’s on the energy industry payroll and wants to keep the paychecks coming.
We are facing a disaster. It’s possible it won’t be as bad as the worst forecasts, though it might be, but to ignore the risk is insanely irresponsible.
If Florida wants help, let’s tell them the free market will solve their flooding problems, just like Scott, Rubio, and Trump promised.
Girl from north country–
I didn’t mean to offend you, but at the same time I would be lying if I said I wasn’t frustrated with your response. That obviously came through more than I intended.
Your earlier response to me was clearly intended to be gracious, but since you brought up the term ” condescension”, I found it condescending. Wj’s agreement was as well. It’s a standard one when America is accused of something, unless of course a Republican can be blamed. I don’t take it personally any more,, being told the world is complex and people like me are naive well intentioned bubbleheads who don’t understand reality, but to be blunt and not sarcastic, I think it is an empty evasion.. Yes, we should support the least bad realistic choice in an election, but that is not the point. The complex world argument is not valid in the case of Yemen. In fact, it is an excuse and as long as liberals ignore or justify a viciously criminal policy of support for war crimes we will continue to see such atrocities committed under Presidents of both parties. Trump will probably be worse. That is no justification for the silence of most American liberals on this subject and it is grating to see the contrast in people who profess outrage over Trump’s support for Putin.
The reality is that politicians make decisions for all sorts of reasons and it is American or Western exceptionalism to imagine they always have the best intentions. And even if one thinks otherwise it is irrelevant. The Saudis are in crime against humanity territory and the Obama Administration supported them and the British government lied about it as well. Trump may well continue the policy or make it worse. It will be interesting to see how liberals respond then.
Girl from north country–
I didn’t mean to offend you, but at the same time I would be lying if I said I wasn’t frustrated with your response. That obviously came through more than I intended.
Your earlier response to me was clearly intended to be gracious, but since you brought up the term ” condescension”, I found it condescending. Wj’s agreement was as well. It’s a standard one when America is accused of something, unless of course a Republican can be blamed. I don’t take it personally any more,, being told the world is complex and people like me are naive well intentioned bubbleheads who don’t understand reality, but to be blunt and not sarcastic, I think it is an empty evasion.. Yes, we should support the least bad realistic choice in an election, but that is not the point. The complex world argument is not valid in the case of Yemen. In fact, it is an excuse and as long as liberals ignore or justify a viciously criminal policy of support for war crimes we will continue to see such atrocities committed under Presidents of both parties. Trump will probably be worse. That is no justification for the silence of most American liberals on this subject and it is grating to see the contrast in people who profess outrage over Trump’s support for Putin.
The reality is that politicians make decisions for all sorts of reasons and it is American or Western exceptionalism to imagine they always have the best intentions. And even if one thinks otherwise it is irrelevant. The Saudis are in crime against humanity territory and the Obama Administration supported them and the British government lied about it as well. Trump may well continue the policy or make it worse. It will be interesting to see how liberals respond then.
Girl from north country–
I didn’t mean to offend you, but at the same time I would be lying if I said I wasn’t frustrated with your response. That obviously came through more than I intended.
Your earlier response to me was clearly intended to be gracious, but since you brought up the term ” condescension”, I found it condescending. Wj’s agreement was as well. It’s a standard one when America is accused of something, unless of course a Republican can be blamed. I don’t take it personally any more,, being told the world is complex and people like me are naive well intentioned bubbleheads who don’t understand reality, but to be blunt and not sarcastic, I think it is an empty evasion.. Yes, we should support the least bad realistic choice in an election, but that is not the point. The complex world argument is not valid in the case of Yemen. In fact, it is an excuse and as long as liberals ignore or justify a viciously criminal policy of support for war crimes we will continue to see such atrocities committed under Presidents of both parties. Trump will probably be worse. That is no justification for the silence of most American liberals on this subject and it is grating to see the contrast in people who profess outrage over Trump’s support for Putin.
The reality is that politicians make decisions for all sorts of reasons and it is American or Western exceptionalism to imagine they always have the best intentions. And even if one thinks otherwise it is irrelevant. The Saudis are in crime against humanity territory and the Obama Administration supported them and the British government lied about it as well. Trump may well continue the policy or make it worse. It will be interesting to see how liberals respond then.
Criminal support for war crimes. Must edit rants before posting. Can’t blame that on the iPad.
Criminal support for war crimes. Must edit rants before posting. Can’t blame that on the iPad.
Criminal support for war crimes. Must edit rants before posting. Can’t blame that on the iPad.
“don’t take it personally”. Okay, that was a straight up lie. Sometimes I like to exaggerate my maturity level.
“don’t take it personally”. Okay, that was a straight up lie. Sometimes I like to exaggerate my maturity level.
“don’t take it personally”. Okay, that was a straight up lie. Sometimes I like to exaggerate my maturity level.
I was not (at least consciously) trying to be condescending. But I do find that you appear to assume rather more information on the part of those making decisions on foreign policy than seems likely.
Take the case of Yemen. Today, we are aware of a variety of unacceptable behavior on the part of the Saudis there. But was it apparent, when the Saudis initially asked for our help? I rather doubt it.
Once operations are in progress, we are in a different situation than when our help was initially requested. That raises the threshold for action. Definitely not infinitely, but it does raise it.
Again, things in Yemen have, as you say, reached a point where action, specifically ceasing our participation, seems warranted. It is reasonable to fault our government for failing to do so. But that is not the same as faulting everyone involved since day one. Which is my perception (admittedly perhaps faulty) of your stance.
I was not (at least consciously) trying to be condescending. But I do find that you appear to assume rather more information on the part of those making decisions on foreign policy than seems likely.
Take the case of Yemen. Today, we are aware of a variety of unacceptable behavior on the part of the Saudis there. But was it apparent, when the Saudis initially asked for our help? I rather doubt it.
Once operations are in progress, we are in a different situation than when our help was initially requested. That raises the threshold for action. Definitely not infinitely, but it does raise it.
Again, things in Yemen have, as you say, reached a point where action, specifically ceasing our participation, seems warranted. It is reasonable to fault our government for failing to do so. But that is not the same as faulting everyone involved since day one. Which is my perception (admittedly perhaps faulty) of your stance.
I was not (at least consciously) trying to be condescending. But I do find that you appear to assume rather more information on the part of those making decisions on foreign policy than seems likely.
Take the case of Yemen. Today, we are aware of a variety of unacceptable behavior on the part of the Saudis there. But was it apparent, when the Saudis initially asked for our help? I rather doubt it.
Once operations are in progress, we are in a different situation than when our help was initially requested. That raises the threshold for action. Definitely not infinitely, but it does raise it.
Again, things in Yemen have, as you say, reached a point where action, specifically ceasing our participation, seems warranted. It is reasonable to fault our government for failing to do so. But that is not the same as faulting everyone involved since day one. Which is my perception (admittedly perhaps faulty) of your stance.
” I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump, the world and certainly the USA would be a safer, saner place (albeit very far from perfect),”
I did want to note that my distaste for HRC means that had she won I would be anticipating a world much worse for me and my kids, grandkids than I am now.
I feel exactly as frightened by an ascendancy of Democratic rule as you seem to with the current outcome.
There will be things I strongly disagree with in a Trump Presidency, But I am not frightened by the thrashing of the media about fascism etc.however. That’s their way of trying to prove they were right in their bias. And it is dangerous to continue to whip up the opposition that way. They, and the Democrats, are spreading a message of hate everyday. It is frightening to think they could have been in charge.
The drumbeat that Trump won’t really represent the people who elected him is also self serving. It is based on the same difference of opinion on policies and their expected outcome as all R/D debates. But so far he is hiring people to implement, in general, policies consistent with what his voters expect. Neither he nor his constituents may see the outcomes expected, but if that happens it isn’t likely to be because he was duplicitous in his campaign rhetoric or that his expectation wasn’t that they would create jobs and opportunity.
” I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump, the world and certainly the USA would be a safer, saner place (albeit very far from perfect),”
I did want to note that my distaste for HRC means that had she won I would be anticipating a world much worse for me and my kids, grandkids than I am now.
I feel exactly as frightened by an ascendancy of Democratic rule as you seem to with the current outcome.
There will be things I strongly disagree with in a Trump Presidency, But I am not frightened by the thrashing of the media about fascism etc.however. That’s their way of trying to prove they were right in their bias. And it is dangerous to continue to whip up the opposition that way. They, and the Democrats, are spreading a message of hate everyday. It is frightening to think they could have been in charge.
The drumbeat that Trump won’t really represent the people who elected him is also self serving. It is based on the same difference of opinion on policies and their expected outcome as all R/D debates. But so far he is hiring people to implement, in general, policies consistent with what his voters expect. Neither he nor his constituents may see the outcomes expected, but if that happens it isn’t likely to be because he was duplicitous in his campaign rhetoric or that his expectation wasn’t that they would create jobs and opportunity.
” I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump, the world and certainly the USA would be a safer, saner place (albeit very far from perfect),”
I did want to note that my distaste for HRC means that had she won I would be anticipating a world much worse for me and my kids, grandkids than I am now.
I feel exactly as frightened by an ascendancy of Democratic rule as you seem to with the current outcome.
There will be things I strongly disagree with in a Trump Presidency, But I am not frightened by the thrashing of the media about fascism etc.however. That’s their way of trying to prove they were right in their bias. And it is dangerous to continue to whip up the opposition that way. They, and the Democrats, are spreading a message of hate everyday. It is frightening to think they could have been in charge.
The drumbeat that Trump won’t really represent the people who elected him is also self serving. It is based on the same difference of opinion on policies and their expected outcome as all R/D debates. But so far he is hiring people to implement, in general, policies consistent with what his voters expect. Neither he nor his constituents may see the outcomes expected, but if that happens it isn’t likely to be because he was duplicitous in his campaign rhetoric or that his expectation wasn’t that they would create jobs and opportunity.
They, and the Democrats, are spreading a message of hate everyday
idiocy
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
They, and the Democrats, are spreading a message of hate everyday
idiocy
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
They, and the Democrats, are spreading a message of hate everyday
idiocy
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
it isn’t likely to be because he was duplicitous in his campaign rhetoric
ORLY?
how’s the prosecution of Clinton going?
and the wall is now downgraded to some fence?
his 45% tariff on China?
it isn’t likely to be because he was duplicitous in his campaign rhetoric
ORLY?
how’s the prosecution of Clinton going?
and the wall is now downgraded to some fence?
his 45% tariff on China?
it isn’t likely to be because he was duplicitous in his campaign rhetoric
ORLY?
how’s the prosecution of Clinton going?
and the wall is now downgraded to some fence?
his 45% tariff on China?
From cleeks link
“The number of reported incidents declined almost every day from November 9, the day after the election, to November 18. But the incidents have been widespread, the SPLC said. ”
From cleeks link
“The number of reported incidents declined almost every day from November 9, the day after the election, to November 18. But the incidents have been widespread, the SPLC said. ”
From cleeks link
“The number of reported incidents declined almost every day from November 9, the day after the election, to November 18. But the incidents have been widespread, the SPLC said. ”
Trump making good on is promise to drain the swamp.https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/29/20486/donald-trump-offering-huge-perks-inauguration-donors
Trump making good on is promise to drain the swamp.https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/29/20486/donald-trump-offering-huge-perks-inauguration-donors
Trump making good on is promise to drain the swamp.https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/29/20486/donald-trump-offering-huge-perks-inauguration-donors
Wj, don’t worry about the condescension. Frankly I think unpleasant tones of one sort or another are pretty hard to avoid when discussing war crimes. My side sees the Obama apologists as evasive at best, while the other side thinks we are being silly or childish?
The Saudis were behaving badly from the start– I have been seeing complaints for most of the year and I think last year. I think this was predictable. The Saudis have a rotten human rights record at home — were they likely to be better in Yemen? We could have made our support if we had to support them in this stupid war contingent on not bombing civilians. Instead we pretended it was their bad targeting. This lie became harder to put forth when they bomb a funeral and kill 140 people.
Also, the complex world explanation is self refuting. Precisely because the world is complex there are always a wide range of policy choices. The burden of proof must be on the side that says it is a good idea to give military support to an authoritarian regime which bombs civilians. You can’t make the argument that critics must assume the US government is doing the best it can and we must prove that complicity in war crimes is the least bad choice. And it is also self refuting to say the world is complex and then assume that our guys are entirely well-intentioned and making the best decisions for the noblest reasons possible. What are the odds that is true? Politicians come under many pressures, some of them domestic. Liberals are suspicious of Trump and Putin. They ought to be suspicious of the Saudis and their connections to both parties.
I am busy the rest of the day, so further rants will be in hold.
Wj, don’t worry about the condescension. Frankly I think unpleasant tones of one sort or another are pretty hard to avoid when discussing war crimes. My side sees the Obama apologists as evasive at best, while the other side thinks we are being silly or childish?
The Saudis were behaving badly from the start– I have been seeing complaints for most of the year and I think last year. I think this was predictable. The Saudis have a rotten human rights record at home — were they likely to be better in Yemen? We could have made our support if we had to support them in this stupid war contingent on not bombing civilians. Instead we pretended it was their bad targeting. This lie became harder to put forth when they bomb a funeral and kill 140 people.
Also, the complex world explanation is self refuting. Precisely because the world is complex there are always a wide range of policy choices. The burden of proof must be on the side that says it is a good idea to give military support to an authoritarian regime which bombs civilians. You can’t make the argument that critics must assume the US government is doing the best it can and we must prove that complicity in war crimes is the least bad choice. And it is also self refuting to say the world is complex and then assume that our guys are entirely well-intentioned and making the best decisions for the noblest reasons possible. What are the odds that is true? Politicians come under many pressures, some of them domestic. Liberals are suspicious of Trump and Putin. They ought to be suspicious of the Saudis and their connections to both parties.
I am busy the rest of the day, so further rants will be in hold.
Wj, don’t worry about the condescension. Frankly I think unpleasant tones of one sort or another are pretty hard to avoid when discussing war crimes. My side sees the Obama apologists as evasive at best, while the other side thinks we are being silly or childish?
The Saudis were behaving badly from the start– I have been seeing complaints for most of the year and I think last year. I think this was predictable. The Saudis have a rotten human rights record at home — were they likely to be better in Yemen? We could have made our support if we had to support them in this stupid war contingent on not bombing civilians. Instead we pretended it was their bad targeting. This lie became harder to put forth when they bomb a funeral and kill 140 people.
Also, the complex world explanation is self refuting. Precisely because the world is complex there are always a wide range of policy choices. The burden of proof must be on the side that says it is a good idea to give military support to an authoritarian regime which bombs civilians. You can’t make the argument that critics must assume the US government is doing the best it can and we must prove that complicity in war crimes is the least bad choice. And it is also self refuting to say the world is complex and then assume that our guys are entirely well-intentioned and making the best decisions for the noblest reasons possible. What are the odds that is true? Politicians come under many pressures, some of them domestic. Liberals are suspicious of Trump and Putin. They ought to be suspicious of the Saudis and their connections to both parties.
I am busy the rest of the day, so further rants will be in hold.
“The number of reported incidents declined almost every day from November 9, the day after the election
which means… they didn’t happen?
“The number of reported incidents declined almost every day from November 9, the day after the election
which means… they didn’t happen?
“The number of reported incidents declined almost every day from November 9, the day after the election
which means… they didn’t happen?
I lied. One more post.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/01/dispatches-britain-backtracks-justice-yemen
Note the date. Google human rights watch Yemen and scroll back through their files as far as you want. It was clear from the start what the Saudis were doing and the US and the Brits lied.
I lied. One more post.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/01/dispatches-britain-backtracks-justice-yemen
Note the date. Google human rights watch Yemen and scroll back through their files as far as you want. It was clear from the start what the Saudis were doing and the US and the Brits lied.
I lied. One more post.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/01/dispatches-britain-backtracks-justice-yemen
Note the date. Google human rights watch Yemen and scroll back through their files as far as you want. It was clear from the start what the Saudis were doing and the US and the Brits lied.
Trump said his solution to jobs leaving the US would be to impose big tax penalties on the companies. that was then.
now, he’s giving them tax breaks for doing it.
because that’s what his voters expect. picking winners and losers:
it’s only bad when a Democrat does it, right “conservatives” ?
Trump said his solution to jobs leaving the US would be to impose big tax penalties on the companies. that was then.
now, he’s giving them tax breaks for doing it.
because that’s what his voters expect. picking winners and losers:
it’s only bad when a Democrat does it, right “conservatives” ?
Trump said his solution to jobs leaving the US would be to impose big tax penalties on the companies. that was then.
now, he’s giving them tax breaks for doing it.
because that’s what his voters expect. picking winners and losers:
it’s only bad when a Democrat does it, right “conservatives” ?
what I take away from marty’s 5:56 is that we are divided not just by difference of opinion, but by profound differences in our understandings of plain and basic matters of fact.
to say nothing of profound differences in what we want or expect from public life and/or the people we choose to manage it on our behalf. or, what we want or expect from each other as fellow members of a common polity.
we don’t believe the same things, we don’t aspire to the same things, we don’t think the same things are good or desirable, we don’t find the same things to be true.
are we really one nation anymore? I’m not seeing the evidence for it.
I’m not sure how to go about unwinding that. the time, patience, and level of effort required are staggering.
given that we’re still arguing about crap from 50, 100, or even 150 years ago, I don’t see it happening.
my plans for the forseeable future are basically to do what I can to mitigate the damage. I don’t see that common ground, or even the level of basic mutual trust that would be required to act in any kind of concerted way, are on offer.
as far as trump goes, specifically, my take on him is what it has been. he is not an appropriate person to hold the office he has won. that is regardless of his politics, it has to do with him, as an individual person. I expect his time in office to be a calamitous mess, and profoundly damaging to the nation.
best of luck to all.
what I take away from marty’s 5:56 is that we are divided not just by difference of opinion, but by profound differences in our understandings of plain and basic matters of fact.
to say nothing of profound differences in what we want or expect from public life and/or the people we choose to manage it on our behalf. or, what we want or expect from each other as fellow members of a common polity.
we don’t believe the same things, we don’t aspire to the same things, we don’t think the same things are good or desirable, we don’t find the same things to be true.
are we really one nation anymore? I’m not seeing the evidence for it.
I’m not sure how to go about unwinding that. the time, patience, and level of effort required are staggering.
given that we’re still arguing about crap from 50, 100, or even 150 years ago, I don’t see it happening.
my plans for the forseeable future are basically to do what I can to mitigate the damage. I don’t see that common ground, or even the level of basic mutual trust that would be required to act in any kind of concerted way, are on offer.
as far as trump goes, specifically, my take on him is what it has been. he is not an appropriate person to hold the office he has won. that is regardless of his politics, it has to do with him, as an individual person. I expect his time in office to be a calamitous mess, and profoundly damaging to the nation.
best of luck to all.
what I take away from marty’s 5:56 is that we are divided not just by difference of opinion, but by profound differences in our understandings of plain and basic matters of fact.
to say nothing of profound differences in what we want or expect from public life and/or the people we choose to manage it on our behalf. or, what we want or expect from each other as fellow members of a common polity.
we don’t believe the same things, we don’t aspire to the same things, we don’t think the same things are good or desirable, we don’t find the same things to be true.
are we really one nation anymore? I’m not seeing the evidence for it.
I’m not sure how to go about unwinding that. the time, patience, and level of effort required are staggering.
given that we’re still arguing about crap from 50, 100, or even 150 years ago, I don’t see it happening.
my plans for the forseeable future are basically to do what I can to mitigate the damage. I don’t see that common ground, or even the level of basic mutual trust that would be required to act in any kind of concerted way, are on offer.
as far as trump goes, specifically, my take on him is what it has been. he is not an appropriate person to hold the office he has won. that is regardless of his politics, it has to do with him, as an individual person. I expect his time in office to be a calamitous mess, and profoundly damaging to the nation.
best of luck to all.
He’s a spoiled child and spoiled children break things.
He’s a spoiled child and spoiled children break things.
He’s a spoiled child and spoiled children break things.
Marty, you can’t say anti-establishment, anti-elite candidate Trump and bog-standard-Republican president-elect Trump (as you, yourself, characterized his proposed administration) are consistent with each other. Based on the people he’s putting into place, this is going to be a fairly run-of-the-mill right-wing Republican/Goldman Sachs administration – oligarchy with a little red meat thrown in. This isn’t some big shake-up. It’s just the other side of DC taking control. And it’s the side that’s been fncking poor and working people for decades, whether that was their intention or not.
Maybe they believe their supply-side voodoo, as it seems you do based on what you wrote, or maybe they just don’t give a sh1t so long as the “donor class” is served.
The only thing that’s different is the guy in charge knows less about just about everything than anyone else who’s held the office in god knows how long.
Marty, you can’t say anti-establishment, anti-elite candidate Trump and bog-standard-Republican president-elect Trump (as you, yourself, characterized his proposed administration) are consistent with each other. Based on the people he’s putting into place, this is going to be a fairly run-of-the-mill right-wing Republican/Goldman Sachs administration – oligarchy with a little red meat thrown in. This isn’t some big shake-up. It’s just the other side of DC taking control. And it’s the side that’s been fncking poor and working people for decades, whether that was their intention or not.
Maybe they believe their supply-side voodoo, as it seems you do based on what you wrote, or maybe they just don’t give a sh1t so long as the “donor class” is served.
The only thing that’s different is the guy in charge knows less about just about everything than anyone else who’s held the office in god knows how long.
Marty, you can’t say anti-establishment, anti-elite candidate Trump and bog-standard-Republican president-elect Trump (as you, yourself, characterized his proposed administration) are consistent with each other. Based on the people he’s putting into place, this is going to be a fairly run-of-the-mill right-wing Republican/Goldman Sachs administration – oligarchy with a little red meat thrown in. This isn’t some big shake-up. It’s just the other side of DC taking control. And it’s the side that’s been fncking poor and working people for decades, whether that was their intention or not.
Maybe they believe their supply-side voodoo, as it seems you do based on what you wrote, or maybe they just don’t give a sh1t so long as the “donor class” is served.
The only thing that’s different is the guy in charge knows less about just about everything than anyone else who’s held the office in god knows how long.
I’d also be curious to know exactly what you think a Clinton presidency would have meant for you and your family, Marty.
I’d also be curious to know exactly what you think a Clinton presidency would have meant for you and your family, Marty.
I’d also be curious to know exactly what you think a Clinton presidency would have meant for you and your family, Marty.
Elites!
Elites!
Elites!
The only thing that’s different is the guy in charge knows less about just about everything than anyone else who’s held the office in god knows how long.
Trump knows how to hollow-out an asset then scamper away, leaving others to deal with the husk. we’ll all get to watch in real time how he uses the Presidential Seal to assist his next round of pilfering. because that’s what his voters voted for.
The only thing that’s different is the guy in charge knows less about just about everything than anyone else who’s held the office in god knows how long.
Trump knows how to hollow-out an asset then scamper away, leaving others to deal with the husk. we’ll all get to watch in real time how he uses the Presidential Seal to assist his next round of pilfering. because that’s what his voters voted for.
The only thing that’s different is the guy in charge knows less about just about everything than anyone else who’s held the office in god knows how long.
Trump knows how to hollow-out an asset then scamper away, leaving others to deal with the husk. we’ll all get to watch in real time how he uses the Presidential Seal to assist his next round of pilfering. because that’s what his voters voted for.
That’s what makes him a “good” businessman, cleek.
That’s what makes him a “good” businessman, cleek.
That’s what makes him a “good” businessman, cleek.
Trump is simply taking his business deal approach to governing. Say what you have to to get the deal done, even agree on a price! But after signing, go back on everything you said, including the price, and do what you want. If the other party is upset, so what? He can sue me!
Campaign: “I’m going to tear down the Washington establishment and MAGA!”
Post-election: “I am the establishment, you morons. I mean, a rich NYC real estate magnate, who did you think I was going to nominate to help run the government, your cousin Gus?”
This seems appropriate for the working class Trump voter.
Trump is simply taking his business deal approach to governing. Say what you have to to get the deal done, even agree on a price! But after signing, go back on everything you said, including the price, and do what you want. If the other party is upset, so what? He can sue me!
Campaign: “I’m going to tear down the Washington establishment and MAGA!”
Post-election: “I am the establishment, you morons. I mean, a rich NYC real estate magnate, who did you think I was going to nominate to help run the government, your cousin Gus?”
This seems appropriate for the working class Trump voter.
Trump is simply taking his business deal approach to governing. Say what you have to to get the deal done, even agree on a price! But after signing, go back on everything you said, including the price, and do what you want. If the other party is upset, so what? He can sue me!
Campaign: “I’m going to tear down the Washington establishment and MAGA!”
Post-election: “I am the establishment, you morons. I mean, a rich NYC real estate magnate, who did you think I was going to nominate to help run the government, your cousin Gus?”
This seems appropriate for the working class Trump voter.
in fairness, Trump voters don’t seem to know what they want. so maybe it’s impossible for Trump to please them.
come on, meteor.
in fairness, Trump voters don’t seem to know what they want. so maybe it’s impossible for Trump to please them.
come on, meteor.
in fairness, Trump voters don’t seem to know what they want. so maybe it’s impossible for Trump to please them.
come on, meteor.
Eh. Marty fell off the earth some time ago, when he decided to believe whatever hairball theory the Right coughed up about Obama being a “tyrant,” Clinton being “the most corrupt person to ever run for President,” and so on and so forth. I don’t mean to single Marty out: he is, however, an exemplar of Trump voters.
They inhabit a different universe. One shaped and nurtured by decades of disinformation, misinformation, and studied willful ignorance.
And now they run the country.
And, frankly, as long as they get what they really want – abortion outlawed, SSM overturned, and POC re-marginalized – they probably won’t mind Trump trashing everything else.
Eh. Marty fell off the earth some time ago, when he decided to believe whatever hairball theory the Right coughed up about Obama being a “tyrant,” Clinton being “the most corrupt person to ever run for President,” and so on and so forth. I don’t mean to single Marty out: he is, however, an exemplar of Trump voters.
They inhabit a different universe. One shaped and nurtured by decades of disinformation, misinformation, and studied willful ignorance.
And now they run the country.
And, frankly, as long as they get what they really want – abortion outlawed, SSM overturned, and POC re-marginalized – they probably won’t mind Trump trashing everything else.
Eh. Marty fell off the earth some time ago, when he decided to believe whatever hairball theory the Right coughed up about Obama being a “tyrant,” Clinton being “the most corrupt person to ever run for President,” and so on and so forth. I don’t mean to single Marty out: he is, however, an exemplar of Trump voters.
They inhabit a different universe. One shaped and nurtured by decades of disinformation, misinformation, and studied willful ignorance.
And now they run the country.
And, frankly, as long as they get what they really want – abortion outlawed, SSM overturned, and POC re-marginalized – they probably won’t mind Trump trashing everything else.
Some of us do care what gets trashed, CaseyL. Whether it’s enough of us is a good question.
Some of us do care what gets trashed, CaseyL. Whether it’s enough of us is a good question.
Some of us do care what gets trashed, CaseyL. Whether it’s enough of us is a good question.
Whether it’s enough of us is a good question.
Of the folks who voted, less than half voted for Trump. Clinton’s popular vote advantage is about 2.5M at this point.
So, that’s encouraging.
Then again, only about 55% of eligible voters even showed up.
So, we’ll see.
But I appreciate your comment here slarti.
Whether it’s enough of us is a good question.
Of the folks who voted, less than half voted for Trump. Clinton’s popular vote advantage is about 2.5M at this point.
So, that’s encouraging.
Then again, only about 55% of eligible voters even showed up.
So, we’ll see.
But I appreciate your comment here slarti.
Whether it’s enough of us is a good question.
Of the folks who voted, less than half voted for Trump. Clinton’s popular vote advantage is about 2.5M at this point.
So, that’s encouraging.
Then again, only about 55% of eligible voters even showed up.
So, we’ll see.
But I appreciate your comment here slarti.
sapient and wj, thank you for your kind words.
Marty, I hope you are right about this being a run-of-the-mill Republican regime, because bad as that can be, or even usually is (in my opinion) it is manageable. But your dismissal of any talk of fascism is curious when discussing a President-elect who was endorsed by the KKK, and has, by their own ecstatic admission, pleased and emboldened various neo-Nazi groups in America.
Donald:
I must have been vaguely subconsciously aware how condescending it sounded when I congratulated you on your voting decision, because I prefaced it with “For what it’s worth” to somehow soften it. But I apologise for it, because what right have I to congratulate you, or to condemn anybody else for their choice? On the other hand, this seems to be the meat and drink of our current discourse, and I wanted to differentiate between you and NV, who I believe share many political attitudes yet made a different decision in this election. As must be obvious, I (unlike say Marty) passionately believe the result of this last election is an existential threat to America and the American project, and to some extent to the rest of the world, and when the stakes are so high this passion can easily mislead one into speaking or behaving inappropriately.
This is a straw man argument. Nobody here has made this argument.
I have never commented on your frequent contributions about the current situation in Yemen, because I don’t know a tremendous amount about its history. But to avoid any misunderstanding I utterly condemn the UK’s and US’s support for the Saudis, in this and many other areas, and regard the Saudis as an appalling regime. Apart from anything else, the house of Saud made a devil’s compact with the Wahabist clerics to hold power, and the world is reaping the whirlwind because of it, as will eventually the house of Saud.
I am indeed a liberal, but I believe you caricature liberal attitudes. I do not support “Western” regimes no matter what, nor suppose that their motives are always good. I vigorously opposed the war in Iraq, and foresaw many of its likely ill effects, but I am not a pacifist, so not always anti-intervention. I do not think that people are either good or evil, I believe they are usually somewhere on the spectrum. I think for example that Tony Blair was utterly wrong to go along with the Iraq war, and deserves all the opprobrium he gets for it because he was not an ignorant idiot like Dubya, but on the other hand under his premiership peace was established in Ireland, something which looked unlikely to happen in my lifetime. The world is complicated.
I have been arguing with both reactionaries and hard lefties all my adult life. Currently, in the UK, some lefties to whom I am very close are great Corbyn supporters. They complain bitterly about the austerity measures that the Tory/LibDem coalition inflicted on the country, and yet refuse to see that the benefits to single parents, disabled children and adults etc that have been cut were introduced by a moderate Labour Party, which had to be in power in order to introduce them, and that it is very likely that a Corbyn-led Labour party ensures another 9 years of Tory rule. The world is complicated.
I don’t really need to go again into why I believe in keeping channels of communication open, and being courteous to people with whom one disagrees. This is a dead horse I have personally flogged to death, and it is at least comforting to know that it annoys you as much as it e.g. annoys sapient when I engage with McKinney, and refuse to call him a racist. But I believe that to caricature others, who hold differing views from oneself, is the first step in depersonalisation, and I believe we all know where that can lead.
What is it russell says when he ends his posts these days?
Good luck to all.
sapient and wj, thank you for your kind words.
Marty, I hope you are right about this being a run-of-the-mill Republican regime, because bad as that can be, or even usually is (in my opinion) it is manageable. But your dismissal of any talk of fascism is curious when discussing a President-elect who was endorsed by the KKK, and has, by their own ecstatic admission, pleased and emboldened various neo-Nazi groups in America.
Donald:
I must have been vaguely subconsciously aware how condescending it sounded when I congratulated you on your voting decision, because I prefaced it with “For what it’s worth” to somehow soften it. But I apologise for it, because what right have I to congratulate you, or to condemn anybody else for their choice? On the other hand, this seems to be the meat and drink of our current discourse, and I wanted to differentiate between you and NV, who I believe share many political attitudes yet made a different decision in this election. As must be obvious, I (unlike say Marty) passionately believe the result of this last election is an existential threat to America and the American project, and to some extent to the rest of the world, and when the stakes are so high this passion can easily mislead one into speaking or behaving inappropriately.
This is a straw man argument. Nobody here has made this argument.
I have never commented on your frequent contributions about the current situation in Yemen, because I don’t know a tremendous amount about its history. But to avoid any misunderstanding I utterly condemn the UK’s and US’s support for the Saudis, in this and many other areas, and regard the Saudis as an appalling regime. Apart from anything else, the house of Saud made a devil’s compact with the Wahabist clerics to hold power, and the world is reaping the whirlwind because of it, as will eventually the house of Saud.
I am indeed a liberal, but I believe you caricature liberal attitudes. I do not support “Western” regimes no matter what, nor suppose that their motives are always good. I vigorously opposed the war in Iraq, and foresaw many of its likely ill effects, but I am not a pacifist, so not always anti-intervention. I do not think that people are either good or evil, I believe they are usually somewhere on the spectrum. I think for example that Tony Blair was utterly wrong to go along with the Iraq war, and deserves all the opprobrium he gets for it because he was not an ignorant idiot like Dubya, but on the other hand under his premiership peace was established in Ireland, something which looked unlikely to happen in my lifetime. The world is complicated.
I have been arguing with both reactionaries and hard lefties all my adult life. Currently, in the UK, some lefties to whom I am very close are great Corbyn supporters. They complain bitterly about the austerity measures that the Tory/LibDem coalition inflicted on the country, and yet refuse to see that the benefits to single parents, disabled children and adults etc that have been cut were introduced by a moderate Labour Party, which had to be in power in order to introduce them, and that it is very likely that a Corbyn-led Labour party ensures another 9 years of Tory rule. The world is complicated.
I don’t really need to go again into why I believe in keeping channels of communication open, and being courteous to people with whom one disagrees. This is a dead horse I have personally flogged to death, and it is at least comforting to know that it annoys you as much as it e.g. annoys sapient when I engage with McKinney, and refuse to call him a racist. But I believe that to caricature others, who hold differing views from oneself, is the first step in depersonalisation, and I believe we all know where that can lead.
What is it russell says when he ends his posts these days?
Good luck to all.
sapient and wj, thank you for your kind words.
Marty, I hope you are right about this being a run-of-the-mill Republican regime, because bad as that can be, or even usually is (in my opinion) it is manageable. But your dismissal of any talk of fascism is curious when discussing a President-elect who was endorsed by the KKK, and has, by their own ecstatic admission, pleased and emboldened various neo-Nazi groups in America.
Donald:
I must have been vaguely subconsciously aware how condescending it sounded when I congratulated you on your voting decision, because I prefaced it with “For what it’s worth” to somehow soften it. But I apologise for it, because what right have I to congratulate you, or to condemn anybody else for their choice? On the other hand, this seems to be the meat and drink of our current discourse, and I wanted to differentiate between you and NV, who I believe share many political attitudes yet made a different decision in this election. As must be obvious, I (unlike say Marty) passionately believe the result of this last election is an existential threat to America and the American project, and to some extent to the rest of the world, and when the stakes are so high this passion can easily mislead one into speaking or behaving inappropriately.
This is a straw man argument. Nobody here has made this argument.
I have never commented on your frequent contributions about the current situation in Yemen, because I don’t know a tremendous amount about its history. But to avoid any misunderstanding I utterly condemn the UK’s and US’s support for the Saudis, in this and many other areas, and regard the Saudis as an appalling regime. Apart from anything else, the house of Saud made a devil’s compact with the Wahabist clerics to hold power, and the world is reaping the whirlwind because of it, as will eventually the house of Saud.
I am indeed a liberal, but I believe you caricature liberal attitudes. I do not support “Western” regimes no matter what, nor suppose that their motives are always good. I vigorously opposed the war in Iraq, and foresaw many of its likely ill effects, but I am not a pacifist, so not always anti-intervention. I do not think that people are either good or evil, I believe they are usually somewhere on the spectrum. I think for example that Tony Blair was utterly wrong to go along with the Iraq war, and deserves all the opprobrium he gets for it because he was not an ignorant idiot like Dubya, but on the other hand under his premiership peace was established in Ireland, something which looked unlikely to happen in my lifetime. The world is complicated.
I have been arguing with both reactionaries and hard lefties all my adult life. Currently, in the UK, some lefties to whom I am very close are great Corbyn supporters. They complain bitterly about the austerity measures that the Tory/LibDem coalition inflicted on the country, and yet refuse to see that the benefits to single parents, disabled children and adults etc that have been cut were introduced by a moderate Labour Party, which had to be in power in order to introduce them, and that it is very likely that a Corbyn-led Labour party ensures another 9 years of Tory rule. The world is complicated.
I don’t really need to go again into why I believe in keeping channels of communication open, and being courteous to people with whom one disagrees. This is a dead horse I have personally flogged to death, and it is at least comforting to know that it annoys you as much as it e.g. annoys sapient when I engage with McKinney, and refuse to call him a racist. But I believe that to caricature others, who hold differing views from oneself, is the first step in depersonalisation, and I believe we all know where that can lead.
What is it russell says when he ends his posts these days?
Good luck to all.
we really need to be more open to the worldview of Trump voters.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/watch-video-immediately
we really need to be more open to the worldview of Trump voters.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/watch-video-immediately
we really need to be more open to the worldview of Trump voters.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/watch-video-immediately
This is the level of argumentation I’ve seen, in line with that MJ video, among people I know personally:
RWNJ: This really bad thing happened!!!
Sane person: There’s no evidence that that occurred.
RWNJ: Maybe not, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You don’t KNOW that it didn’t happen.
Sane person: Okay, but you can’t make a specific assertion that something happened without some kind of evidence. Otherwise, you can just make all kinds of crazy stuff up and expect people to believe it.
RWNJ: Libtard! Obama sucks!
This is the level of argumentation I’ve seen, in line with that MJ video, among people I know personally:
RWNJ: This really bad thing happened!!!
Sane person: There’s no evidence that that occurred.
RWNJ: Maybe not, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You don’t KNOW that it didn’t happen.
Sane person: Okay, but you can’t make a specific assertion that something happened without some kind of evidence. Otherwise, you can just make all kinds of crazy stuff up and expect people to believe it.
RWNJ: Libtard! Obama sucks!
This is the level of argumentation I’ve seen, in line with that MJ video, among people I know personally:
RWNJ: This really bad thing happened!!!
Sane person: There’s no evidence that that occurred.
RWNJ: Maybe not, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You don’t KNOW that it didn’t happen.
Sane person: Okay, but you can’t make a specific assertion that something happened without some kind of evidence. Otherwise, you can just make all kinds of crazy stuff up and expect people to believe it.
RWNJ: Libtard! Obama sucks!
OT – Here’s a weird headline I just saw:
“Islamist mole in German spy agency had been gay porn actor: report”
Carry on.
OT – Here’s a weird headline I just saw:
“Islamist mole in German spy agency had been gay porn actor: report”
Carry on.
OT – Here’s a weird headline I just saw:
“Islamist mole in German spy agency had been gay porn actor: report”
Carry on.
James Fallows, talking about his recent appearance on the Dianne Rhem show:
this is, in fact, when Trump voters voted for.
James Fallows, talking about his recent appearance on the Dianne Rhem show:
this is, in fact, when Trump voters voted for.
James Fallows, talking about his recent appearance on the Dianne Rhem show:
this is, in fact, when Trump voters voted for.
when, what, who cares. stupid Germanic question words are completely incompatible with our American way of life.
when, what, who cares. stupid Germanic question words are completely incompatible with our American way of life.
when, what, who cares. stupid Germanic question words are completely incompatible with our American way of life.
The Saudis were behaving badly from the start– I have been seeing complaints for most of the year and I think last year. I think this was predictable. The Saudis have a rotten human rights record at home — were they likely to be better in Yemen?
Note two things. First, reprehensible as the Saudi human rights record at home is, it has not extended to bombing civilians. Saudi Shias get treated badly, but nowhere near that level. So no better, but no worse either, wouldn’t have us looking for deliberately bombing civilians.
Second, at least as I understand it, when the Saudis first started military operations they were relying on US intelligence for targeting information. Which means that a) our involvement predated the attacks on civilians, and b) we had some reason to believe that the earliest attacks on civilians were, indeed, accidents. (Unless you want to argue that we were deliberately providing civilian targets. Which is a whole different thing that what I think we are discussing.)
The Saudis were behaving badly from the start– I have been seeing complaints for most of the year and I think last year. I think this was predictable. The Saudis have a rotten human rights record at home — were they likely to be better in Yemen?
Note two things. First, reprehensible as the Saudi human rights record at home is, it has not extended to bombing civilians. Saudi Shias get treated badly, but nowhere near that level. So no better, but no worse either, wouldn’t have us looking for deliberately bombing civilians.
Second, at least as I understand it, when the Saudis first started military operations they were relying on US intelligence for targeting information. Which means that a) our involvement predated the attacks on civilians, and b) we had some reason to believe that the earliest attacks on civilians were, indeed, accidents. (Unless you want to argue that we were deliberately providing civilian targets. Which is a whole different thing that what I think we are discussing.)
The Saudis were behaving badly from the start– I have been seeing complaints for most of the year and I think last year. I think this was predictable. The Saudis have a rotten human rights record at home — were they likely to be better in Yemen?
Note two things. First, reprehensible as the Saudi human rights record at home is, it has not extended to bombing civilians. Saudi Shias get treated badly, but nowhere near that level. So no better, but no worse either, wouldn’t have us looking for deliberately bombing civilians.
Second, at least as I understand it, when the Saudis first started military operations they were relying on US intelligence for targeting information. Which means that a) our involvement predated the attacks on civilians, and b) we had some reason to believe that the earliest attacks on civilians were, indeed, accidents. (Unless you want to argue that we were deliberately providing civilian targets. Which is a whole different thing that what I think we are discussing.)
Islamist mole in German spy agency had been gay porn actor
I think that, for some people, cognitive dissonance is kind of a hobby.
Maybe this guy was just going for a personal best.
Islamist mole in German spy agency had been gay porn actor
I think that, for some people, cognitive dissonance is kind of a hobby.
Maybe this guy was just going for a personal best.
Islamist mole in German spy agency had been gay porn actor
I think that, for some people, cognitive dissonance is kind of a hobby.
Maybe this guy was just going for a personal best.
in fairness, Trump voters don’t seem to know what they want. so maybe it’s impossible for Trump to please them.
Actually, at least on health care, it’s pretty clear what Trump voters want:
1) get rid of the individual mandate. Because something for nothing is always good.
2) get Obama’s name off it. Because he is an evil tyrant (everybody, that they listen to, says so), so it’s bad to have his name on something that we want.
Give them those two, keep everything else, and they’re all good. Of course, the whole thing won’t work economically without the mandate. (Just like Medicare wouldn’t work if people weren’t required to pay for it all along.) But that’s what it takes to keep them happy.
in fairness, Trump voters don’t seem to know what they want. so maybe it’s impossible for Trump to please them.
Actually, at least on health care, it’s pretty clear what Trump voters want:
1) get rid of the individual mandate. Because something for nothing is always good.
2) get Obama’s name off it. Because he is an evil tyrant (everybody, that they listen to, says so), so it’s bad to have his name on something that we want.
Give them those two, keep everything else, and they’re all good. Of course, the whole thing won’t work economically without the mandate. (Just like Medicare wouldn’t work if people weren’t required to pay for it all along.) But that’s what it takes to keep them happy.
in fairness, Trump voters don’t seem to know what they want. so maybe it’s impossible for Trump to please them.
Actually, at least on health care, it’s pretty clear what Trump voters want:
1) get rid of the individual mandate. Because something for nothing is always good.
2) get Obama’s name off it. Because he is an evil tyrant (everybody, that they listen to, says so), so it’s bad to have his name on something that we want.
Give them those two, keep everything else, and they’re all good. Of course, the whole thing won’t work economically without the mandate. (Just like Medicare wouldn’t work if people weren’t required to pay for it all along.) But that’s what it takes to keep them happy.
“get Obama’s name off it”
Obama’s name is only on “Obamacare” because the GOP insisted on calling it that. That isn’t the “official” name (it’s ACA, in the usual TLA format), and it’s not the name Obama used, until the GOP made “Obamacare” ubiquitous.
If someone had bothered to ask Obama if he wanted his name on it, I’m pretty sure he’d say “No.”
So, stage one of the rebranding is to put TRUMP on it, in gold letters. Or “SH*TWEASEL” in orange letters. Either is good.
“get Obama’s name off it”
Obama’s name is only on “Obamacare” because the GOP insisted on calling it that. That isn’t the “official” name (it’s ACA, in the usual TLA format), and it’s not the name Obama used, until the GOP made “Obamacare” ubiquitous.
If someone had bothered to ask Obama if he wanted his name on it, I’m pretty sure he’d say “No.”
So, stage one of the rebranding is to put TRUMP on it, in gold letters. Or “SH*TWEASEL” in orange letters. Either is good.
“get Obama’s name off it”
Obama’s name is only on “Obamacare” because the GOP insisted on calling it that. That isn’t the “official” name (it’s ACA, in the usual TLA format), and it’s not the name Obama used, until the GOP made “Obamacare” ubiquitous.
If someone had bothered to ask Obama if he wanted his name on it, I’m pretty sure he’d say “No.”
So, stage one of the rebranding is to put TRUMP on it, in gold letters. Or “SH*TWEASEL” in orange letters. Either is good.
Interesting take:
http://electionado.com/canvas/1479173071893
Via hilzoy’s twitter feed (come back!)
Interesting take:
http://electionado.com/canvas/1479173071893
Via hilzoy’s twitter feed (come back!)
Interesting take:
http://electionado.com/canvas/1479173071893
Via hilzoy’s twitter feed (come back!)
I must object to the idea that an ordinary Republican administration is anything but an existential threat to representative government.
It works like this: create a myth about voter fraud. Use the myth to pass voter suppression legislation. Suppress the votes in swing states. Now, with gerrymandering, Citizens United and the rightwing disinformation network, you have one party rule.
Even if voter suppression didn’t contribute to one party rule, it would still be a profound fundamental attack on the essence of our nation.
And seventeen states have passed voter suppression laws. The model came from ALEX a Republican think tank. And the Republicans in Congress held up a Supreme Court nomination so that they could make an appointment that would uphold voter suppression.
That’s your bog standard Republican party today.
I’m sorry, but if it isn’t fascist, is sure as hell isn’t Constitutional. The Republican party has shown itself to be an existential threat to representative government.
I must object to the idea that an ordinary Republican administration is anything but an existential threat to representative government.
It works like this: create a myth about voter fraud. Use the myth to pass voter suppression legislation. Suppress the votes in swing states. Now, with gerrymandering, Citizens United and the rightwing disinformation network, you have one party rule.
Even if voter suppression didn’t contribute to one party rule, it would still be a profound fundamental attack on the essence of our nation.
And seventeen states have passed voter suppression laws. The model came from ALEX a Republican think tank. And the Republicans in Congress held up a Supreme Court nomination so that they could make an appointment that would uphold voter suppression.
That’s your bog standard Republican party today.
I’m sorry, but if it isn’t fascist, is sure as hell isn’t Constitutional. The Republican party has shown itself to be an existential threat to representative government.
I must object to the idea that an ordinary Republican administration is anything but an existential threat to representative government.
It works like this: create a myth about voter fraud. Use the myth to pass voter suppression legislation. Suppress the votes in swing states. Now, with gerrymandering, Citizens United and the rightwing disinformation network, you have one party rule.
Even if voter suppression didn’t contribute to one party rule, it would still be a profound fundamental attack on the essence of our nation.
And seventeen states have passed voter suppression laws. The model came from ALEX a Republican think tank. And the Republicans in Congress held up a Supreme Court nomination so that they could make an appointment that would uphold voter suppression.
That’s your bog standard Republican party today.
I’m sorry, but if it isn’t fascist, is sure as hell isn’t Constitutional. The Republican party has shown itself to be an existential threat to representative government.
Interesting take
indeed.
b..b.b.b.but! economic insecurity!
OT: Twitter is the worst platform ever, and it especially terrible for long form things like this. i was only seeing 1/2 of the tweets in that story and gave up after point 8E (i think).
Interesting take
indeed.
b..b.b.b.but! economic insecurity!
OT: Twitter is the worst platform ever, and it especially terrible for long form things like this. i was only seeing 1/2 of the tweets in that story and gave up after point 8E (i think).
Interesting take
indeed.
b..b.b.b.but! economic insecurity!
OT: Twitter is the worst platform ever, and it especially terrible for long form things like this. i was only seeing 1/2 of the tweets in that story and gave up after point 8E (i think).
Agreed. Anything on Twitter that runs more than 2 tweets should have been done in a different format. Maybe with a link on Twitter, but nothing more.
Agreed. Anything on Twitter that runs more than 2 tweets should have been done in a different format. Maybe with a link on Twitter, but nothing more.
Agreed. Anything on Twitter that runs more than 2 tweets should have been done in a different format. Maybe with a link on Twitter, but nothing more.
@GftNC
I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump
As DJ pointed out yesterday, where we live matters. Even if that didn’t apply to me (which it did, unless I was supposed to cast half a million ballots that I forgot about), I fail to see any difference between a scenario where I voted someone else’s conscience by giving Clinton a vote – thus freeing my sibling to hold their nose and give Trump a matching vote to oppose Clinton’s theoretical judicial appointments – and a scenario where neither of us pinched our noses and each of the two got zero votes. In both cases, Trump takes Ohio by the same numerical margin, which came out to right around 8% of the votes cast.
@GftNC
I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump
As DJ pointed out yesterday, where we live matters. Even if that didn’t apply to me (which it did, unless I was supposed to cast half a million ballots that I forgot about), I fail to see any difference between a scenario where I voted someone else’s conscience by giving Clinton a vote – thus freeing my sibling to hold their nose and give Trump a matching vote to oppose Clinton’s theoretical judicial appointments – and a scenario where neither of us pinched our noses and each of the two got zero votes. In both cases, Trump takes Ohio by the same numerical margin, which came out to right around 8% of the votes cast.
@GftNC
I believe that if you, and Marty, and McKT, and thousands or even millions like you had overcome your distaste for HRC and voted for her in order to defeat Trump
As DJ pointed out yesterday, where we live matters. Even if that didn’t apply to me (which it did, unless I was supposed to cast half a million ballots that I forgot about), I fail to see any difference between a scenario where I voted someone else’s conscience by giving Clinton a vote – thus freeing my sibling to hold their nose and give Trump a matching vote to oppose Clinton’s theoretical judicial appointments – and a scenario where neither of us pinched our noses and each of the two got zero votes. In both cases, Trump takes Ohio by the same numerical margin, which came out to right around 8% of the votes cast.
wonkie, you make an excellent case. When you put it like that, it seems impossible to disagree…
wonkie, you make an excellent case. When you put it like that, it seems impossible to disagree…
wonkie, you make an excellent case. When you put it like that, it seems impossible to disagree…
“It works like this: create a myth about voter fraud. Use the myth to pass voter suppression legislation. Suppress the votes in swing states. Now, with gerrymandering, Citizens United and the rightwing disinformation network, you have one party rule.
Even if voter suppression didn’t contribute to one party rule, it would still be a profound fundamental attack on the essence of our nation. ”
The problem is in how Democrats deal with it. Worrying about fake voters seems on the face of it to be a very legitimate concern. (Especially given our long history of cheating). After 2000, Democrats should have spearheaded a VOTER ID reform where the government pays for everyone to get a voter ID for everyone who doesn’t already have a driver’s license and for better security for driver’s licenses. It wouldn’t have even been very expensive AND we would have had a much better system.
Then, having come to an actual reasonable dealing with the issue, it would have been off the table. Or Republicans would have torpedoed it and you can say “you voted against that”.
Democrats don’t know how to defuse issues like that anymore. They just let them burn on and on forever.
“It works like this: create a myth about voter fraud. Use the myth to pass voter suppression legislation. Suppress the votes in swing states. Now, with gerrymandering, Citizens United and the rightwing disinformation network, you have one party rule.
Even if voter suppression didn’t contribute to one party rule, it would still be a profound fundamental attack on the essence of our nation. ”
The problem is in how Democrats deal with it. Worrying about fake voters seems on the face of it to be a very legitimate concern. (Especially given our long history of cheating). After 2000, Democrats should have spearheaded a VOTER ID reform where the government pays for everyone to get a voter ID for everyone who doesn’t already have a driver’s license and for better security for driver’s licenses. It wouldn’t have even been very expensive AND we would have had a much better system.
Then, having come to an actual reasonable dealing with the issue, it would have been off the table. Or Republicans would have torpedoed it and you can say “you voted against that”.
Democrats don’t know how to defuse issues like that anymore. They just let them burn on and on forever.
“It works like this: create a myth about voter fraud. Use the myth to pass voter suppression legislation. Suppress the votes in swing states. Now, with gerrymandering, Citizens United and the rightwing disinformation network, you have one party rule.
Even if voter suppression didn’t contribute to one party rule, it would still be a profound fundamental attack on the essence of our nation. ”
The problem is in how Democrats deal with it. Worrying about fake voters seems on the face of it to be a very legitimate concern. (Especially given our long history of cheating). After 2000, Democrats should have spearheaded a VOTER ID reform where the government pays for everyone to get a voter ID for everyone who doesn’t already have a driver’s license and for better security for driver’s licenses. It wouldn’t have even been very expensive AND we would have had a much better system.
Then, having come to an actual reasonable dealing with the issue, it would have been off the table. Or Republicans would have torpedoed it and you can say “you voted against that”.
Democrats don’t know how to defuse issues like that anymore. They just let them burn on and on forever.
He concludes that it was white identity politics and EMAILS!/Comey that cause HRC’s loss. Economic issues mattered little.
He concludes that it was white identity politics and EMAILS!/Comey that cause HRC’s loss. Economic issues mattered little.
He concludes that it was white identity politics and EMAILS!/Comey that cause HRC’s loss. Economic issues mattered little.
After 2000, Democrats should have spearheaded a VOTER ID reform where the government pays for everyone to get a voter ID for everyone who doesn’t already have a driver’s license and for better security for driver’s licenses.
yeah, no.
https://www.google.com/search?q=national+id+card+mark+of+the+beast&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
After 2000, Democrats should have spearheaded a VOTER ID reform where the government pays for everyone to get a voter ID for everyone who doesn’t already have a driver’s license and for better security for driver’s licenses.
yeah, no.
https://www.google.com/search?q=national+id+card+mark+of+the+beast&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
After 2000, Democrats should have spearheaded a VOTER ID reform where the government pays for everyone to get a voter ID for everyone who doesn’t already have a driver’s license and for better security for driver’s licenses.
yeah, no.
https://www.google.com/search?q=national+id+card+mark+of+the+beast&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Going to be a great next 4 years.
The president-elect tends to echo the last person he spoke with — or the last thing he saw on TV — making direct access to him all the more valuable, especially as he selects members of his administration.
…
Trump watches endless cable television, consults with his adult children and chats up a line of guests to Trump Tower in New York and his private club in Palm Beach, Fla. He also regularly takes the calls of fellow wealthy businessmen with their own ideas to share.
Sometimes an uttered idea or a turn-of-phrase sticks — especially when offered by someone with some celebrity status who is careful to praise and not criticize the president-elect.
Going to be a great next 4 years.
The president-elect tends to echo the last person he spoke with — or the last thing he saw on TV — making direct access to him all the more valuable, especially as he selects members of his administration.
…
Trump watches endless cable television, consults with his adult children and chats up a line of guests to Trump Tower in New York and his private club in Palm Beach, Fla. He also regularly takes the calls of fellow wealthy businessmen with their own ideas to share.
Sometimes an uttered idea or a turn-of-phrase sticks — especially when offered by someone with some celebrity status who is careful to praise and not criticize the president-elect.
Going to be a great next 4 years.
The president-elect tends to echo the last person he spoke with — or the last thing he saw on TV — making direct access to him all the more valuable, especially as he selects members of his administration.
…
Trump watches endless cable television, consults with his adult children and chats up a line of guests to Trump Tower in New York and his private club in Palm Beach, Fla. He also regularly takes the calls of fellow wealthy businessmen with their own ideas to share.
Sometimes an uttered idea or a turn-of-phrase sticks — especially when offered by someone with some celebrity status who is careful to praise and not criticize the president-elect.
Also, too, screw you, Trump rally goers:
Ahead of the Republican primaries, Trump declared that “torture works” and promised to bring back waterboarding. Even if these methods don’t produce usable information, Trump said at one point, terrorism suspects “deserve it anyway.”
“I love it, I love it, I think it’s great,” Trump said at a rally in Indianapolis in April.
Although this earned Trump applause at rallies,
Also, too, screw you, Trump rally goers:
Ahead of the Republican primaries, Trump declared that “torture works” and promised to bring back waterboarding. Even if these methods don’t produce usable information, Trump said at one point, terrorism suspects “deserve it anyway.”
“I love it, I love it, I think it’s great,” Trump said at a rally in Indianapolis in April.
Although this earned Trump applause at rallies,
Also, too, screw you, Trump rally goers:
Ahead of the Republican primaries, Trump declared that “torture works” and promised to bring back waterboarding. Even if these methods don’t produce usable information, Trump said at one point, terrorism suspects “deserve it anyway.”
“I love it, I love it, I think it’s great,” Trump said at a rally in Indianapolis in April.
Although this earned Trump applause at rallies,
We have a long history of electoral cheating in the US?
We have a long history of electoral cheating in the US?
We have a long history of electoral cheating in the US?
He concludes that it was white identity politics and EMAILS!/Comey that cause HRC’s loss. Economic issues mattered little.
I wonder if it is possible to disentangle “white identity politics” and “culture wars.” That is, to what extent the issue for Trump voters (in mass, not necessarily any particular Trump voter) was their perception that the culture of the country is changing. And not for the better.
Not so much the relative numbers of whites. Rather things like gay rights, the importance of religion in (local) public life, family values (meaning people getting married before having kids; no matter that their own kids are just as bad on this as anyone else), etc. In this, immigration is merely a part (and not necessarily a large part; just an easily identifiable) of the overall change.
He concludes that it was white identity politics and EMAILS!/Comey that cause HRC’s loss. Economic issues mattered little.
I wonder if it is possible to disentangle “white identity politics” and “culture wars.” That is, to what extent the issue for Trump voters (in mass, not necessarily any particular Trump voter) was their perception that the culture of the country is changing. And not for the better.
Not so much the relative numbers of whites. Rather things like gay rights, the importance of religion in (local) public life, family values (meaning people getting married before having kids; no matter that their own kids are just as bad on this as anyone else), etc. In this, immigration is merely a part (and not necessarily a large part; just an easily identifiable) of the overall change.
He concludes that it was white identity politics and EMAILS!/Comey that cause HRC’s loss. Economic issues mattered little.
I wonder if it is possible to disentangle “white identity politics” and “culture wars.” That is, to what extent the issue for Trump voters (in mass, not necessarily any particular Trump voter) was their perception that the culture of the country is changing. And not for the better.
Not so much the relative numbers of whites. Rather things like gay rights, the importance of religion in (local) public life, family values (meaning people getting married before having kids; no matter that their own kids are just as bad on this as anyone else), etc. In this, immigration is merely a part (and not necessarily a large part; just an easily identifiable) of the overall change.
I have a few minutes. I’ll reply to Gftnc later.
WJ, you ought to scroll through the HRW documents on Yemen. They were writing Ashton Carter about war crimes one month into the conflict. The posts get increasingly and almost monotonously negative as the months go by. War crimes, bombing civilians, blocking humanitarian aid. The US knew perfectly well what was going on very early on and no, accidents are not a plausible explanation for the bombings. I could cut and paste an article if needed. Here’s a link to the HRW letter in April 2015–
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/letter-us-secretary-defense-ashton-carter-armed-conflict-yemen
That’s very early on. By a few months into the conflict it’s utterly clear the US and the UK are lying their heads off.
I have a few minutes. I’ll reply to Gftnc later.
WJ, you ought to scroll through the HRW documents on Yemen. They were writing Ashton Carter about war crimes one month into the conflict. The posts get increasingly and almost monotonously negative as the months go by. War crimes, bombing civilians, blocking humanitarian aid. The US knew perfectly well what was going on very early on and no, accidents are not a plausible explanation for the bombings. I could cut and paste an article if needed. Here’s a link to the HRW letter in April 2015–
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/letter-us-secretary-defense-ashton-carter-armed-conflict-yemen
That’s very early on. By a few months into the conflict it’s utterly clear the US and the UK are lying their heads off.
I have a few minutes. I’ll reply to Gftnc later.
WJ, you ought to scroll through the HRW documents on Yemen. They were writing Ashton Carter about war crimes one month into the conflict. The posts get increasingly and almost monotonously negative as the months go by. War crimes, bombing civilians, blocking humanitarian aid. The US knew perfectly well what was going on very early on and no, accidents are not a plausible explanation for the bombings. I could cut and paste an article if needed. Here’s a link to the HRW letter in April 2015–
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/letter-us-secretary-defense-ashton-carter-armed-conflict-yemen
That’s very early on. By a few months into the conflict it’s utterly clear the US and the UK are lying their heads off.
wj, all those things matter. As important is the look around to see that others are being held up as more important. After decades of every headline and every politician talking about everybody else’s rights people like hearing their rights matter, they matter.
Nothing in the “study” addresses causality, economic uncertainty is the cause of lots of that resentment. Trying to study the common attitudes of Trump supporters doesn’t believe that reality. No squinting required, and uncertainty is not the same as economic distress.
wj, all those things matter. As important is the look around to see that others are being held up as more important. After decades of every headline and every politician talking about everybody else’s rights people like hearing their rights matter, they matter.
Nothing in the “study” addresses causality, economic uncertainty is the cause of lots of that resentment. Trying to study the common attitudes of Trump supporters doesn’t believe that reality. No squinting required, and uncertainty is not the same as economic distress.
wj, all those things matter. As important is the look around to see that others are being held up as more important. After decades of every headline and every politician talking about everybody else’s rights people like hearing their rights matter, they matter.
Nothing in the “study” addresses causality, economic uncertainty is the cause of lots of that resentment. Trying to study the common attitudes of Trump supporters doesn’t believe that reality. No squinting required, and uncertainty is not the same as economic distress.
Trump may have dropped going after Clinton when inaugurated. The GOP has not. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has declared that he will proceed with further congressional investigations against Hillary Clinton.
Trump may have dropped going after Clinton when inaugurated. The GOP has not. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has declared that he will proceed with further congressional investigations against Hillary Clinton.
Trump may have dropped going after Clinton when inaugurated. The GOP has not. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has declared that he will proceed with further congressional investigations against Hillary Clinton.
The problem is in how Democrats deal with it. Worrying about fake voters seems on the face of it to be a very legitimate concern.
Not for nothing, but it seems to me that (D)’s dealt with this by countering claims that “fake voters” even exist in the first place.
Which is even cheaper than creating a universal ID card system. Which, as cleek points out, meets with significant resistance based in a kind of generic anti-government paranoia whenever it’s suggested.
Another way to look at this is that the problem is that people believe things that aren’t true. Because there are no institutions – not in government, not in journalism, not in public discourse in any form – that are considered to be basically trustworthy by the population as a whole. So folks believe what “their side” tells them, even if it’s transparent BS.
There isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that voter fraud occurs at anything remotely like a rate that would materially affect any election in the US. It barely occurs at all.
The problem is not optics and it’s not how things are spun. It’s far more fundamental, and dangerous, than that.
The problem is not perception but substance.
People believe – firmly believe- things that are demonstrably not so. In large numbers.
The problem is in how Democrats deal with it. Worrying about fake voters seems on the face of it to be a very legitimate concern.
Not for nothing, but it seems to me that (D)’s dealt with this by countering claims that “fake voters” even exist in the first place.
Which is even cheaper than creating a universal ID card system. Which, as cleek points out, meets with significant resistance based in a kind of generic anti-government paranoia whenever it’s suggested.
Another way to look at this is that the problem is that people believe things that aren’t true. Because there are no institutions – not in government, not in journalism, not in public discourse in any form – that are considered to be basically trustworthy by the population as a whole. So folks believe what “their side” tells them, even if it’s transparent BS.
There isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that voter fraud occurs at anything remotely like a rate that would materially affect any election in the US. It barely occurs at all.
The problem is not optics and it’s not how things are spun. It’s far more fundamental, and dangerous, than that.
The problem is not perception but substance.
People believe – firmly believe- things that are demonstrably not so. In large numbers.
The problem is in how Democrats deal with it. Worrying about fake voters seems on the face of it to be a very legitimate concern.
Not for nothing, but it seems to me that (D)’s dealt with this by countering claims that “fake voters” even exist in the first place.
Which is even cheaper than creating a universal ID card system. Which, as cleek points out, meets with significant resistance based in a kind of generic anti-government paranoia whenever it’s suggested.
Another way to look at this is that the problem is that people believe things that aren’t true. Because there are no institutions – not in government, not in journalism, not in public discourse in any form – that are considered to be basically trustworthy by the population as a whole. So folks believe what “their side” tells them, even if it’s transparent BS.
There isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that voter fraud occurs at anything remotely like a rate that would materially affect any election in the US. It barely occurs at all.
The problem is not optics and it’s not how things are spun. It’s far more fundamental, and dangerous, than that.
The problem is not perception but substance.
People believe – firmly believe- things that are demonstrably not so. In large numbers.
It is not the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans are trying to subvert the Constitution and deny legitimate voters access to the polls. Adopting their theme of official picture voter cards for everyone would only work if people could get the cards by mail since part of the suppression is making people who don’t have cars travel to get unnecessary ID’s.I donlt kow how they could send cards by mail since bases for the voter suppression law is that voters have to have picture ID. The Democrats have responded with ideas for better voting processes: automatic registration, voting by mail, and a national holiday for voters.
None of that is acceptable to Republican politicians of course.
It is not the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans are trying to subvert the Constitution and deny legitimate voters access to the polls. Adopting their theme of official picture voter cards for everyone would only work if people could get the cards by mail since part of the suppression is making people who don’t have cars travel to get unnecessary ID’s.I donlt kow how they could send cards by mail since bases for the voter suppression law is that voters have to have picture ID. The Democrats have responded with ideas for better voting processes: automatic registration, voting by mail, and a national holiday for voters.
None of that is acceptable to Republican politicians of course.
It is not the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans are trying to subvert the Constitution and deny legitimate voters access to the polls. Adopting their theme of official picture voter cards for everyone would only work if people could get the cards by mail since part of the suppression is making people who don’t have cars travel to get unnecessary ID’s.I donlt kow how they could send cards by mail since bases for the voter suppression law is that voters have to have picture ID. The Democrats have responded with ideas for better voting processes: automatic registration, voting by mail, and a national holiday for voters.
None of that is acceptable to Republican politicians of course.
This is exactly right russell, and what I have been trying but failing to get across for ages: it’s not that there aren’t reliable media sources in America (the NYT, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor), it’s that there is no media source that the population at large trusts. Left and right (and no doubt other groupings) are living in their own philosophical and virtual ghettos, getting information from their own trusted sources, and the population might as well be living in different universes.
This is exactly right russell, and what I have been trying but failing to get across for ages: it’s not that there aren’t reliable media sources in America (the NYT, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor), it’s that there is no media source that the population at large trusts. Left and right (and no doubt other groupings) are living in their own philosophical and virtual ghettos, getting information from their own trusted sources, and the population might as well be living in different universes.
This is exactly right russell, and what I have been trying but failing to get across for ages: it’s not that there aren’t reliable media sources in America (the NYT, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor), it’s that there is no media source that the population at large trusts. Left and right (and no doubt other groupings) are living in their own philosophical and virtual ghettos, getting information from their own trusted sources, and the population might as well be living in different universes.
There isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that voter fraud occurs at anything remotely like a rate that would materially affect any election in the US. It barely occurs at all.
Anyone who’s ever worked at the polls (which I would encourage any citizen to do) can observe how difficult it would be for fraudulent votes to happen.
What does occur is that people’s names aren’t on the rolls, so that when they come in, they are only allowed to cast provisional ballots. Sometimes, they should be allowed to vote provisionally, but the election officials might be confused and won’t let them vote at all. This is why it’s good to have a couple of poll watchers (one from each party) to ask questions, and try to get problems like that solved.
In other words, it’s much easier to suppress people’s votes (by eliminating names from voting rolls), or to fail to count votes (by throwing away votes cast provisionally), than it is to vote fraudulently. In order to make a difference in an election, a lot of people would have to take huge risks of criminal conviction.
There’s nothing wrong with the idea of auditing the vote (in fact, I’m in favor of it), especially in places where voter suppression is suspected. Machines with paper trails are good for this purpose. The biggest worry is that people are wrongly removed from the rolls, and that has been shown to be a Republican strategy. It’s very difficult to correct for this after the fact.
In line with wonkie’s comment about Republicans and fascism, Republicans are always the ones who want to restrict voting rights in order to win elections. They’re also the ones who enter into treasonous agreements with foreign governments to win elections. I’m less and less inclined to think that they share my worldview at all with regard to what good citizenship is supposed to mean.
There isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that voter fraud occurs at anything remotely like a rate that would materially affect any election in the US. It barely occurs at all.
Anyone who’s ever worked at the polls (which I would encourage any citizen to do) can observe how difficult it would be for fraudulent votes to happen.
What does occur is that people’s names aren’t on the rolls, so that when they come in, they are only allowed to cast provisional ballots. Sometimes, they should be allowed to vote provisionally, but the election officials might be confused and won’t let them vote at all. This is why it’s good to have a couple of poll watchers (one from each party) to ask questions, and try to get problems like that solved.
In other words, it’s much easier to suppress people’s votes (by eliminating names from voting rolls), or to fail to count votes (by throwing away votes cast provisionally), than it is to vote fraudulently. In order to make a difference in an election, a lot of people would have to take huge risks of criminal conviction.
There’s nothing wrong with the idea of auditing the vote (in fact, I’m in favor of it), especially in places where voter suppression is suspected. Machines with paper trails are good for this purpose. The biggest worry is that people are wrongly removed from the rolls, and that has been shown to be a Republican strategy. It’s very difficult to correct for this after the fact.
In line with wonkie’s comment about Republicans and fascism, Republicans are always the ones who want to restrict voting rights in order to win elections. They’re also the ones who enter into treasonous agreements with foreign governments to win elections. I’m less and less inclined to think that they share my worldview at all with regard to what good citizenship is supposed to mean.
There isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that voter fraud occurs at anything remotely like a rate that would materially affect any election in the US. It barely occurs at all.
Anyone who’s ever worked at the polls (which I would encourage any citizen to do) can observe how difficult it would be for fraudulent votes to happen.
What does occur is that people’s names aren’t on the rolls, so that when they come in, they are only allowed to cast provisional ballots. Sometimes, they should be allowed to vote provisionally, but the election officials might be confused and won’t let them vote at all. This is why it’s good to have a couple of poll watchers (one from each party) to ask questions, and try to get problems like that solved.
In other words, it’s much easier to suppress people’s votes (by eliminating names from voting rolls), or to fail to count votes (by throwing away votes cast provisionally), than it is to vote fraudulently. In order to make a difference in an election, a lot of people would have to take huge risks of criminal conviction.
There’s nothing wrong with the idea of auditing the vote (in fact, I’m in favor of it), especially in places where voter suppression is suspected. Machines with paper trails are good for this purpose. The biggest worry is that people are wrongly removed from the rolls, and that has been shown to be a Republican strategy. It’s very difficult to correct for this after the fact.
In line with wonkie’s comment about Republicans and fascism, Republicans are always the ones who want to restrict voting rights in order to win elections. They’re also the ones who enter into treasonous agreements with foreign governments to win elections. I’m less and less inclined to think that they share my worldview at all with regard to what good citizenship is supposed to mean.
After decades of every headline and every politician talking about everybody else’s rights people like hearing their rights matter, they matter.
This sounds about right to me. People feeling like everyone other than them are getting all of the attention and all of the concern.
I can even understand why they might feel that way.
And now, we have Trump and a bog-standard (R) cabinet. Which is to say, bog-standard for (R)’s of the last 40 years.
Tax cuts, deregulation, and pay for the tax cuts by defunding the social programs that keep people who don’t have a lot of money from slipping into real, tangible poverty. Like, no food poverty.
The most amazing thing I’ve seen in Trump’s proposals is his draft tax plan. Everybody gets a tax cut, except people currently in the 10% bracket. I.e., the very poorest people, single non-head-of-households making $9275 or couples making less than $18550.
Their tax rate goes up, from 10% to 12%.
Most of those folks will probably end up paying nothing anyway, after the standard deductions etc.
But seriously, WTF?
I’d ask what happens when folks figure out that they are not, remotely, better off. But I think they’ll just blame the (D)’s.
Good luck to all.
After decades of every headline and every politician talking about everybody else’s rights people like hearing their rights matter, they matter.
This sounds about right to me. People feeling like everyone other than them are getting all of the attention and all of the concern.
I can even understand why they might feel that way.
And now, we have Trump and a bog-standard (R) cabinet. Which is to say, bog-standard for (R)’s of the last 40 years.
Tax cuts, deregulation, and pay for the tax cuts by defunding the social programs that keep people who don’t have a lot of money from slipping into real, tangible poverty. Like, no food poverty.
The most amazing thing I’ve seen in Trump’s proposals is his draft tax plan. Everybody gets a tax cut, except people currently in the 10% bracket. I.e., the very poorest people, single non-head-of-households making $9275 or couples making less than $18550.
Their tax rate goes up, from 10% to 12%.
Most of those folks will probably end up paying nothing anyway, after the standard deductions etc.
But seriously, WTF?
I’d ask what happens when folks figure out that they are not, remotely, better off. But I think they’ll just blame the (D)’s.
Good luck to all.
After decades of every headline and every politician talking about everybody else’s rights people like hearing their rights matter, they matter.
This sounds about right to me. People feeling like everyone other than them are getting all of the attention and all of the concern.
I can even understand why they might feel that way.
And now, we have Trump and a bog-standard (R) cabinet. Which is to say, bog-standard for (R)’s of the last 40 years.
Tax cuts, deregulation, and pay for the tax cuts by defunding the social programs that keep people who don’t have a lot of money from slipping into real, tangible poverty. Like, no food poverty.
The most amazing thing I’ve seen in Trump’s proposals is his draft tax plan. Everybody gets a tax cut, except people currently in the 10% bracket. I.e., the very poorest people, single non-head-of-households making $9275 or couples making less than $18550.
Their tax rate goes up, from 10% to 12%.
Most of those folks will probably end up paying nothing anyway, after the standard deductions etc.
But seriously, WTF?
I’d ask what happens when folks figure out that they are not, remotely, better off. But I think they’ll just blame the (D)’s.
Good luck to all.
I don’t know how conservatives, generally speaking, view the Christian Science Monitory, but I can, as a liberal, handle the slant of the Wall Street Journal, which I know conservatives generally trust. It’s not my go-to source for information, but it’s not a fake-news outlet either, which seem to be far more popular on the right these days.
A lot of people don’t seem to know the difference between bias, which is unavoidable to some degree, and bad faith. I know people who think the Washington Post cannot be trusted at all and information coming from it can be summarily dismissed as liberal propaganda.
I don’t know how conservatives, generally speaking, view the Christian Science Monitory, but I can, as a liberal, handle the slant of the Wall Street Journal, which I know conservatives generally trust. It’s not my go-to source for information, but it’s not a fake-news outlet either, which seem to be far more popular on the right these days.
A lot of people don’t seem to know the difference between bias, which is unavoidable to some degree, and bad faith. I know people who think the Washington Post cannot be trusted at all and information coming from it can be summarily dismissed as liberal propaganda.
I don’t know how conservatives, generally speaking, view the Christian Science Monitory, but I can, as a liberal, handle the slant of the Wall Street Journal, which I know conservatives generally trust. It’s not my go-to source for information, but it’s not a fake-news outlet either, which seem to be far more popular on the right these days.
A lot of people don’t seem to know the difference between bias, which is unavoidable to some degree, and bad faith. I know people who think the Washington Post cannot be trusted at all and information coming from it can be summarily dismissed as liberal propaganda.
I can, as a liberal, handle the slant of the Wall Street Journal
The editorial page has a very clear stance.
The reporting is, in general, perfectly fine.
As a good friend of mine says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
The problem is an inability to discern which is which. In my opinion.
I can, as a liberal, handle the slant of the Wall Street Journal
The editorial page has a very clear stance.
The reporting is, in general, perfectly fine.
As a good friend of mine says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
The problem is an inability to discern which is which. In my opinion.
I can, as a liberal, handle the slant of the Wall Street Journal
The editorial page has a very clear stance.
The reporting is, in general, perfectly fine.
As a good friend of mine says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
The problem is an inability to discern which is which. In my opinion.
Monitory? Not sure what happened there.
Monitory? Not sure what happened there.
Monitory? Not sure what happened there.
We have a long history of electoral cheating in the US?
The operative word being “history.”
In the days of machine politics, it happened some — especially in local races. But the last time I remember an even vaguely credible accusation of it happening was in 1960. When, I heard it said (I know not with what basis), Mayor Daley (of Chicago) was reputed to have “voted the graveyards” in order to tip Illinois, and thus the Presidency, to Kennedy. But since then? Nothing that come close to being credible.
I would like to second sapient’s suggestion to work an election. It gives you a whole lot better take on how the process works than you can ever get by just spending a few minutes at the polling place while casting your ballot. It also makes clear just how difficult it would be to get fake votes cast — and hence how ridiculous calls for voter IDs are.
Now if someone wants to argue about how the vote numbers could be altered later, that might be another story. But, at least here in California, the number of votes at each polling place are posted on site at the end of the day. Which means that anyone just adding votes would have to go around and mess with those as well. (And copies of the totals are both included with the ballots, and separately mailed to the county clerk’s election office. Which means that all three would have to be tampered with.
We have a long history of electoral cheating in the US?
The operative word being “history.”
In the days of machine politics, it happened some — especially in local races. But the last time I remember an even vaguely credible accusation of it happening was in 1960. When, I heard it said (I know not with what basis), Mayor Daley (of Chicago) was reputed to have “voted the graveyards” in order to tip Illinois, and thus the Presidency, to Kennedy. But since then? Nothing that come close to being credible.
I would like to second sapient’s suggestion to work an election. It gives you a whole lot better take on how the process works than you can ever get by just spending a few minutes at the polling place while casting your ballot. It also makes clear just how difficult it would be to get fake votes cast — and hence how ridiculous calls for voter IDs are.
Now if someone wants to argue about how the vote numbers could be altered later, that might be another story. But, at least here in California, the number of votes at each polling place are posted on site at the end of the day. Which means that anyone just adding votes would have to go around and mess with those as well. (And copies of the totals are both included with the ballots, and separately mailed to the county clerk’s election office. Which means that all three would have to be tampered with.
We have a long history of electoral cheating in the US?
The operative word being “history.”
In the days of machine politics, it happened some — especially in local races. But the last time I remember an even vaguely credible accusation of it happening was in 1960. When, I heard it said (I know not with what basis), Mayor Daley (of Chicago) was reputed to have “voted the graveyards” in order to tip Illinois, and thus the Presidency, to Kennedy. But since then? Nothing that come close to being credible.
I would like to second sapient’s suggestion to work an election. It gives you a whole lot better take on how the process works than you can ever get by just spending a few minutes at the polling place while casting your ballot. It also makes clear just how difficult it would be to get fake votes cast — and hence how ridiculous calls for voter IDs are.
Now if someone wants to argue about how the vote numbers could be altered later, that might be another story. But, at least here in California, the number of votes at each polling place are posted on site at the end of the day. Which means that anyone just adding votes would have to go around and mess with those as well. (And copies of the totals are both included with the ballots, and separately mailed to the county clerk’s election office. Which means that all three would have to be tampered with.
I like the Monitor, the NYT is clearly to be screened with care and the opinion columns of WaPo are interesting, the rest is crap. I read the Guardian a lot.
I like the Monitor, the NYT is clearly to be screened with care and the opinion columns of WaPo are interesting, the rest is crap. I read the Guardian a lot.
I like the Monitor, the NYT is clearly to be screened with care and the opinion columns of WaPo are interesting, the rest is crap. I read the Guardian a lot.
As a good friend of mine says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
The problem is an inability to discern which is which. In my opinion.
Yes. And some outlets are serving up skeletons, which some people eat up eagerly, while turning up their noses at the bounty of meat to be found elsewhere.
I tend to look for and account for liberal bias both in myself and my news. I’m sure I fail sometimes, but I do try. A lot of people I know only see bias on the other side of the political spectrum, and none on their own. It’s the sort of selective skepticism that, taken to an extreme, allows one to become a nutty conspiracy theorist.
As a good friend of mine says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
The problem is an inability to discern which is which. In my opinion.
Yes. And some outlets are serving up skeletons, which some people eat up eagerly, while turning up their noses at the bounty of meat to be found elsewhere.
I tend to look for and account for liberal bias both in myself and my news. I’m sure I fail sometimes, but I do try. A lot of people I know only see bias on the other side of the political spectrum, and none on their own. It’s the sort of selective skepticism that, taken to an extreme, allows one to become a nutty conspiracy theorist.
As a good friend of mine says, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
The problem is an inability to discern which is which. In my opinion.
Yes. And some outlets are serving up skeletons, which some people eat up eagerly, while turning up their noses at the bounty of meat to be found elsewhere.
I tend to look for and account for liberal bias both in myself and my news. I’m sure I fail sometimes, but I do try. A lot of people I know only see bias on the other side of the political spectrum, and none on their own. It’s the sort of selective skepticism that, taken to an extreme, allows one to become a nutty conspiracy theorist.
“get Obama’s name off it”
Via Talking Points Memo:
Senator Lindsay Graham, (R-SC)
Fine, call it Graham-O-Care. Call it Trump-O-Care. Magically discover that it was a Heritage plan in the first place, initially implemented by a (R) governor.
Don’t tell them it was done in MA, that will jinx it.
As long as a (D) didn’t do it, it’ll be OK.
Un-freaking-believable.
“get Obama’s name off it”
Via Talking Points Memo:
Senator Lindsay Graham, (R-SC)
Fine, call it Graham-O-Care. Call it Trump-O-Care. Magically discover that it was a Heritage plan in the first place, initially implemented by a (R) governor.
Don’t tell them it was done in MA, that will jinx it.
As long as a (D) didn’t do it, it’ll be OK.
Un-freaking-believable.
“get Obama’s name off it”
Via Talking Points Memo:
Senator Lindsay Graham, (R-SC)
Fine, call it Graham-O-Care. Call it Trump-O-Care. Magically discover that it was a Heritage plan in the first place, initially implemented by a (R) governor.
Don’t tell them it was done in MA, that will jinx it.
As long as a (D) didn’t do it, it’ll be OK.
Un-freaking-believable.
“I’d ask what happens when folks figure out that they are not, remotely, better off. But I think they’ll just blame the (D)’s.”
No, the swing votes, those that decide elections will vote for someone not Republican if that’s true. Won’t matter much who it is. That’s why Trump won. Those swing voters in the rust belt and Florida and a few other places aren’t better off than they were 8 years ago.
That is completely invisible in the statistics and in the robust job market in Boston, NY and SF.
But in those other places the recession never ended. So Trump won and the Republicans get to see if their policies will work.
If they don’t, then the other side gets another chance, or if the problems are different, same outcome.
“I’d ask what happens when folks figure out that they are not, remotely, better off. But I think they’ll just blame the (D)’s.”
No, the swing votes, those that decide elections will vote for someone not Republican if that’s true. Won’t matter much who it is. That’s why Trump won. Those swing voters in the rust belt and Florida and a few other places aren’t better off than they were 8 years ago.
That is completely invisible in the statistics and in the robust job market in Boston, NY and SF.
But in those other places the recession never ended. So Trump won and the Republicans get to see if their policies will work.
If they don’t, then the other side gets another chance, or if the problems are different, same outcome.
“I’d ask what happens when folks figure out that they are not, remotely, better off. But I think they’ll just blame the (D)’s.”
No, the swing votes, those that decide elections will vote for someone not Republican if that’s true. Won’t matter much who it is. That’s why Trump won. Those swing voters in the rust belt and Florida and a few other places aren’t better off than they were 8 years ago.
That is completely invisible in the statistics and in the robust job market in Boston, NY and SF.
But in those other places the recession never ended. So Trump won and the Republicans get to see if their policies will work.
If they don’t, then the other side gets another chance, or if the problems are different, same outcome.
Those swing voters in the rust belt and Florida and a few other places aren’t better off than they were 8 years ago.
they’re about to learn (ha, i’m kidding) that the President doesn’t actually run the economy.
Those swing voters in the rust belt and Florida and a few other places aren’t better off than they were 8 years ago.
they’re about to learn (ha, i’m kidding) that the President doesn’t actually run the economy.
Those swing voters in the rust belt and Florida and a few other places aren’t better off than they were 8 years ago.
they’re about to learn (ha, i’m kidding) that the President doesn’t actually run the economy.
they’re about to learn (ha, i’m kidding) that the President doesn’t actually run the economy.
They say that, but to the extent that Democrats did set the tone for economic recovery with a stimulus package and the ACA, they did a hugely good job, because despite the lack of propaganda promoting it, we are improving at a record pace.
It will probably continue until Republican policies set in, and/or Trump starts a major war within the continental US.
they’re about to learn (ha, i’m kidding) that the President doesn’t actually run the economy.
They say that, but to the extent that Democrats did set the tone for economic recovery with a stimulus package and the ACA, they did a hugely good job, because despite the lack of propaganda promoting it, we are improving at a record pace.
It will probably continue until Republican policies set in, and/or Trump starts a major war within the continental US.
they’re about to learn (ha, i’m kidding) that the President doesn’t actually run the economy.
They say that, but to the extent that Democrats did set the tone for economic recovery with a stimulus package and the ACA, they did a hugely good job, because despite the lack of propaganda promoting it, we are improving at a record pace.
It will probably continue until Republican policies set in, and/or Trump starts a major war within the continental US.
With a tight labor market lifting wage growth and boosting household sentiment, consumer spending is likely to gain further momentum for the rest of the year and in 2017.
Even oldsters are working again.
With a tight labor market lifting wage growth and boosting household sentiment, consumer spending is likely to gain further momentum for the rest of the year and in 2017.
Even oldsters are working again.
With a tight labor market lifting wage growth and boosting household sentiment, consumer spending is likely to gain further momentum for the rest of the year and in 2017.
Even oldsters are working again.
But in those other places the recession never ended.
Believe it or not, even though I’m a liberal coastal elitist living in a robust job market, I understand that.
I don’t even have to go to The Heartland to get that, I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Springfield, or Holyoke, or Fall River.
Not a whole lot of “robust Boston job market” in those places. And, I’m sure in lots and lots and lots of places, it’s even worse. Much much worse.
All of that said, in general, I think your analysis is pretty much accurate.
Trump’s kind of a wild card because he has no grasp of the normal functioning of government, and will do a lot of crazy crap because he’s just such a special guy.
I’m curious to see, for instance, how renegotiating bilateral agreements with all the parties to the TPP that he’s blowing off are gonna go in the context of our nightly Presidential tweet-storms. Or what it’s going to be like for the POTUS’ private business enterprise to owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign sovereign creditors. Stuff like that.
I have no, really no, idea how much of the furniture he’s going to break before he’s done.
It’s not a reality show! It’s reality! Sad!
Maybe he and the kids will settle for making a stupendous crapload of money out of marketing POTUS The Brand and let the pros handle the governmental heavy lifting.
Hopefully the Nazis will figure out that they really weren’t invited to the party after all. Hopefully, the Nazis really *weren’t* invited to the party after all.
But even if the (R) establishment can kind of keep him more or less under control, we’re in for another round of dysfunctional crap. Not necessarily because the (R)’s are evil, but because there is no consensus within the country about what we’re about.
But in those other places the recession never ended.
Believe it or not, even though I’m a liberal coastal elitist living in a robust job market, I understand that.
I don’t even have to go to The Heartland to get that, I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Springfield, or Holyoke, or Fall River.
Not a whole lot of “robust Boston job market” in those places. And, I’m sure in lots and lots and lots of places, it’s even worse. Much much worse.
All of that said, in general, I think your analysis is pretty much accurate.
Trump’s kind of a wild card because he has no grasp of the normal functioning of government, and will do a lot of crazy crap because he’s just such a special guy.
I’m curious to see, for instance, how renegotiating bilateral agreements with all the parties to the TPP that he’s blowing off are gonna go in the context of our nightly Presidential tweet-storms. Or what it’s going to be like for the POTUS’ private business enterprise to owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign sovereign creditors. Stuff like that.
I have no, really no, idea how much of the furniture he’s going to break before he’s done.
It’s not a reality show! It’s reality! Sad!
Maybe he and the kids will settle for making a stupendous crapload of money out of marketing POTUS The Brand and let the pros handle the governmental heavy lifting.
Hopefully the Nazis will figure out that they really weren’t invited to the party after all. Hopefully, the Nazis really *weren’t* invited to the party after all.
But even if the (R) establishment can kind of keep him more or less under control, we’re in for another round of dysfunctional crap. Not necessarily because the (R)’s are evil, but because there is no consensus within the country about what we’re about.
But in those other places the recession never ended.
Believe it or not, even though I’m a liberal coastal elitist living in a robust job market, I understand that.
I don’t even have to go to The Heartland to get that, I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Springfield, or Holyoke, or Fall River.
Not a whole lot of “robust Boston job market” in those places. And, I’m sure in lots and lots and lots of places, it’s even worse. Much much worse.
All of that said, in general, I think your analysis is pretty much accurate.
Trump’s kind of a wild card because he has no grasp of the normal functioning of government, and will do a lot of crazy crap because he’s just such a special guy.
I’m curious to see, for instance, how renegotiating bilateral agreements with all the parties to the TPP that he’s blowing off are gonna go in the context of our nightly Presidential tweet-storms. Or what it’s going to be like for the POTUS’ private business enterprise to owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign sovereign creditors. Stuff like that.
I have no, really no, idea how much of the furniture he’s going to break before he’s done.
It’s not a reality show! It’s reality! Sad!
Maybe he and the kids will settle for making a stupendous crapload of money out of marketing POTUS The Brand and let the pros handle the governmental heavy lifting.
Hopefully the Nazis will figure out that they really weren’t invited to the party after all. Hopefully, the Nazis really *weren’t* invited to the party after all.
But even if the (R) establishment can kind of keep him more or less under control, we’re in for another round of dysfunctional crap. Not necessarily because the (R)’s are evil, but because there is no consensus within the country about what we’re about.
I don’t even have to go to The Heartland to get that, I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Springfield, or Holyoke, or Fall River.
Really, russell? Did you go there? How did you evaluate it? Are you too refuting the economic numbers?
Don’t spread lies, even if it makes you seem compassionate. If the numbers are wrong, explain it.
I don’t even have to go to The Heartland to get that, I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Springfield, or Holyoke, or Fall River.
Really, russell? Did you go there? How did you evaluate it? Are you too refuting the economic numbers?
Don’t spread lies, even if it makes you seem compassionate. If the numbers are wrong, explain it.
I don’t even have to go to The Heartland to get that, I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Springfield, or Holyoke, or Fall River.
Really, russell? Did you go there? How did you evaluate it? Are you too refuting the economic numbers?
Don’t spread lies, even if it makes you seem compassionate. If the numbers are wrong, explain it.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, because I really think what you say is important, russell. There are ALWAYS going to be people who lose jobs, whose work is obsolete, or who aren’t coping with change in a good way. And age discrimination is a real thing.
But I also know that family members of mine don’t want to look for work anymore, not because they’re discouraged, but because they’re almost at retirement age, and they think they can make it. They have no interest in learning new stuff. I don’t blame them. On the other hand, I’m not going to vote Trump because of their “plight”.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, because I really think what you say is important, russell. There are ALWAYS going to be people who lose jobs, whose work is obsolete, or who aren’t coping with change in a good way. And age discrimination is a real thing.
But I also know that family members of mine don’t want to look for work anymore, not because they’re discouraged, but because they’re almost at retirement age, and they think they can make it. They have no interest in learning new stuff. I don’t blame them. On the other hand, I’m not going to vote Trump because of their “plight”.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, because I really think what you say is important, russell. There are ALWAYS going to be people who lose jobs, whose work is obsolete, or who aren’t coping with change in a good way. And age discrimination is a real thing.
But I also know that family members of mine don’t want to look for work anymore, not because they’re discouraged, but because they’re almost at retirement age, and they think they can make it. They have no interest in learning new stuff. I don’t blame them. On the other hand, I’m not going to vote Trump because of their “plight”.
Really, russell? Did you go there?
Yes, I’ve been to Lowell. I can walk to Lynn.
It’s great that the unemployment figures are improving, and it’s great that low-end wages are picking up. All good.
And I absolutely give (D)’s the credit for that. I think (R) economic policies suck for people who aren’t in at least the top 10% of the economy. Absolutely suck.
Please see my comment upthread about Trump’s plan to lower all of the tax brackets, except the very lowest one. Nice guy!!
All of that said, there are a lot of poor people in all of the cities in my list. Specifically, the “robust Boston job market” that Marty refers to is not a large factor in those communities.
Really, russell? Did you go there?
Yes, I’ve been to Lowell. I can walk to Lynn.
It’s great that the unemployment figures are improving, and it’s great that low-end wages are picking up. All good.
And I absolutely give (D)’s the credit for that. I think (R) economic policies suck for people who aren’t in at least the top 10% of the economy. Absolutely suck.
Please see my comment upthread about Trump’s plan to lower all of the tax brackets, except the very lowest one. Nice guy!!
All of that said, there are a lot of poor people in all of the cities in my list. Specifically, the “robust Boston job market” that Marty refers to is not a large factor in those communities.
Really, russell? Did you go there?
Yes, I’ve been to Lowell. I can walk to Lynn.
It’s great that the unemployment figures are improving, and it’s great that low-end wages are picking up. All good.
And I absolutely give (D)’s the credit for that. I think (R) economic policies suck for people who aren’t in at least the top 10% of the economy. Absolutely suck.
Please see my comment upthread about Trump’s plan to lower all of the tax brackets, except the very lowest one. Nice guy!!
All of that said, there are a lot of poor people in all of the cities in my list. Specifically, the “robust Boston job market” that Marty refers to is not a large factor in those communities.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, because I really think what you say is important
No worries, it’s worth calling attention to the difference between 8 years ago and now.
Who made it happen? Not the (R)’s.
But I also know that family members of mine don’t want to look for work anymore, not because they’re discouraged, but because they’re almost at retirement age, and they think they can make it
LOL.
Nice work if you can get it.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, because I really think what you say is important
No worries, it’s worth calling attention to the difference between 8 years ago and now.
Who made it happen? Not the (R)’s.
But I also know that family members of mine don’t want to look for work anymore, not because they’re discouraged, but because they’re almost at retirement age, and they think they can make it
LOL.
Nice work if you can get it.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, because I really think what you say is important
No worries, it’s worth calling attention to the difference between 8 years ago and now.
Who made it happen? Not the (R)’s.
But I also know that family members of mine don’t want to look for work anymore, not because they’re discouraged, but because they’re almost at retirement age, and they think they can make it
LOL.
Nice work if you can get it.
I know you’re on my side, russell, and I also know that I’m an a$$h0le. I learned all of that here.
I’m not against poor people. I do Meals on Wheels for Section 8 housing folks, and I know that there are people who can’t get a break no matter what. But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide. And, yes, there are pockets where the recession still goes on. But they are pockets, and even they are doing better as the “evidence” (remember facts?) proves.
I know you’re on my side, russell, and I also know that I’m an a$$h0le. I learned all of that here.
I’m not against poor people. I do Meals on Wheels for Section 8 housing folks, and I know that there are people who can’t get a break no matter what. But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide. And, yes, there are pockets where the recession still goes on. But they are pockets, and even they are doing better as the “evidence” (remember facts?) proves.
I know you’re on my side, russell, and I also know that I’m an a$$h0le. I learned all of that here.
I’m not against poor people. I do Meals on Wheels for Section 8 housing folks, and I know that there are people who can’t get a break no matter what. But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide. And, yes, there are pockets where the recession still goes on. But they are pockets, and even they are doing better as the “evidence” (remember facts?) proves.
We cross-posted, russell. Peace.
We cross-posted, russell. Peace.
We cross-posted, russell. Peace.
And for the record, one of the reasons that many of the communities in my list of MA cities struggle is because they are, and traditionally always have been, entry points for immigration.
Lots of poor people, people with limited English skills, people with at most entry-level professional skills or professional skills that they are not accredited to practice here.
Schools have to deal with kids who don’t speak English.
Lowell is about 25% foreign born. Lynn is about 30%. Lawrence, almost 40%.
Salem, which these days is kind of a hip thriving small city, is 15% foreign born.
FWIW, we aren’t interested in building a wall around MA.
And for the record, one of the reasons that many of the communities in my list of MA cities struggle is because they are, and traditionally always have been, entry points for immigration.
Lots of poor people, people with limited English skills, people with at most entry-level professional skills or professional skills that they are not accredited to practice here.
Schools have to deal with kids who don’t speak English.
Lowell is about 25% foreign born. Lynn is about 30%. Lawrence, almost 40%.
Salem, which these days is kind of a hip thriving small city, is 15% foreign born.
FWIW, we aren’t interested in building a wall around MA.
And for the record, one of the reasons that many of the communities in my list of MA cities struggle is because they are, and traditionally always have been, entry points for immigration.
Lots of poor people, people with limited English skills, people with at most entry-level professional skills or professional skills that they are not accredited to practice here.
Schools have to deal with kids who don’t speak English.
Lowell is about 25% foreign born. Lynn is about 30%. Lawrence, almost 40%.
Salem, which these days is kind of a hip thriving small city, is 15% foreign born.
FWIW, we aren’t interested in building a wall around MA.
FWIW, we aren’t interested in building a wall around MA.
Thanks, russell. The folks you’re talking about then aren’t WWC, some of the people I was going on about.
FWIW, we aren’t interested in building a wall around MA.
Thanks, russell. The folks you’re talking about then aren’t WWC, some of the people I was going on about.
FWIW, we aren’t interested in building a wall around MA.
Thanks, russell. The folks you’re talking about then aren’t WWC, some of the people I was going on about.
Schools have to deal with kids who don’t speak English.
One of my best friends, and I don’t see enough of her because she works too hard, is an ESOL teacher here in C’ville. We are also a very multilingual community. And schools “have to deal” but when they do deal, everyone is better off. I know this because? I know kids who’ve been there.
This is why I’m skeptical about protectionist, anti-Trade “progressives”. Go to places that have benefitted from these agreements. Tell those people that you don’t want them.
Schools have to deal with kids who don’t speak English.
One of my best friends, and I don’t see enough of her because she works too hard, is an ESOL teacher here in C’ville. We are also a very multilingual community. And schools “have to deal” but when they do deal, everyone is better off. I know this because? I know kids who’ve been there.
This is why I’m skeptical about protectionist, anti-Trade “progressives”. Go to places that have benefitted from these agreements. Tell those people that you don’t want them.
Schools have to deal with kids who don’t speak English.
One of my best friends, and I don’t see enough of her because she works too hard, is an ESOL teacher here in C’ville. We are also a very multilingual community. And schools “have to deal” but when they do deal, everyone is better off. I know this because? I know kids who’ve been there.
This is why I’m skeptical about protectionist, anti-Trade “progressives”. Go to places that have benefitted from these agreements. Tell those people that you don’t want them.
Re: voter ID.
Sheesh. I told everyone how to solve this: just have HHS issue a photo ID to all recipients of Medicaid, CHIP, unemployment insurance, TANF, and SS benefits.
A FEDERAL ID, with photo, name, and expiration date. Sent out for zero cost. Any state that tries to keep it from being used as a Voter ID is going to get it’s butt kicked in Federal Court.
But Obama didn’t. even. try.
Sheesh.
Re: voter ID.
Sheesh. I told everyone how to solve this: just have HHS issue a photo ID to all recipients of Medicaid, CHIP, unemployment insurance, TANF, and SS benefits.
A FEDERAL ID, with photo, name, and expiration date. Sent out for zero cost. Any state that tries to keep it from being used as a Voter ID is going to get it’s butt kicked in Federal Court.
But Obama didn’t. even. try.
Sheesh.
Re: voter ID.
Sheesh. I told everyone how to solve this: just have HHS issue a photo ID to all recipients of Medicaid, CHIP, unemployment insurance, TANF, and SS benefits.
A FEDERAL ID, with photo, name, and expiration date. Sent out for zero cost. Any state that tries to keep it from being used as a Voter ID is going to get it’s butt kicked in Federal Court.
But Obama didn’t. even. try.
Sheesh.
Obama never listens to you, Snarki. That’s what has always bothered me most about him.
Obama never listens to you, Snarki. That’s what has always bothered me most about him.
Obama never listens to you, Snarki. That’s what has always bothered me most about him.
That’s an excellent idea, Snarki. Serioulsy.
That’s an excellent idea, Snarki. Serioulsy.
That’s an excellent idea, Snarki. Serioulsy.
I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester…
A friend moved from Colorado to Worcester earlier this year (she married a dean at one of the universities there). She complains bitterly about hearing nighttime gunfire on a regular basis. This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery. (And yes, given her background, she’s entirely qualified to recognize gunfire as compared to other noises.)
I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester…
A friend moved from Colorado to Worcester earlier this year (she married a dean at one of the universities there). She complains bitterly about hearing nighttime gunfire on a regular basis. This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery. (And yes, given her background, she’s entirely qualified to recognize gunfire as compared to other noises.)
I just have to go to Lynn, or Worcester…
A friend moved from Colorado to Worcester earlier this year (she married a dean at one of the universities there). She complains bitterly about hearing nighttime gunfire on a regular basis. This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery. (And yes, given her background, she’s entirely qualified to recognize gunfire as compared to other noises.)
This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery.
Really? Here in VA, I hear it all the time. I don’t support it, and it’s ugly for sure. It used to be frightening, and it really enraged me when they shot my cat 15 years ago. But it has nothing to do with the fact that we’re doing really well economically.
Guns are horrible. I’m against guns. WWC whining is a wholly different issue.
This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery.
Really? Here in VA, I hear it all the time. I don’t support it, and it’s ugly for sure. It used to be frightening, and it really enraged me when they shot my cat 15 years ago. But it has nothing to do with the fact that we’re doing really well economically.
Guns are horrible. I’m against guns. WWC whining is a wholly different issue.
This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery.
Really? Here in VA, I hear it all the time. I don’t support it, and it’s ugly for sure. It used to be frightening, and it really enraged me when they shot my cat 15 years ago. But it has nothing to do with the fact that we’re doing really well economically.
Guns are horrible. I’m against guns. WWC whining is a wholly different issue.
Worcester, MA unemployment rate is less than 4%.
I’m sorry. What are you saying? I am a Democrat and I support everyone who is poor or suffering. But we aren’t in a bad place right now, so stop it please, with the “complain bitterly”.
Worcester, MA unemployment rate is less than 4%.
I’m sorry. What are you saying? I am a Democrat and I support everyone who is poor or suffering. But we aren’t in a bad place right now, so stop it please, with the “complain bitterly”.
Worcester, MA unemployment rate is less than 4%.
I’m sorry. What are you saying? I am a Democrat and I support everyone who is poor or suffering. But we aren’t in a bad place right now, so stop it please, with the “complain bitterly”.
Oops. Meant to fix that.
Oops. Meant to fix that.
Oops. Meant to fix that.
I stand corrected, I guess. Neighborhoods with regular nighttime gunfire are doing well? Population growing? People moving in to raise their families? Opening new businesses with employees that live in the area?
I stand corrected, I guess. Neighborhoods with regular nighttime gunfire are doing well? Population growing? People moving in to raise their families? Opening new businesses with employees that live in the area?
I stand corrected, I guess. Neighborhoods with regular nighttime gunfire are doing well? Population growing? People moving in to raise their families? Opening new businesses with employees that live in the area?
Neighborhoods with regular nighttime gunfire are doing well?
I live in a neighborhood that is quite privileged. And, white. And I hear gunfire. And kids live here.
You’re behind if you think that guns = “economic anxiety”.
Gun culture is a thing. It has nothing to do with poverty.
Neighborhoods with regular nighttime gunfire are doing well?
I live in a neighborhood that is quite privileged. And, white. And I hear gunfire. And kids live here.
You’re behind if you think that guns = “economic anxiety”.
Gun culture is a thing. It has nothing to do with poverty.
Neighborhoods with regular nighttime gunfire are doing well?
I live in a neighborhood that is quite privileged. And, white. And I hear gunfire. And kids live here.
You’re behind if you think that guns = “economic anxiety”.
Gun culture is a thing. It has nothing to do with poverty.
I also know that I’m an a$$h0le. I learned all of that here.
Welcome to the club!
I also know that I’m an a$$h0le. I learned all of that here.
Welcome to the club!
I also know that I’m an a$$h0le. I learned all of that here.
Welcome to the club!
Welcome to the club!
Hey, nobody thinks that about you, but thanks.
Welcome to the club!
Hey, nobody thinks that about you, but thanks.
Welcome to the club!
Hey, nobody thinks that about you, but thanks.
It’s funny you mention that, sapient. I have a good friend who was home for Thanksgiving and stopped by for a visit. He moved to the Charlottesville area about a year ago. He’s outside of town on a bigger plot of land. He said one of his neighbors raises animals and the other likes to shoot and blow stuff up. He mentioned a college friend visiting and hearing gun shots, asking if you were allowed to shoot guns around there. My friend said he wasn’t exactly sure if it was legal, but that you could pretty much do it if you had enough land to be sufficiently far away from other people – or at least people who would complain.
It’s funny you mention that, sapient. I have a good friend who was home for Thanksgiving and stopped by for a visit. He moved to the Charlottesville area about a year ago. He’s outside of town on a bigger plot of land. He said one of his neighbors raises animals and the other likes to shoot and blow stuff up. He mentioned a college friend visiting and hearing gun shots, asking if you were allowed to shoot guns around there. My friend said he wasn’t exactly sure if it was legal, but that you could pretty much do it if you had enough land to be sufficiently far away from other people – or at least people who would complain.
It’s funny you mention that, sapient. I have a good friend who was home for Thanksgiving and stopped by for a visit. He moved to the Charlottesville area about a year ago. He’s outside of town on a bigger plot of land. He said one of his neighbors raises animals and the other likes to shoot and blow stuff up. He mentioned a college friend visiting and hearing gun shots, asking if you were allowed to shoot guns around there. My friend said he wasn’t exactly sure if it was legal, but that you could pretty much do it if you had enough land to be sufficiently far away from other people – or at least people who would complain.
That’s an excellent idea, Snarki. Serioulsy.
Yes, it is! Seconded.
A friend moved from Colorado to Worcester earlier this year (she married a dean at one of the universities there). She complains bitterly about hearing nighttime gunfire on a regular basis. This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery.
Chickens, eggs. Which one comes first?
Hard to say. Opinions vary.
When I first moved to Salem MA I lived in a “ghetto” next to a sort-of down-on-its-heels mill complex. Folks used to bring their stolen cars to the parking lot and set them on fire.
Good times! Relative to where I was living in Philly, it was a sort-of step up. At least there weren’t any drunks sleeping on the porch in the morning.
Now Salem is the freaking Brooklyn of Boston’s north shore. Go figure.
Did all the gang-bangers move out so the hipsters could move in? Or did the generally improving economy of the city displace them with folks who didn’t want cars burning next door?
I don’t know. Hard to say.
Worcester is still kind of a hard-scrabble city. There are lots of them around here. The region where I live is where the industrial revolution began in the US, there are many cities that are still trying to figure out how to adjust to the loss of their traditional (as of 50 years ago) manufacturing base.
The Rust Belt ain’t just in the midwest. We’re all heartland, folks.
Regarding full employment, a low unemployment rate is good, people getting paid something they can live on, even better.
I know that wasn’t the point you were making sapient, I’m just exploiting your comment to make my own. 🙂
That’s an excellent idea, Snarki. Serioulsy.
Yes, it is! Seconded.
A friend moved from Colorado to Worcester earlier this year (she married a dean at one of the universities there). She complains bitterly about hearing nighttime gunfire on a regular basis. This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery.
Chickens, eggs. Which one comes first?
Hard to say. Opinions vary.
When I first moved to Salem MA I lived in a “ghetto” next to a sort-of down-on-its-heels mill complex. Folks used to bring their stolen cars to the parking lot and set them on fire.
Good times! Relative to where I was living in Philly, it was a sort-of step up. At least there weren’t any drunks sleeping on the porch in the morning.
Now Salem is the freaking Brooklyn of Boston’s north shore. Go figure.
Did all the gang-bangers move out so the hipsters could move in? Or did the generally improving economy of the city displace them with folks who didn’t want cars burning next door?
I don’t know. Hard to say.
Worcester is still kind of a hard-scrabble city. There are lots of them around here. The region where I live is where the industrial revolution began in the US, there are many cities that are still trying to figure out how to adjust to the loss of their traditional (as of 50 years ago) manufacturing base.
The Rust Belt ain’t just in the midwest. We’re all heartland, folks.
Regarding full employment, a low unemployment rate is good, people getting paid something they can live on, even better.
I know that wasn’t the point you were making sapient, I’m just exploiting your comment to make my own. 🙂
That’s an excellent idea, Snarki. Serioulsy.
Yes, it is! Seconded.
A friend moved from Colorado to Worcester earlier this year (she married a dean at one of the universities there). She complains bitterly about hearing nighttime gunfire on a regular basis. This is a problem that has to be solved before there’s going to be any real economic recovery.
Chickens, eggs. Which one comes first?
Hard to say. Opinions vary.
When I first moved to Salem MA I lived in a “ghetto” next to a sort-of down-on-its-heels mill complex. Folks used to bring their stolen cars to the parking lot and set them on fire.
Good times! Relative to where I was living in Philly, it was a sort-of step up. At least there weren’t any drunks sleeping on the porch in the morning.
Now Salem is the freaking Brooklyn of Boston’s north shore. Go figure.
Did all the gang-bangers move out so the hipsters could move in? Or did the generally improving economy of the city displace them with folks who didn’t want cars burning next door?
I don’t know. Hard to say.
Worcester is still kind of a hard-scrabble city. There are lots of them around here. The region where I live is where the industrial revolution began in the US, there are many cities that are still trying to figure out how to adjust to the loss of their traditional (as of 50 years ago) manufacturing base.
The Rust Belt ain’t just in the midwest. We’re all heartland, folks.
Regarding full employment, a low unemployment rate is good, people getting paid something they can live on, even better.
I know that wasn’t the point you were making sapient, I’m just exploiting your comment to make my own. 🙂
Hey, nobody thinks that about you, but thanks.
Haha! As if!!
*I* think I’m an asshole most of the time. Not infrequently, I’m right.
But thanks for the kind words.
Hey, nobody thinks that about you, but thanks.
Haha! As if!!
*I* think I’m an asshole most of the time. Not infrequently, I’m right.
But thanks for the kind words.
Hey, nobody thinks that about you, but thanks.
Haha! As if!!
*I* think I’m an asshole most of the time. Not infrequently, I’m right.
But thanks for the kind words.
I’ve said before that I often feel like the booming inland western metro area where I live is like a whole different country than what I read/hear about the East. Gun ownership rates here are much higher than either Virginia or Massachusetts. And we’ve got at least our share of nuts who get guns. But hearing gunfire is rare enough that people make a big deal about it at work the next day. Hearing gunfire regularly? Bad neighborhood, almost certainly with plenty of economic anxiety.
I’ve said before that I often feel like the booming inland western metro area where I live is like a whole different country than what I read/hear about the East. Gun ownership rates here are much higher than either Virginia or Massachusetts. And we’ve got at least our share of nuts who get guns. But hearing gunfire is rare enough that people make a big deal about it at work the next day. Hearing gunfire regularly? Bad neighborhood, almost certainly with plenty of economic anxiety.
I’ve said before that I often feel like the booming inland western metro area where I live is like a whole different country than what I read/hear about the East. Gun ownership rates here are much higher than either Virginia or Massachusetts. And we’ve got at least our share of nuts who get guns. But hearing gunfire is rare enough that people make a big deal about it at work the next day. Hearing gunfire regularly? Bad neighborhood, almost certainly with plenty of economic anxiety.
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!!@
But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide.
I agree that the unemployment numbers are much better. But what isn’t addressed by the unemployment numbers is income.
A lot of people, job or no job, don’t have enough money to live on in any way that anyone would want to live.
There are many reasons for that, including two generations of beating up on organized labor. But whatever the causes, the net result is that a lot of people are poor.
And, in the context of the WWC, a lot of people who *never expected to be poor*, are poor.
Yes, some folks have it tougher than the white working class (whoever they are), but the white working class nonetheless has good reason for their dissatisfaction.
In my opinion.
I have no problem with the WWC, or rural people, or the *merely high-school educated”, or whoever, being dissatisfied with their situation. Were I them, I would be dissatisfied with my situation.
I’m not patient or sympathetic with them blaming black and brown people for their plight. Black and brown people are not the cause of their ills.
Want to fix the problem, understand the cause. If you don’t understand the cause, you will not fix the problem.
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!!@
But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide.
I agree that the unemployment numbers are much better. But what isn’t addressed by the unemployment numbers is income.
A lot of people, job or no job, don’t have enough money to live on in any way that anyone would want to live.
There are many reasons for that, including two generations of beating up on organized labor. But whatever the causes, the net result is that a lot of people are poor.
And, in the context of the WWC, a lot of people who *never expected to be poor*, are poor.
Yes, some folks have it tougher than the white working class (whoever they are), but the white working class nonetheless has good reason for their dissatisfaction.
In my opinion.
I have no problem with the WWC, or rural people, or the *merely high-school educated”, or whoever, being dissatisfied with their situation. Were I them, I would be dissatisfied with my situation.
I’m not patient or sympathetic with them blaming black and brown people for their plight. Black and brown people are not the cause of their ills.
Want to fix the problem, understand the cause. If you don’t understand the cause, you will not fix the problem.
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!!@
But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide.
I agree that the unemployment numbers are much better. But what isn’t addressed by the unemployment numbers is income.
A lot of people, job or no job, don’t have enough money to live on in any way that anyone would want to live.
There are many reasons for that, including two generations of beating up on organized labor. But whatever the causes, the net result is that a lot of people are poor.
And, in the context of the WWC, a lot of people who *never expected to be poor*, are poor.
Yes, some folks have it tougher than the white working class (whoever they are), but the white working class nonetheless has good reason for their dissatisfaction.
In my opinion.
I have no problem with the WWC, or rural people, or the *merely high-school educated”, or whoever, being dissatisfied with their situation. Were I them, I would be dissatisfied with my situation.
I’m not patient or sympathetic with them blaming black and brown people for their plight. Black and brown people are not the cause of their ills.
Want to fix the problem, understand the cause. If you don’t understand the cause, you will not fix the problem.
He moved to the Charlottesville area about a year ago. He’s outside of town on a bigger plot of land. He said one of his neighbors raises animals and the other likes to shoot and blow stuff up.
Hmmm. Maybe we should have a C’ville meetup someday. If you dare!
Thanks to all of you for your friendship during this time of crisis. I’m losing my mind over the election, but hope to find balance at some point between sanity and sufficient anger to resist. Goodnight.
He moved to the Charlottesville area about a year ago. He’s outside of town on a bigger plot of land. He said one of his neighbors raises animals and the other likes to shoot and blow stuff up.
Hmmm. Maybe we should have a C’ville meetup someday. If you dare!
Thanks to all of you for your friendship during this time of crisis. I’m losing my mind over the election, but hope to find balance at some point between sanity and sufficient anger to resist. Goodnight.
He moved to the Charlottesville area about a year ago. He’s outside of town on a bigger plot of land. He said one of his neighbors raises animals and the other likes to shoot and blow stuff up.
Hmmm. Maybe we should have a C’ville meetup someday. If you dare!
Thanks to all of you for your friendship during this time of crisis. I’m losing my mind over the election, but hope to find balance at some point between sanity and sufficient anger to resist. Goodnight.
*I* think I’m an asshole most of the time. Not infrequently, I’m right
Which is, presumably, a step up from being condescending.
*I* think I’m an asshole most of the time. Not infrequently, I’m right
Which is, presumably, a step up from being condescending.
*I* think I’m an asshole most of the time. Not infrequently, I’m right
Which is, presumably, a step up from being condescending.
Hearing gunfire regularly? Bad neighborhood, almost certainly with plenty of economic anxiety.
I can’t speak to your friend’s situation. I can say that I’ve spent most of my adult life in and around small, medium, and large cities in the Northeast, the sound of gunfire is extraordinarily rare. As in, I’ve never heard it.
Just speaking for my experience. Which is, at worst, ghetto-lite. But nonetheless.
The last time I heard gunfire at night was while staying with family in the Whiteaker neighborhood of Eugene OR.
Hearing gunfire regularly? Bad neighborhood, almost certainly with plenty of economic anxiety.
I can’t speak to your friend’s situation. I can say that I’ve spent most of my adult life in and around small, medium, and large cities in the Northeast, the sound of gunfire is extraordinarily rare. As in, I’ve never heard it.
Just speaking for my experience. Which is, at worst, ghetto-lite. But nonetheless.
The last time I heard gunfire at night was while staying with family in the Whiteaker neighborhood of Eugene OR.
Hearing gunfire regularly? Bad neighborhood, almost certainly with plenty of economic anxiety.
I can’t speak to your friend’s situation. I can say that I’ve spent most of my adult life in and around small, medium, and large cities in the Northeast, the sound of gunfire is extraordinarily rare. As in, I’ve never heard it.
Just speaking for my experience. Which is, at worst, ghetto-lite. But nonetheless.
The last time I heard gunfire at night was while staying with family in the Whiteaker neighborhood of Eugene OR.
Which is, presumably, a step up from being condescending.
LOL. No, I can do condescending, too. 🙂
I try not to be an ass, but sometimes it just gets away from me.
Which is, presumably, a step up from being condescending.
LOL. No, I can do condescending, too. 🙂
I try not to be an ass, but sometimes it just gets away from me.
Which is, presumably, a step up from being condescending.
LOL. No, I can do condescending, too. 🙂
I try not to be an ass, but sometimes it just gets away from me.
“But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide.”
Ugh. There are a whole lot of things to unpack here.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
3) The jobs have worse benefits than before
4) The jobs aren’t as long term or secure as before
5) The jobs are located in cities where the cost of renting a home are up by a massive amount.
5a) Many of the jobs are located in places where housing is entirely unaffordable, requiring incredibly long commuting times.
6) Many of the jobs have less secure hours than before, which means that juggling any child care or elder care becomes almost impossible. (See also 5a).
“But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide.”
Ugh. There are a whole lot of things to unpack here.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
3) The jobs have worse benefits than before
4) The jobs aren’t as long term or secure as before
5) The jobs are located in cities where the cost of renting a home are up by a massive amount.
5a) Many of the jobs are located in places where housing is entirely unaffordable, requiring incredibly long commuting times.
6) Many of the jobs have less secure hours than before, which means that juggling any child care or elder care becomes almost impossible. (See also 5a).
“But the WWC whining is only credible to a certain point. We are ACTUALLY at full employment. Not just in the cities, but country-wide.”
Ugh. There are a whole lot of things to unpack here.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
3) The jobs have worse benefits than before
4) The jobs aren’t as long term or secure as before
5) The jobs are located in cities where the cost of renting a home are up by a massive amount.
5a) Many of the jobs are located in places where housing is entirely unaffordable, requiring incredibly long commuting times.
6) Many of the jobs have less secure hours than before, which means that juggling any child care or elder care becomes almost impossible. (See also 5a).
On the other topic, if you want to understand why those more on the right have trouble trusting news organizations to be semi-neutral, try the Castro near haigography.
Barely a one sentence aside on the deadly prison work camps with homosexuals, journalists and other political undesireables? How did he avoid getting the Pinochet treatment when his regime is estimated at twice the number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings?
On the other topic, if you want to understand why those more on the right have trouble trusting news organizations to be semi-neutral, try the Castro near haigography.
Barely a one sentence aside on the deadly prison work camps with homosexuals, journalists and other political undesireables? How did he avoid getting the Pinochet treatment when his regime is estimated at twice the number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings?
On the other topic, if you want to understand why those more on the right have trouble trusting news organizations to be semi-neutral, try the Castro near haigography.
Barely a one sentence aside on the deadly prison work camps with homosexuals, journalists and other political undesireables? How did he avoid getting the Pinochet treatment when his regime is estimated at twice the number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings?
Looks like Palin (not Michael alas) is back and may soon run Veterans’ Affairs. Well, at least not the Pentagon (yet).
Meanwhile in the British army
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgU2DJlBiw
Looks like Palin (not Michael alas) is back and may soon run Veterans’ Affairs. Well, at least not the Pentagon (yet).
Meanwhile in the British army
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgU2DJlBiw
Looks like Palin (not Michael alas) is back and may soon run Veterans’ Affairs. Well, at least not the Pentagon (yet).
Meanwhile in the British army
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgU2DJlBiw
How did he avoid getting the Pinochet treatment when his regime is estimated at twice the number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings?
Because he didn’t have to leave Cuba to get medical treatment like Pinochet and then became the target of activists? Or because there really hasn’t been a political transition in Cuba like there has been in Chile?
I’m not arguing the hagiography is correct, but Pinochet’s exit (his wife reading a statement that he took responsibility for everything and then croaking three days later) kind of brings those questions front and center.
How did he avoid getting the Pinochet treatment when his regime is estimated at twice the number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings?
Because he didn’t have to leave Cuba to get medical treatment like Pinochet and then became the target of activists? Or because there really hasn’t been a political transition in Cuba like there has been in Chile?
I’m not arguing the hagiography is correct, but Pinochet’s exit (his wife reading a statement that he took responsibility for everything and then croaking three days later) kind of brings those questions front and center.
How did he avoid getting the Pinochet treatment when his regime is estimated at twice the number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings?
Because he didn’t have to leave Cuba to get medical treatment like Pinochet and then became the target of activists? Or because there really hasn’t been a political transition in Cuba like there has been in Chile?
I’m not arguing the hagiography is correct, but Pinochet’s exit (his wife reading a statement that he took responsibility for everything and then croaking three days later) kind of brings those questions front and center.
Ah, gunfire at night. It brings back fond memories.
Not anywhere in the USA, but at the edge of the Ardennes in France. Waking up to the sound of gunfire, what sounded like an automatic weapon. Followed by a single pistol shot.
No, it wasn’t some dream WWII fantasy, it was boar-hunting at night. And having seen one of those boars roaming around in daylight, YES, I’d want to have an automatic weapon too. ESPECIALLY so at night, in the forest.
But they are SO tasty, so there’s that.
Ah, gunfire at night. It brings back fond memories.
Not anywhere in the USA, but at the edge of the Ardennes in France. Waking up to the sound of gunfire, what sounded like an automatic weapon. Followed by a single pistol shot.
No, it wasn’t some dream WWII fantasy, it was boar-hunting at night. And having seen one of those boars roaming around in daylight, YES, I’d want to have an automatic weapon too. ESPECIALLY so at night, in the forest.
But they are SO tasty, so there’s that.
Ah, gunfire at night. It brings back fond memories.
Not anywhere in the USA, but at the edge of the Ardennes in France. Waking up to the sound of gunfire, what sounded like an automatic weapon. Followed by a single pistol shot.
No, it wasn’t some dream WWII fantasy, it was boar-hunting at night. And having seen one of those boars roaming around in daylight, YES, I’d want to have an automatic weapon too. ESPECIALLY so at night, in the forest.
But they are SO tasty, so there’s that.
Ugh. There are a whole lot of things to unpack here.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
etc.
And instead of working to unionize, like their parents did in the olden, golden days, they vote for “right to work” lawmakers, and against Medicaid expansion (among other ridiculous unhelpful things). Again, I feel bad when standing face to face with any person having personal difficulties, but I’m not doing any weeping for a class of people who so adamantly works against, instead of for, their own interests.
Ugh. There are a whole lot of things to unpack here.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
etc.
And instead of working to unionize, like their parents did in the olden, golden days, they vote for “right to work” lawmakers, and against Medicaid expansion (among other ridiculous unhelpful things). Again, I feel bad when standing face to face with any person having personal difficulties, but I’m not doing any weeping for a class of people who so adamantly works against, instead of for, their own interests.
Ugh. There are a whole lot of things to unpack here.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
etc.
And instead of working to unionize, like their parents did in the olden, golden days, they vote for “right to work” lawmakers, and against Medicaid expansion (among other ridiculous unhelpful things). Again, I feel bad when standing face to face with any person having personal difficulties, but I’m not doing any weeping for a class of people who so adamantly works against, instead of for, their own interests.
“if you want to understand why those more on the right have trouble trusting news organizations to be semi-neutral, try the Castro near haigography.”
that’s a reasonable point. I’m not sure how to explain the different way that Castro and Pinochet are seen. 50 years ago, the slant would probably have been the other way.
what changed? I don’t know. lots of things, probably, most of them not caused by a liberal “takeover of the media”.
all of that said, yes, I agree that the coverage of Castro’s passing generally underplayed the repressive side of his regime.
I think the phenomenon of different folks having no common understanding about the world is less to do with the bias of one source or another, and more to do with the fact that people get their information from completely different sources.
so, for instance, for many folks fox is a significant source of information, however I simply will not watch it. and if someone refers to fox as a source, i immediately assume its BS and tune it out. rightly or wrongly.
I listen to NPR most days, and while I take them with a grain of salt, I imagine their are lots of folks who view them the way I view fox.
bias is an issue, but IMO the more pernicious one is people living in informational silos.
“if you want to understand why those more on the right have trouble trusting news organizations to be semi-neutral, try the Castro near haigography.”
that’s a reasonable point. I’m not sure how to explain the different way that Castro and Pinochet are seen. 50 years ago, the slant would probably have been the other way.
what changed? I don’t know. lots of things, probably, most of them not caused by a liberal “takeover of the media”.
all of that said, yes, I agree that the coverage of Castro’s passing generally underplayed the repressive side of his regime.
I think the phenomenon of different folks having no common understanding about the world is less to do with the bias of one source or another, and more to do with the fact that people get their information from completely different sources.
so, for instance, for many folks fox is a significant source of information, however I simply will not watch it. and if someone refers to fox as a source, i immediately assume its BS and tune it out. rightly or wrongly.
I listen to NPR most days, and while I take them with a grain of salt, I imagine their are lots of folks who view them the way I view fox.
bias is an issue, but IMO the more pernicious one is people living in informational silos.
“if you want to understand why those more on the right have trouble trusting news organizations to be semi-neutral, try the Castro near haigography.”
that’s a reasonable point. I’m not sure how to explain the different way that Castro and Pinochet are seen. 50 years ago, the slant would probably have been the other way.
what changed? I don’t know. lots of things, probably, most of them not caused by a liberal “takeover of the media”.
all of that said, yes, I agree that the coverage of Castro’s passing generally underplayed the repressive side of his regime.
I think the phenomenon of different folks having no common understanding about the world is less to do with the bias of one source or another, and more to do with the fact that people get their information from completely different sources.
so, for instance, for many folks fox is a significant source of information, however I simply will not watch it. and if someone refers to fox as a source, i immediately assume its BS and tune it out. rightly or wrongly.
I listen to NPR most days, and while I take them with a grain of salt, I imagine their are lots of folks who view them the way I view fox.
bias is an issue, but IMO the more pernicious one is people living in informational silos.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
3) The jobs have worse benefits than before
4) The jobs aren’t as long term or secure as before
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
3) The jobs have worse benefits than before
4) The jobs aren’t as long term or secure as before
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
1) The jobs aren’t as good as before
2) The jobs don’t pay as good as before
3) The jobs have worse benefits than before
4) The jobs aren’t as long term or secure as before
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
No group in the US votes in droves.
No group in the US votes in droves.
No group in the US votes in droves.
Groves maybe?
Groves maybe?
Groves maybe?
Hmmm. Maybe we should have a C’ville meetup someday. If you dare!
I will definitely let you know if I manage to get down there. I love that area. The friend I mentioned had been living in the Tidewater area, but he got married near Charlottesville. He and his wife liked it so much, they decided to move there.
We hung out in downtown Charlottesville the last day we were down there after the wedding. I had been there one night years ago when I was in the area for a work seminar, but I had kind of forgotten about it. As I walked into the Downtown Mall, it suddenly struck me that I had been there before. It was kind of weird.
Hmmm. Maybe we should have a C’ville meetup someday. If you dare!
I will definitely let you know if I manage to get down there. I love that area. The friend I mentioned had been living in the Tidewater area, but he got married near Charlottesville. He and his wife liked it so much, they decided to move there.
We hung out in downtown Charlottesville the last day we were down there after the wedding. I had been there one night years ago when I was in the area for a work seminar, but I had kind of forgotten about it. As I walked into the Downtown Mall, it suddenly struck me that I had been there before. It was kind of weird.
Hmmm. Maybe we should have a C’ville meetup someday. If you dare!
I will definitely let you know if I manage to get down there. I love that area. The friend I mentioned had been living in the Tidewater area, but he got married near Charlottesville. He and his wife liked it so much, they decided to move there.
We hung out in downtown Charlottesville the last day we were down there after the wedding. I had been there one night years ago when I was in the area for a work seminar, but I had kind of forgotten about it. As I walked into the Downtown Mall, it suddenly struck me that I had been there before. It was kind of weird.
The other thing in that electionado link that helped Trump was his misogyny. The more misogynistic he was, the more the WWC approved of him.
The other thing in that electionado link that helped Trump was his misogyny. The more misogynistic he was, the more the WWC approved of him.
The other thing in that electionado link that helped Trump was his misogyny. The more misogynistic he was, the more the WWC approved of him.
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
Life expectancy has dropped in recent years for the WWC, but not for blacks and Hispanics. I think it’s a matter of relativity.
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
Life expectancy has dropped in recent years for the WWC, but not for blacks and Hispanics. I think it’s a matter of relativity.
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
Life expectancy has dropped in recent years for the WWC, but not for blacks and Hispanics. I think it’s a matter of relativity.
i’m white and i work. am i part of the WWC?
i’m white and i work. am i part of the WWC?
i’m white and i work. am i part of the WWC?
See, e.g.
Life expectancy has dropped in recent years for the WWC, but not for blacks and Hispanics. I think it’s a matter of relativity.
Evidence that dead people vote? 🙂
The decline in life expectancy was, on average, a tenth of a year for the most recent data (2014).
See, e.g.
Life expectancy has dropped in recent years for the WWC, but not for blacks and Hispanics. I think it’s a matter of relativity.
Evidence that dead people vote? 🙂
The decline in life expectancy was, on average, a tenth of a year for the most recent data (2014).
See, e.g.
Life expectancy has dropped in recent years for the WWC, but not for blacks and Hispanics. I think it’s a matter of relativity.
Evidence that dead people vote? 🙂
The decline in life expectancy was, on average, a tenth of a year for the most recent data (2014).
Right. From the article:
and
A tenth of a year is not insignificant for that kind of statistic. The differences between the groups are even less so.
Right. From the article:
and
A tenth of a year is not insignificant for that kind of statistic. The differences between the groups are even less so.
Right. From the article:
and
A tenth of a year is not insignificant for that kind of statistic. The differences between the groups are even less so.
There is no liberal take over of the media. There is the rightwing creation of an alternative disinformation infrastructure and the creation of a subset of people who are in the thrall of that disinformation infrastructure.
The reason I was so invested in Hillary and appalled by Trump is this election determined whether or not we had a chance to continue as a representative democracy. The Supreme Court–that’s what matters more than anything. We needed a Supreme Court that would overturn voter suppression alws, gerrymandering and maybe Citizens United.
So it did n;t natter what Dem ran or what Republican. Any Dem would put a reasonable person on the SUpreme Court and any Republican would PUT A corporatist shill who used the rationalization of original intent to justify making the Constitution irrelevant.
Well the kloptocracy won the election. And in the short term, meaning up to the next election in tow years may well be reasonably popular. I doubt if the Republicans will voucherize Medicare . Since the derfining characteristic of Republican voters is the inability to care about anoy but themselves, they will not care if Medicaid is gutted, public lands decimated or sold the Constitution violated, other people repvented from voting, our public institutions degraded and dismantled and looted. All of tha twill be seen as a big relief compared to the horror of a Clinton Presidency (of course given the addiction ro righwing disinformation and the shallowness of TV reporting, most Republican voters will be unaware of the harm done unless it is done directly to them).
So all Trump has to do is stage media events every month or so claiming credit for job creation and it won;t matter if he actually creates or saves any jobs or not. If he can manage to stay out of a war, he will be popular enough that, combined with voter suppression and gerry mandering and billionaire cash flooding our political life to gain seats in Congress and even in the states.
So I am not optimistic about the future at all. I know too much history. We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal. The outward forms will remain while becoming increasingly meaningless while life fo the ordinary person gets harder and harder and any ability to influence events gets farther and farther out of reach. I am gald that I am old and have no children. If I had kids, I would pushign them hard to immigrate.
There is no liberal take over of the media. There is the rightwing creation of an alternative disinformation infrastructure and the creation of a subset of people who are in the thrall of that disinformation infrastructure.
The reason I was so invested in Hillary and appalled by Trump is this election determined whether or not we had a chance to continue as a representative democracy. The Supreme Court–that’s what matters more than anything. We needed a Supreme Court that would overturn voter suppression alws, gerrymandering and maybe Citizens United.
So it did n;t natter what Dem ran or what Republican. Any Dem would put a reasonable person on the SUpreme Court and any Republican would PUT A corporatist shill who used the rationalization of original intent to justify making the Constitution irrelevant.
Well the kloptocracy won the election. And in the short term, meaning up to the next election in tow years may well be reasonably popular. I doubt if the Republicans will voucherize Medicare . Since the derfining characteristic of Republican voters is the inability to care about anoy but themselves, they will not care if Medicaid is gutted, public lands decimated or sold the Constitution violated, other people repvented from voting, our public institutions degraded and dismantled and looted. All of tha twill be seen as a big relief compared to the horror of a Clinton Presidency (of course given the addiction ro righwing disinformation and the shallowness of TV reporting, most Republican voters will be unaware of the harm done unless it is done directly to them).
So all Trump has to do is stage media events every month or so claiming credit for job creation and it won;t matter if he actually creates or saves any jobs or not. If he can manage to stay out of a war, he will be popular enough that, combined with voter suppression and gerry mandering and billionaire cash flooding our political life to gain seats in Congress and even in the states.
So I am not optimistic about the future at all. I know too much history. We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal. The outward forms will remain while becoming increasingly meaningless while life fo the ordinary person gets harder and harder and any ability to influence events gets farther and farther out of reach. I am gald that I am old and have no children. If I had kids, I would pushign them hard to immigrate.
There is no liberal take over of the media. There is the rightwing creation of an alternative disinformation infrastructure and the creation of a subset of people who are in the thrall of that disinformation infrastructure.
The reason I was so invested in Hillary and appalled by Trump is this election determined whether or not we had a chance to continue as a representative democracy. The Supreme Court–that’s what matters more than anything. We needed a Supreme Court that would overturn voter suppression alws, gerrymandering and maybe Citizens United.
So it did n;t natter what Dem ran or what Republican. Any Dem would put a reasonable person on the SUpreme Court and any Republican would PUT A corporatist shill who used the rationalization of original intent to justify making the Constitution irrelevant.
Well the kloptocracy won the election. And in the short term, meaning up to the next election in tow years may well be reasonably popular. I doubt if the Republicans will voucherize Medicare . Since the derfining characteristic of Republican voters is the inability to care about anoy but themselves, they will not care if Medicaid is gutted, public lands decimated or sold the Constitution violated, other people repvented from voting, our public institutions degraded and dismantled and looted. All of tha twill be seen as a big relief compared to the horror of a Clinton Presidency (of course given the addiction ro righwing disinformation and the shallowness of TV reporting, most Republican voters will be unaware of the harm done unless it is done directly to them).
So all Trump has to do is stage media events every month or so claiming credit for job creation and it won;t matter if he actually creates or saves any jobs or not. If he can manage to stay out of a war, he will be popular enough that, combined with voter suppression and gerry mandering and billionaire cash flooding our political life to gain seats in Congress and even in the states.
So I am not optimistic about the future at all. I know too much history. We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal. The outward forms will remain while becoming increasingly meaningless while life fo the ordinary person gets harder and harder and any ability to influence events gets farther and farther out of reach. I am gald that I am old and have no children. If I had kids, I would pushign them hard to immigrate.
And taht’s without factoring in global climate change.
And taht’s without factoring in global climate change.
And taht’s without factoring in global climate change.
We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal.
I’m of the same generally gloomy opinion.
For “terminal” I would say not dead, just moribund.
We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal.
I’m of the same generally gloomy opinion.
For “terminal” I would say not dead, just moribund.
We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal.
I’m of the same generally gloomy opinion.
For “terminal” I would say not dead, just moribund.
So I am not optimistic about the future at all. I know too much history. We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal.
I agree with this, but am trying hard to be hopeful; otherwise, we will make it true. We have to summon enough hope to work against what’s happened.
If I had kids, I would pushign them hard to immigrate.
No, because Putin is helping rightwing dictators all over the world, including Europe. We can’t escape. We have to fight.
So I am not optimistic about the future at all. I know too much history. We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal.
I agree with this, but am trying hard to be hopeful; otherwise, we will make it true. We have to summon enough hope to work against what’s happened.
If I had kids, I would pushign them hard to immigrate.
No, because Putin is helping rightwing dictators all over the world, including Europe. We can’t escape. We have to fight.
So I am not optimistic about the future at all. I know too much history. We are in a decadent period of our history, a period of rot. I think it is terminal.
I agree with this, but am trying hard to be hopeful; otherwise, we will make it true. We have to summon enough hope to work against what’s happened.
If I had kids, I would pushign them hard to immigrate.
No, because Putin is helping rightwing dictators all over the world, including Europe. We can’t escape. We have to fight.
Julian Assange is now trying to undermine Merkel.
Julian Assange is now trying to undermine Merkel.
Julian Assange is now trying to undermine Merkel.
on the bright side, Mike Pence now accounts for 28% of Planned Parenthood donations.
http://www.avclub.com/article/thanks-internet-mike-pence-one-planned-parenthoods-246737
on the bright side, Mike Pence now accounts for 28% of Planned Parenthood donations.
http://www.avclub.com/article/thanks-internet-mike-pence-one-planned-parenthoods-246737
on the bright side, Mike Pence now accounts for 28% of Planned Parenthood donations.
http://www.avclub.com/article/thanks-internet-mike-pence-one-planned-parenthoods-246737
I will be donating again to PP this year (first time last year).
Trying to choose between ACLU and Center for Const. Rights – any opinions on which is better to combat the coming darkness?
I will be donating again to PP this year (first time last year).
Trying to choose between ACLU and Center for Const. Rights – any opinions on which is better to combat the coming darkness?
I will be donating again to PP this year (first time last year).
Trying to choose between ACLU and Center for Const. Rights – any opinions on which is better to combat the coming darkness?
on the bright side, Mike Pence now accounts for 28% of Planned Parenthood donations.
This is what I’m saying. Even if we lose, we have to go down fighting. And we might win.
on the bright side, Mike Pence now accounts for 28% of Planned Parenthood donations.
This is what I’m saying. Even if we lose, we have to go down fighting. And we might win.
on the bright side, Mike Pence now accounts for 28% of Planned Parenthood donations.
This is what I’m saying. Even if we lose, we have to go down fighting. And we might win.
My hope is for buyer’s remorse to set in quickly enough to limit the damage. Since I’m an EE, it’d call it a metaphorical circuit breaker.
My hope is for buyer’s remorse to set in quickly enough to limit the damage. Since I’m an EE, it’d call it a metaphorical circuit breaker.
My hope is for buyer’s remorse to set in quickly enough to limit the damage. Since I’m an EE, it’d call it a metaphorical circuit breaker.
The other thing in that electionado link that helped Trump was his misogyny. The more misogynistic he was, the more the WWC approved of him.
That’s not surprising. Right-wing misogynists want to flaunt it. Left-wing misogynists handle cognitive dissonance a lot better. Consider e.g. vitriolic Clinton booster Bill Maher.
The other thing in that electionado link that helped Trump was his misogyny. The more misogynistic he was, the more the WWC approved of him.
That’s not surprising. Right-wing misogynists want to flaunt it. Left-wing misogynists handle cognitive dissonance a lot better. Consider e.g. vitriolic Clinton booster Bill Maher.
The other thing in that electionado link that helped Trump was his misogyny. The more misogynistic he was, the more the WWC approved of him.
That’s not surprising. Right-wing misogynists want to flaunt it. Left-wing misogynists handle cognitive dissonance a lot better. Consider e.g. vitriolic Clinton booster Bill Maher.
trollin trollin trollin
trollin trollin trollin
trollin trollin trollin
Bill Maher seems like an example of Bill Maher. He’s an odd duck.
Bill Maher seems like an example of Bill Maher. He’s an odd duck.
Bill Maher seems like an example of Bill Maher. He’s an odd duck.
I wasn’t clear. When I said the Pinochet treatment, I didn’t mean ‘why didn’t people try to arrest Castro while he was still in charge of Cuba?’. I understand the difference between still being in power and having turned power over to a democratic government.
I just meant the NYT treatment of Pinochet at the time of his death.
It begins
Now since the similar number of people executed or disappeared under Castro is about 6,000-7,000 (not counting forced work camp deaths) and since he never turned over rule to a democratic government, you might think that the NYT would make those facts prominent in the Castro obit. In the Pinochet obit, they were able to fit them in to the first few paragraphs, which in newspaper style is reserved for the most pertinent facts.
I wouldn’t mind hearing so much about how Castro brought health care to Cuba if it was juxtaposed with “while murdering and disappearing thousands of people and putting thousands more into work camps”. (See bolded section from Pinochet’s obit).
The Castro obit can barely stand to criticize him at all, and when doing so outsources it to people labeled as critical of Castro.
If you want to understand loss of institutional trust, you have to understand what the institutions continue to do to lose trust.
I wasn’t clear. When I said the Pinochet treatment, I didn’t mean ‘why didn’t people try to arrest Castro while he was still in charge of Cuba?’. I understand the difference between still being in power and having turned power over to a democratic government.
I just meant the NYT treatment of Pinochet at the time of his death.
It begins
Now since the similar number of people executed or disappeared under Castro is about 6,000-7,000 (not counting forced work camp deaths) and since he never turned over rule to a democratic government, you might think that the NYT would make those facts prominent in the Castro obit. In the Pinochet obit, they were able to fit them in to the first few paragraphs, which in newspaper style is reserved for the most pertinent facts.
I wouldn’t mind hearing so much about how Castro brought health care to Cuba if it was juxtaposed with “while murdering and disappearing thousands of people and putting thousands more into work camps”. (See bolded section from Pinochet’s obit).
The Castro obit can barely stand to criticize him at all, and when doing so outsources it to people labeled as critical of Castro.
If you want to understand loss of institutional trust, you have to understand what the institutions continue to do to lose trust.
I wasn’t clear. When I said the Pinochet treatment, I didn’t mean ‘why didn’t people try to arrest Castro while he was still in charge of Cuba?’. I understand the difference between still being in power and having turned power over to a democratic government.
I just meant the NYT treatment of Pinochet at the time of his death.
It begins
Now since the similar number of people executed or disappeared under Castro is about 6,000-7,000 (not counting forced work camp deaths) and since he never turned over rule to a democratic government, you might think that the NYT would make those facts prominent in the Castro obit. In the Pinochet obit, they were able to fit them in to the first few paragraphs, which in newspaper style is reserved for the most pertinent facts.
I wouldn’t mind hearing so much about how Castro brought health care to Cuba if it was juxtaposed with “while murdering and disappearing thousands of people and putting thousands more into work camps”. (See bolded section from Pinochet’s obit).
The Castro obit can barely stand to criticize him at all, and when doing so outsources it to people labeled as critical of Castro.
If you want to understand loss of institutional trust, you have to understand what the institutions continue to do to lose trust.
i care absolutely nothing about Castro (or Pinochet). but, i do like watching the right get its political correctness on regarding the proper way to talk about Castro.
i care absolutely nothing about Castro (or Pinochet). but, i do like watching the right get its political correctness on regarding the proper way to talk about Castro.
i care absolutely nothing about Castro (or Pinochet). but, i do like watching the right get its political correctness on regarding the proper way to talk about Castro.
If you want to understand loss of institutional trust, you have to understand what the institutions continue to do to lose trust.
If your focus is on the NYT, specifically, I can tell you that mistrust of the Times can be found right across the ideological spectrum.
i do like watching the right get its political correctness on regarding the proper way to talk about Castro.
Political correctness is likewise present right across the ideological spectrum.
If you want to understand loss of institutional trust, you have to understand what the institutions continue to do to lose trust.
If your focus is on the NYT, specifically, I can tell you that mistrust of the Times can be found right across the ideological spectrum.
i do like watching the right get its political correctness on regarding the proper way to talk about Castro.
Political correctness is likewise present right across the ideological spectrum.
If you want to understand loss of institutional trust, you have to understand what the institutions continue to do to lose trust.
If your focus is on the NYT, specifically, I can tell you that mistrust of the Times can be found right across the ideological spectrum.
i do like watching the right get its political correctness on regarding the proper way to talk about Castro.
Political correctness is likewise present right across the ideological spectrum.
but only a segment of the spectrum practices it while also claiming it’s killing society.
but only a segment of the spectrum practices it while also claiming it’s killing society.
but only a segment of the spectrum practices it while also claiming it’s killing society.
[also… that wasn’t directed at Sebastian in particular.]
[also… that wasn’t directed at Sebastian in particular.]
[also… that wasn’t directed at Sebastian in particular.]
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
How is that even a question? Both groups are very much social conservatives. They would have been voting Republican in substantial numbers for decades . . . except that they have been made to feel seriously unwelcome. And even with that, quite a number still do.
If the GOP ever gets over their blatant bigotry, there is a huge opportunity here. And it is not clear that enough of the bigoted class would decide to go to the Democrats to make the loss anywhere near comparable.
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
How is that even a question? Both groups are very much social conservatives. They would have been voting Republican in substantial numbers for decades . . . except that they have been made to feel seriously unwelcome. And even with that, quite a number still do.
If the GOP ever gets over their blatant bigotry, there is a huge opportunity here. And it is not clear that enough of the bigoted class would decide to go to the Democrats to make the loss anywhere near comparable.
And yet the latino and african-american working class voted for HRC in droves. The WWC, not so much. I wonder why.
How is that even a question? Both groups are very much social conservatives. They would have been voting Republican in substantial numbers for decades . . . except that they have been made to feel seriously unwelcome. And even with that, quite a number still do.
If the GOP ever gets over their blatant bigotry, there is a huge opportunity here. And it is not clear that enough of the bigoted class would decide to go to the Democrats to make the loss anywhere near comparable.
trollin trollin trollin
Thanks for the encouragement, cleek, but believe it or not I don’t aspire follow your example. No threatening violence to suppress speech I don’t wanna hear or smug, repetitive, insulting one-liners for me, thanks very much!
trollin trollin trollin
Thanks for the encouragement, cleek, but believe it or not I don’t aspire follow your example. No threatening violence to suppress speech I don’t wanna hear or smug, repetitive, insulting one-liners for me, thanks very much!
trollin trollin trollin
Thanks for the encouragement, cleek, but believe it or not I don’t aspire follow your example. No threatening violence to suppress speech I don’t wanna hear or smug, repetitive, insulting one-liners for me, thanks very much!
My hope is for buyer’s remorse to set in quickly enough to limit the damage. Since I’m an EE, it’d call it a metaphorical circuit breaker.
Perhaps more of a fuse in many cases than a circuit breaker? Because a circuit breaker can be reset, but when a fuse goes, it’s dead permanently.
Bill Maher seems like an example of Bill Maher.
Sadly, no. Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal. I’ve known far too many who share his bigotries, arrogance, and demeaning demeanor to write him off as an odd duck all to himself.
My hope is for buyer’s remorse to set in quickly enough to limit the damage. Since I’m an EE, it’d call it a metaphorical circuit breaker.
Perhaps more of a fuse in many cases than a circuit breaker? Because a circuit breaker can be reset, but when a fuse goes, it’s dead permanently.
Bill Maher seems like an example of Bill Maher.
Sadly, no. Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal. I’ve known far too many who share his bigotries, arrogance, and demeaning demeanor to write him off as an odd duck all to himself.
My hope is for buyer’s remorse to set in quickly enough to limit the damage. Since I’m an EE, it’d call it a metaphorical circuit breaker.
Perhaps more of a fuse in many cases than a circuit breaker? Because a circuit breaker can be reset, but when a fuse goes, it’s dead permanently.
Bill Maher seems like an example of Bill Maher.
Sadly, no. Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal. I’ve known far too many who share his bigotries, arrogance, and demeaning demeanor to write him off as an odd duck all to himself.
but only a segment of the spectrum practices it while also claiming it’s killing society.
All parts of the spectrum have proponents of abolishing it in toto, and all such lovely souls share the happy argument that civility is political correctness by another name.
but only a segment of the spectrum practices it while also claiming it’s killing society.
All parts of the spectrum have proponents of abolishing it in toto, and all such lovely souls share the happy argument that civility is political correctness by another name.
but only a segment of the spectrum practices it while also claiming it’s killing society.
All parts of the spectrum have proponents of abolishing it in toto, and all such lovely souls share the happy argument that civility is political correctness by another name.
No threatening violence to suppress speech I don’t wanna hear
WTF are you talking about ?
No threatening violence to suppress speech I don’t wanna hear
WTF are you talking about ?
No threatening violence to suppress speech I don’t wanna hear
WTF are you talking about ?
I’m not going to say that the NYT article isn’t insufficiently critical of Castro, but it did include this very early on:
And whether you personally think of Castro as an inspirational figure, he was to many – far more than Pinochet, I would imagine – and the length and circumstances of Castro’s rule were far more remarkable.
I think this comparison of coverage is nibbling at the margins, in the grand scheme of things.
I’m not going to say that the NYT article isn’t insufficiently critical of Castro, but it did include this very early on:
And whether you personally think of Castro as an inspirational figure, he was to many – far more than Pinochet, I would imagine – and the length and circumstances of Castro’s rule were far more remarkable.
I think this comparison of coverage is nibbling at the margins, in the grand scheme of things.
I’m not going to say that the NYT article isn’t insufficiently critical of Castro, but it did include this very early on:
And whether you personally think of Castro as an inspirational figure, he was to many – far more than Pinochet, I would imagine – and the length and circumstances of Castro’s rule were far more remarkable.
I think this comparison of coverage is nibbling at the margins, in the grand scheme of things.
Sadly, no. Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal. I’ve known far too many who share his bigotries, arrogance, and demeaning demeanor to write him off as an odd duck all to himself.
I’ll take your word for it. Most of my friends are conservatives, for whatever reason, and my few liberal friends are nothing like Bill Maher.
Sadly, no. Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal. I’ve known far too many who share his bigotries, arrogance, and demeaning demeanor to write him off as an odd duck all to himself.
I’ll take your word for it. Most of my friends are conservatives, for whatever reason, and my few liberal friends are nothing like Bill Maher.
Sadly, no. Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal. I’ve known far too many who share his bigotries, arrogance, and demeaning demeanor to write him off as an odd duck all to himself.
I’ll take your word for it. Most of my friends are conservatives, for whatever reason, and my few liberal friends are nothing like Bill Maher.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
hsh,
I am curious how that paragraph is critical at all. He wielded power like a dictator starts to get at a criticism, but the closest thing ton actual criticism is “He personally sent countless men to prison”. And at that maybe they deserved it so he did good?
He was a brutal dictator that killed and jailed any dissenting voice for over 50 years. He ruled by the might of a military and his people, for the most part, feared him.
He faked free elections and teamed with the likes of Chavez to create a risk to our safety, if never our existence.
He teamed with his brother, who many consider even more brutal, to do all of this and left his brother in charge.
Oh yeah, he died today and the world is a better place and they may be hope for future generations of Cubans, but not the ones alive today because whatever leverage we had to take advantage of this moment was given away by this President after 50 years worth of administrations held out for the opportunity that his death might provide.
hsh,
I am curious how that paragraph is critical at all. He wielded power like a dictator starts to get at a criticism, but the closest thing ton actual criticism is “He personally sent countless men to prison”. And at that maybe they deserved it so he did good?
He was a brutal dictator that killed and jailed any dissenting voice for over 50 years. He ruled by the might of a military and his people, for the most part, feared him.
He faked free elections and teamed with the likes of Chavez to create a risk to our safety, if never our existence.
He teamed with his brother, who many consider even more brutal, to do all of this and left his brother in charge.
Oh yeah, he died today and the world is a better place and they may be hope for future generations of Cubans, but not the ones alive today because whatever leverage we had to take advantage of this moment was given away by this President after 50 years worth of administrations held out for the opportunity that his death might provide.
hsh,
I am curious how that paragraph is critical at all. He wielded power like a dictator starts to get at a criticism, but the closest thing ton actual criticism is “He personally sent countless men to prison”. And at that maybe they deserved it so he did good?
He was a brutal dictator that killed and jailed any dissenting voice for over 50 years. He ruled by the might of a military and his people, for the most part, feared him.
He faked free elections and teamed with the likes of Chavez to create a risk to our safety, if never our existence.
He teamed with his brother, who many consider even more brutal, to do all of this and left his brother in charge.
Oh yeah, he died today and the world is a better place and they may be hope for future generations of Cubans, but not the ones alive today because whatever leverage we had to take advantage of this moment was given away by this President after 50 years worth of administrations held out for the opportunity that his death might provide.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
OMG. you’re nuts.
see ya’ll later.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
OMG. you’re nuts.
see ya’ll later.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
OMG. you’re nuts.
see ya’ll later.
I’ll take your word for it. Most of my friends are conservatives, for whatever reason, and my few liberal friends are nothing like Bill Maher.
Honestly, hsh, I always figured it was this particular breed of leftist that the BernieBro moniker was seeking to evoke. Which was both funny yet frustrating because that breed tends to be moreso establishment than anti-establishment, but the point of that particular name-calling was to dismiss politically inconvenient voters out-of-hand by reducing them to a deplorable caricature, so it’s not like anyone throwing it around were overly interested in accuracy. But in any case, this particular sort of liberal is one I’ve encountered a lot over the years. I envy your lack of exposure to them.
I’ll take your word for it. Most of my friends are conservatives, for whatever reason, and my few liberal friends are nothing like Bill Maher.
Honestly, hsh, I always figured it was this particular breed of leftist that the BernieBro moniker was seeking to evoke. Which was both funny yet frustrating because that breed tends to be moreso establishment than anti-establishment, but the point of that particular name-calling was to dismiss politically inconvenient voters out-of-hand by reducing them to a deplorable caricature, so it’s not like anyone throwing it around were overly interested in accuracy. But in any case, this particular sort of liberal is one I’ve encountered a lot over the years. I envy your lack of exposure to them.
I’ll take your word for it. Most of my friends are conservatives, for whatever reason, and my few liberal friends are nothing like Bill Maher.
Honestly, hsh, I always figured it was this particular breed of leftist that the BernieBro moniker was seeking to evoke. Which was both funny yet frustrating because that breed tends to be moreso establishment than anti-establishment, but the point of that particular name-calling was to dismiss politically inconvenient voters out-of-hand by reducing them to a deplorable caricature, so it’s not like anyone throwing it around were overly interested in accuracy. But in any case, this particular sort of liberal is one I’ve encountered a lot over the years. I envy your lack of exposure to them.
OMG. you’re nuts.
Make up your damned mind. If you’re going to play at being the civility and anti-troll police, you have to forgo all that sweet, sweet invective and oh-so-satisfying trolling. Which – if I may observe as someone who’s seen you commenting here for a decade-plus – you seem decidedly and increasingly disinclined to do.
I’m pretty damned far from the model of an ideal commenter, but that’s still better than your “I’m not a troll because I troll in accordance with prevailing opinion on the blog” BS.
OMG. you’re nuts.
Make up your damned mind. If you’re going to play at being the civility and anti-troll police, you have to forgo all that sweet, sweet invective and oh-so-satisfying trolling. Which – if I may observe as someone who’s seen you commenting here for a decade-plus – you seem decidedly and increasingly disinclined to do.
I’m pretty damned far from the model of an ideal commenter, but that’s still better than your “I’m not a troll because I troll in accordance with prevailing opinion on the blog” BS.
OMG. you’re nuts.
Make up your damned mind. If you’re going to play at being the civility and anti-troll police, you have to forgo all that sweet, sweet invective and oh-so-satisfying trolling. Which – if I may observe as someone who’s seen you commenting here for a decade-plus – you seem decidedly and increasingly disinclined to do.
I’m pretty damned far from the model of an ideal commenter, but that’s still better than your “I’m not a troll because I troll in accordance with prevailing opinion on the blog” BS.
Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal.
apparently you need to find a new crew of liberals to hang out with.
he died today and the world is a better place and they may be hope for future generations of Cubans, but not the ones alive today because whatever leverage we had to take advantage of this moment was given away by this President
I got a paper cut this morning. I blame Obama!
Seriously man, Cuba’s history, the history of the Cuban revolution, and the history of our relationship to Cuba, extend back a hell of a lot longer than 8 years.
Cuba’s future is not dependent on whether the US opened relations with them while Castro was still alive vs. waiting for him to die first. Amazingly enough, the Cubans themselves have some agency in how their future unfolds. Likewise, the US will continue to have agency in how our relationship with Cuba unfolds, *even after Obama leaves office*.
We haven’t given up any leverage, if anything the opposite. Now we have something to take away if we have issues with how things develop there.
We have a stick *and* a carrot now. See?
Obama’s opening relations with Cuba while Castro was alive, rather than waiting another several months for him to die, are not going to make any difference in how Cuba’s future plays out.
Obama is not the cause of every thing that happens in the world that you don’t like or approve of.
Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal.
apparently you need to find a new crew of liberals to hang out with.
he died today and the world is a better place and they may be hope for future generations of Cubans, but not the ones alive today because whatever leverage we had to take advantage of this moment was given away by this President
I got a paper cut this morning. I blame Obama!
Seriously man, Cuba’s history, the history of the Cuban revolution, and the history of our relationship to Cuba, extend back a hell of a lot longer than 8 years.
Cuba’s future is not dependent on whether the US opened relations with them while Castro was still alive vs. waiting for him to die first. Amazingly enough, the Cubans themselves have some agency in how their future unfolds. Likewise, the US will continue to have agency in how our relationship with Cuba unfolds, *even after Obama leaves office*.
We haven’t given up any leverage, if anything the opposite. Now we have something to take away if we have issues with how things develop there.
We have a stick *and* a carrot now. See?
Obama’s opening relations with Cuba while Castro was alive, rather than waiting another several months for him to die, are not going to make any difference in how Cuba’s future plays out.
Obama is not the cause of every thing that happens in the world that you don’t like or approve of.
Bill Maher is a disgustingly good example of a particular breed of Nice Respectable Liberal.
apparently you need to find a new crew of liberals to hang out with.
he died today and the world is a better place and they may be hope for future generations of Cubans, but not the ones alive today because whatever leverage we had to take advantage of this moment was given away by this President
I got a paper cut this morning. I blame Obama!
Seriously man, Cuba’s history, the history of the Cuban revolution, and the history of our relationship to Cuba, extend back a hell of a lot longer than 8 years.
Cuba’s future is not dependent on whether the US opened relations with them while Castro was still alive vs. waiting for him to die first. Amazingly enough, the Cubans themselves have some agency in how their future unfolds. Likewise, the US will continue to have agency in how our relationship with Cuba unfolds, *even after Obama leaves office*.
We haven’t given up any leverage, if anything the opposite. Now we have something to take away if we have issues with how things develop there.
We have a stick *and* a carrot now. See?
Obama’s opening relations with Cuba while Castro was alive, rather than waiting another several months for him to die, are not going to make any difference in how Cuba’s future plays out.
Obama is not the cause of every thing that happens in the world that you don’t like or approve of.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
cleek’s program of silencing you by threats of violence appears to have failed.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
cleek’s program of silencing you by threats of violence appears to have failed.
Three weeks and it’s already down the memory hole?
cleek’s program of silencing you by threats of violence appears to have failed.
He wielded power like a dictator
And actually the quote was “He wielded power like a tyrant”.
In general, “tyrant” is considered to be a negative way to characterize somebody’s style of governing.
He wielded power like a dictator
And actually the quote was “He wielded power like a tyrant”.
In general, “tyrant” is considered to be a negative way to characterize somebody’s style of governing.
He wielded power like a dictator
And actually the quote was “He wielded power like a tyrant”.
In general, “tyrant” is considered to be a negative way to characterize somebody’s style of governing.
“Obama is not the cause of every thing that happens in the world that you don’t like or approve of.”
No, but I am pretty safe expressing my opinion of things that he actually does, no?
“Obama is not the cause of every thing that happens in the world that you don’t like or approve of.”
No, but I am pretty safe expressing my opinion of things that he actually does, no?
“Obama is not the cause of every thing that happens in the world that you don’t like or approve of.”
No, but I am pretty safe expressing my opinion of things that he actually does, no?
The article was insufficiently critical of Castro, but it wasn’t hagiography. It was more or less neutral, which is arguably – again – insufficiently critical.
Apparently, you don’t need to be told all the awful things Castro did, because it’s been covered. He wasn’t “our” guy, the way Pinochet was. We didn’t need a cautionary reminder of what we got wrong when it came to putting Castro in power, because “we” didn’t put him in power.
And guess what – Obama wasn’t the first president to attempt to normalize relations with Cuba. He’s just the first one to see it through to some degree. Do you think maybe the intent was to exert a more positive influence on Cuba and the treatment of their people, or do you think it’s just ’cause evil old Obama just loves him some commies?
The article was insufficiently critical of Castro, but it wasn’t hagiography. It was more or less neutral, which is arguably – again – insufficiently critical.
Apparently, you don’t need to be told all the awful things Castro did, because it’s been covered. He wasn’t “our” guy, the way Pinochet was. We didn’t need a cautionary reminder of what we got wrong when it came to putting Castro in power, because “we” didn’t put him in power.
And guess what – Obama wasn’t the first president to attempt to normalize relations with Cuba. He’s just the first one to see it through to some degree. Do you think maybe the intent was to exert a more positive influence on Cuba and the treatment of their people, or do you think it’s just ’cause evil old Obama just loves him some commies?
The article was insufficiently critical of Castro, but it wasn’t hagiography. It was more or less neutral, which is arguably – again – insufficiently critical.
Apparently, you don’t need to be told all the awful things Castro did, because it’s been covered. He wasn’t “our” guy, the way Pinochet was. We didn’t need a cautionary reminder of what we got wrong when it came to putting Castro in power, because “we” didn’t put him in power.
And guess what – Obama wasn’t the first president to attempt to normalize relations with Cuba. He’s just the first one to see it through to some degree. Do you think maybe the intent was to exert a more positive influence on Cuba and the treatment of their people, or do you think it’s just ’cause evil old Obama just loves him some commies?
It was nice to see Obama end the US’s 50+ year Castro tantrum. It was an anachronism. If we could normalize relations with Vietnam (and continue normal relations with far worse regimes), why not Cuba?
It was nice to see Obama end the US’s 50+ year Castro tantrum. It was an anachronism. If we could normalize relations with Vietnam (and continue normal relations with far worse regimes), why not Cuba?
It was nice to see Obama end the US’s 50+ year Castro tantrum. It was an anachronism. If we could normalize relations with Vietnam (and continue normal relations with far worse regimes), why not Cuba?
This seems like a fair obit in the Economist on Castro. I found it linked at the Angry Arab blog–
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21710922-cubas-communist-leader-who-outlasted-ten-american-presidents-has-died-age-90?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thelifeandtimesoffidelcastro
The Economist claims he executed at least 550 and maybe over 2000 after the revolution, many Batista’s henchmen ( though implying many were not). Then it goes on to say that the rest of his reign was not especially bloody, but he tolerated no dissent. I am no expert, but it sounded fair and the Economist is not exactly a Marxist rag.
This seems like a fair obit in the Economist on Castro. I found it linked at the Angry Arab blog–
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21710922-cubas-communist-leader-who-outlasted-ten-american-presidents-has-died-age-90?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thelifeandtimesoffidelcastro
The Economist claims he executed at least 550 and maybe over 2000 after the revolution, many Batista’s henchmen ( though implying many were not). Then it goes on to say that the rest of his reign was not especially bloody, but he tolerated no dissent. I am no expert, but it sounded fair and the Economist is not exactly a Marxist rag.
This seems like a fair obit in the Economist on Castro. I found it linked at the Angry Arab blog–
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21710922-cubas-communist-leader-who-outlasted-ten-american-presidents-has-died-age-90?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thelifeandtimesoffidelcastro
The Economist claims he executed at least 550 and maybe over 2000 after the revolution, many Batista’s henchmen ( though implying many were not). Then it goes on to say that the rest of his reign was not especially bloody, but he tolerated no dissent. I am no expert, but it sounded fair and the Economist is not exactly a Marxist rag.
Arguing that the NYT was insufficiently critical of Castro is not an argument against the existence of a rightwing disinformation network that is poisoning our political discourse, not is it an argument for the imaginary take over of the corporate media by leftists.
Arguing that the NYT was insufficiently critical of Castro is not an argument against the existence of a rightwing disinformation network that is poisoning our political discourse, not is it an argument for the imaginary take over of the corporate media by leftists.
Arguing that the NYT was insufficiently critical of Castro is not an argument against the existence of a rightwing disinformation network that is poisoning our political discourse, not is it an argument for the imaginary take over of the corporate media by leftists.
Other commentary on the election:
https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
Which was linked in:
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.9jf049541
Other commentary on the election:
https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
Which was linked in:
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.9jf049541
Other commentary on the election:
https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
Which was linked in:
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.9jf049541
Arguing that the NYT was insufficiently critical of Castro is not an argument … for the imaginary take over of the corporate media by leftists.
No, but the hagiography argument might be. ;^)
Arguing that the NYT was insufficiently critical of Castro is not an argument … for the imaginary take over of the corporate media by leftists.
No, but the hagiography argument might be. ;^)
Arguing that the NYT was insufficiently critical of Castro is not an argument … for the imaginary take over of the corporate media by leftists.
No, but the hagiography argument might be. ;^)
“do you think it’s just ’cause evil old Obama just loves him some commies?”
No, I think Obama spent the last two years or so trying to put feathers in his legacy with the assumption that the more things he did the more chances he would be right.
He opened relations with Cuba because the exiles aren’t a big enough block of voters to hurt him and he really didn’t have any foreign affairs wins in his legacy book.
So, along with the Iran giveaway, it was something to hopefully offset his complete failure in foreign affairs after 8 years.
Still in Afghanistan(his preferred war), a collapsed Middle East, a more powerful Al-Qaeda replacement in place in ISIS, no decent trade deals, a deal on Syria that collapsed after a week, a red line crossed, drone warfare pretty much anyplace he pleases, Guantanamo still open..
He needed something to say he did, good or not.
“do you think it’s just ’cause evil old Obama just loves him some commies?”
No, I think Obama spent the last two years or so trying to put feathers in his legacy with the assumption that the more things he did the more chances he would be right.
He opened relations with Cuba because the exiles aren’t a big enough block of voters to hurt him and he really didn’t have any foreign affairs wins in his legacy book.
So, along with the Iran giveaway, it was something to hopefully offset his complete failure in foreign affairs after 8 years.
Still in Afghanistan(his preferred war), a collapsed Middle East, a more powerful Al-Qaeda replacement in place in ISIS, no decent trade deals, a deal on Syria that collapsed after a week, a red line crossed, drone warfare pretty much anyplace he pleases, Guantanamo still open..
He needed something to say he did, good or not.
“do you think it’s just ’cause evil old Obama just loves him some commies?”
No, I think Obama spent the last two years or so trying to put feathers in his legacy with the assumption that the more things he did the more chances he would be right.
He opened relations with Cuba because the exiles aren’t a big enough block of voters to hurt him and he really didn’t have any foreign affairs wins in his legacy book.
So, along with the Iran giveaway, it was something to hopefully offset his complete failure in foreign affairs after 8 years.
Still in Afghanistan(his preferred war), a collapsed Middle East, a more powerful Al-Qaeda replacement in place in ISIS, no decent trade deals, a deal on Syria that collapsed after a week, a red line crossed, drone warfare pretty much anyplace he pleases, Guantanamo still open..
He needed something to say he did, good or not.
“And guess what – Obama wasn’t the first president to attempt to normalize relations with Cuba.”
My belief that Castro is a bad man every bit as much as Pinochet, doesn’t mean that normalizing relations with Cuba was wrong. We have normalized relations with all sorts of countries. Cuba wasn’t so uniquely bad as to require endless embargo. Especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.
“And guess what – Obama wasn’t the first president to attempt to normalize relations with Cuba.”
My belief that Castro is a bad man every bit as much as Pinochet, doesn’t mean that normalizing relations with Cuba was wrong. We have normalized relations with all sorts of countries. Cuba wasn’t so uniquely bad as to require endless embargo. Especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.
“And guess what – Obama wasn’t the first president to attempt to normalize relations with Cuba.”
My belief that Castro is a bad man every bit as much as Pinochet, doesn’t mean that normalizing relations with Cuba was wrong. We have normalized relations with all sorts of countries. Cuba wasn’t so uniquely bad as to require endless embargo. Especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.
I am pretty safe expressing my opinion of things that he actually does, no?
Fire away! 🙂
I am pretty safe expressing my opinion of things that he actually does, no?
Fire away! 🙂
I am pretty safe expressing my opinion of things that he actually does, no?
Fire away! 🙂
Obama’s supposed FP failures center largely on the ME. The question in my mind on that is, what policy was available to us that could have avoided that particular clusterfnck? It seems as though the best we could have done was affect when and where stuff blew up, but not some much if or how badly. It looks like a deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic sort of thing to me.
Obama’s supposed FP failures center largely on the ME. The question in my mind on that is, what policy was available to us that could have avoided that particular clusterfnck? It seems as though the best we could have done was affect when and where stuff blew up, but not some much if or how badly. It looks like a deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic sort of thing to me.
Obama’s supposed FP failures center largely on the ME. The question in my mind on that is, what policy was available to us that could have avoided that particular clusterfnck? It seems as though the best we could have done was affect when and where stuff blew up, but not some much if or how badly. It looks like a deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic sort of thing to me.
Gftnc–
I will respond to your post in a random sort of way.
On your being polite to everyone, I thoroughly approve without following in your footsteps. The idealized form of myself that I have locked in my imagination has my views and expresses them in unfailing civil yet clearly compelling ways, only showing anger when it is clearly deserved and never using sarcasm to express frustration.
Reality is a bit different.
I do think it is important to know how conservatives think. I have been reading some. One thing I have noticed is that the term is an enormous oversimplification. Conservative politicians for the most part I have little use for, except n some particular issues. But on foreign policy I am a lot closer to some self described conservative pundits then to most mainstream liberals. Larison and Bacevich, for instance. I even agree sometimes with Pat Lang, though I have a lot of reservations in his case. I also think we should be trying to understand the white working class and not constantly looking for reasons to dismiss them because they make bad choices. Since when were liberals ( or the idealized versions of liberals that exist in our imaginations) supposed to dismiss the feelings and sufferings of people because they aren’t morally perfect victims worthy of being in a Dickens novel?
On liberals, I don’t think I am strawmanning. In your case, yes, since my criticisms on Yemen don’t apply to you. On a great many liberals, I think they do apply. They apply to the Clintons. They apply to most liberal pundits in the media, particularly those who seem constantly on the lookout for bad guys we should be bombing for humanitarian reasons.
It was interesting that so many people were outraged by torture and were moral absolutists on it. Good, but why? Morally how is it worse than our support for the Saudis in Yemen? I think partisanship played a role. Plus Bush and Cheney are just so easy for liberals and lefties to despise. ( I share the feeling.)
Gftnc–
I will respond to your post in a random sort of way.
On your being polite to everyone, I thoroughly approve without following in your footsteps. The idealized form of myself that I have locked in my imagination has my views and expresses them in unfailing civil yet clearly compelling ways, only showing anger when it is clearly deserved and never using sarcasm to express frustration.
Reality is a bit different.
I do think it is important to know how conservatives think. I have been reading some. One thing I have noticed is that the term is an enormous oversimplification. Conservative politicians for the most part I have little use for, except n some particular issues. But on foreign policy I am a lot closer to some self described conservative pundits then to most mainstream liberals. Larison and Bacevich, for instance. I even agree sometimes with Pat Lang, though I have a lot of reservations in his case. I also think we should be trying to understand the white working class and not constantly looking for reasons to dismiss them because they make bad choices. Since when were liberals ( or the idealized versions of liberals that exist in our imaginations) supposed to dismiss the feelings and sufferings of people because they aren’t morally perfect victims worthy of being in a Dickens novel?
On liberals, I don’t think I am strawmanning. In your case, yes, since my criticisms on Yemen don’t apply to you. On a great many liberals, I think they do apply. They apply to the Clintons. They apply to most liberal pundits in the media, particularly those who seem constantly on the lookout for bad guys we should be bombing for humanitarian reasons.
It was interesting that so many people were outraged by torture and were moral absolutists on it. Good, but why? Morally how is it worse than our support for the Saudis in Yemen? I think partisanship played a role. Plus Bush and Cheney are just so easy for liberals and lefties to despise. ( I share the feeling.)
Gftnc–
I will respond to your post in a random sort of way.
On your being polite to everyone, I thoroughly approve without following in your footsteps. The idealized form of myself that I have locked in my imagination has my views and expresses them in unfailing civil yet clearly compelling ways, only showing anger when it is clearly deserved and never using sarcasm to express frustration.
Reality is a bit different.
I do think it is important to know how conservatives think. I have been reading some. One thing I have noticed is that the term is an enormous oversimplification. Conservative politicians for the most part I have little use for, except n some particular issues. But on foreign policy I am a lot closer to some self described conservative pundits then to most mainstream liberals. Larison and Bacevich, for instance. I even agree sometimes with Pat Lang, though I have a lot of reservations in his case. I also think we should be trying to understand the white working class and not constantly looking for reasons to dismiss them because they make bad choices. Since when were liberals ( or the idealized versions of liberals that exist in our imaginations) supposed to dismiss the feelings and sufferings of people because they aren’t morally perfect victims worthy of being in a Dickens novel?
On liberals, I don’t think I am strawmanning. In your case, yes, since my criticisms on Yemen don’t apply to you. On a great many liberals, I think they do apply. They apply to the Clintons. They apply to most liberal pundits in the media, particularly those who seem constantly on the lookout for bad guys we should be bombing for humanitarian reasons.
It was interesting that so many people were outraged by torture and were moral absolutists on it. Good, but why? Morally how is it worse than our support for the Saudis in Yemen? I think partisanship played a role. Plus Bush and Cheney are just so easy for liberals and lefties to despise. ( I share the feeling.)
Btw, that paragraph on the www I just typed is condescending in its own way. The victim word, for instance, and the implication that we lefties should stand above and listen to them. The idealized form of me would have typed something that sounded open to the possibility that we lefties also might be full of sh@.
Btw, that paragraph on the www I just typed is condescending in its own way. The victim word, for instance, and the implication that we lefties should stand above and listen to them. The idealized form of me would have typed something that sounded open to the possibility that we lefties also might be full of sh@.
Btw, that paragraph on the www I just typed is condescending in its own way. The victim word, for instance, and the implication that we lefties should stand above and listen to them. The idealized form of me would have typed something that sounded open to the possibility that we lefties also might be full of sh@.
Improving on Nixon: Because the President(-elect) says it, it must be true!
Jesus people.
Improving on Nixon: Because the President(-elect) says it, it must be true!
Jesus people.
Improving on Nixon: Because the President(-elect) says it, it must be true!
Jesus people.
reality-based is quaint again.
reality-based is quaint again.
reality-based is quaint again.
Believe what you want, but I’m not sitting in my office right now. I’m snorkeling in Maury Povich’s swimming pool in a gorilla costume.
Believe what you want, but I’m not sitting in my office right now. I’m snorkeling in Maury Povich’s swimming pool in a gorilla costume.
Believe what you want, but I’m not sitting in my office right now. I’m snorkeling in Maury Povich’s swimming pool in a gorilla costume.
Gorilla costumes are very heavy wet, so you must be a very good swimmer.
Gorilla costumes are very heavy wet, so you must be a very good swimmer.
Gorilla costumes are very heavy wet, so you must be a very good swimmer.
Gorilla costumes may be wet in *your* world….
Gorilla costumes may be wet in *your* world….
Gorilla costumes may be wet in *your* world….
Donald, thank you. The only thing I want to comment on is this:
On liberals, I don’t think I am strawmanning. In your case, yes, since my criticisms on Yemen don’t apply to you.
Why do you make an exception for me? Is it because I made explicit my opinion of the Saudis, and our support for them? Why are you assuming that, for example, the other liberals on this site don’t share the same opinion? Do people have to declare their “acceptable” opinions to merit exemption from “accursed liberal syndrome”?
I ask these questions partly in a rhetorical spirit, and to initiate consideration, not necessarily to continue engaging in a back-and-forth on this subject.
Donald, thank you. The only thing I want to comment on is this:
On liberals, I don’t think I am strawmanning. In your case, yes, since my criticisms on Yemen don’t apply to you.
Why do you make an exception for me? Is it because I made explicit my opinion of the Saudis, and our support for them? Why are you assuming that, for example, the other liberals on this site don’t share the same opinion? Do people have to declare their “acceptable” opinions to merit exemption from “accursed liberal syndrome”?
I ask these questions partly in a rhetorical spirit, and to initiate consideration, not necessarily to continue engaging in a back-and-forth on this subject.
Donald, thank you. The only thing I want to comment on is this:
On liberals, I don’t think I am strawmanning. In your case, yes, since my criticisms on Yemen don’t apply to you.
Why do you make an exception for me? Is it because I made explicit my opinion of the Saudis, and our support for them? Why are you assuming that, for example, the other liberals on this site don’t share the same opinion? Do people have to declare their “acceptable” opinions to merit exemption from “accursed liberal syndrome”?
I ask these questions partly in a rhetorical spirit, and to initiate consideration, not necessarily to continue engaging in a back-and-forth on this subject.
hahahahahahahahahahaha now we know what russell thinks of snorkeling…
hahahahahahahahahahaha now we know what russell thinks of snorkeling…
hahahahahahahahahahaha now we know what russell thinks of snorkeling…
I suppose that the fact that Trump hasn’t called Netanyahu could mean that he realizes that actions are ramifications. Or maybe Natanyahu realizes that and when Trump calls, he has his secretary tell Trump that he’s taking a dump or bulldozing a Palestinian village. The latter is much more likely, given this
While I’m slightly pleased that my knowledge base is a bit stronger here. (quick, Quemoy and Matsu are the answer to what Jeopardy question?) I am scared shitless at what Trump could bring about w/o even knowing what he is doing. I’m convinced that Abe will suck up to Trump, and shit will be introduced to multiple fans. Ha! the concern troll may point out, you just refuse to deny that [China is a dictatorship run by a sclerotic cabal of old men who hate our freedoms]. (feel free to insert other phrases in the [ ]) I can be unhappy about an infinity of stuff, but it doesn’t mean that I want everything to go to shit because of that.
I suppose that the fact that Trump hasn’t called Netanyahu could mean that he realizes that actions are ramifications. Or maybe Natanyahu realizes that and when Trump calls, he has his secretary tell Trump that he’s taking a dump or bulldozing a Palestinian village. The latter is much more likely, given this
While I’m slightly pleased that my knowledge base is a bit stronger here. (quick, Quemoy and Matsu are the answer to what Jeopardy question?) I am scared shitless at what Trump could bring about w/o even knowing what he is doing. I’m convinced that Abe will suck up to Trump, and shit will be introduced to multiple fans. Ha! the concern troll may point out, you just refuse to deny that [China is a dictatorship run by a sclerotic cabal of old men who hate our freedoms]. (feel free to insert other phrases in the [ ]) I can be unhappy about an infinity of stuff, but it doesn’t mean that I want everything to go to shit because of that.
I suppose that the fact that Trump hasn’t called Netanyahu could mean that he realizes that actions are ramifications. Or maybe Natanyahu realizes that and when Trump calls, he has his secretary tell Trump that he’s taking a dump or bulldozing a Palestinian village. The latter is much more likely, given this
While I’m slightly pleased that my knowledge base is a bit stronger here. (quick, Quemoy and Matsu are the answer to what Jeopardy question?) I am scared shitless at what Trump could bring about w/o even knowing what he is doing. I’m convinced that Abe will suck up to Trump, and shit will be introduced to multiple fans. Ha! the concern troll may point out, you just refuse to deny that [China is a dictatorship run by a sclerotic cabal of old men who hate our freedoms]. (feel free to insert other phrases in the [ ]) I can be unhappy about an infinity of stuff, but it doesn’t mean that I want everything to go to shit because of that.
Gftnc–
I am not talking about most people here, but American liberal pundits in the press and online.
I gotta read the thread– I missed what LJ is referencing on Netanyahu.
Gftnc–
I am not talking about most people here, but American liberal pundits in the press and online.
I gotta read the thread– I missed what LJ is referencing on Netanyahu.
Gftnc–
I am not talking about most people here, but American liberal pundits in the press and online.
I gotta read the thread– I missed what LJ is referencing on Netanyahu.
Gorilla costumes are very heavy wet, so you must be a very good swimmer.
You might think they are, but I think they aren’t. There’s really no right or wrong here.
Franz Liszt and I were just discussing this over lunch today on the surface of Jupiter. Nice place. They don’t skimp on the portions, either.
Gorilla costumes are very heavy wet, so you must be a very good swimmer.
You might think they are, but I think they aren’t. There’s really no right or wrong here.
Franz Liszt and I were just discussing this over lunch today on the surface of Jupiter. Nice place. They don’t skimp on the portions, either.
Gorilla costumes are very heavy wet, so you must be a very good swimmer.
You might think they are, but I think they aren’t. There’s really no right or wrong here.
Franz Liszt and I were just discussing this over lunch today on the surface of Jupiter. Nice place. They don’t skimp on the portions, either.
The Netanyahu reference was just imagining what would happen if Trump made a quick call to Bibi, told him he was doing a great job, the IDF is a fantastic fighting force, and maybe they could get together to have some hummus together. Strictly a humorous lead-in, Trump hasn’t done anything like that (yet).
I was just with a guest from India who was guardedly pleased with Trump because he realized that it was important to get the best and the brightest, and these people who were coming in weren’t, sort of a Bollywood version of Marty and McT’s. I didn’t press him, though I really disagreed, he was coming to Japan to talk about EFL, but I really wish I could have asked him how he felt about this.
I’ve heard people (who aren’t idiots) say ‘Trump is smart, he knows what he has done, so he knows what he is doing’. My takeaway, the guy is as smart as bait.
The Netanyahu reference was just imagining what would happen if Trump made a quick call to Bibi, told him he was doing a great job, the IDF is a fantastic fighting force, and maybe they could get together to have some hummus together. Strictly a humorous lead-in, Trump hasn’t done anything like that (yet).
I was just with a guest from India who was guardedly pleased with Trump because he realized that it was important to get the best and the brightest, and these people who were coming in weren’t, sort of a Bollywood version of Marty and McT’s. I didn’t press him, though I really disagreed, he was coming to Japan to talk about EFL, but I really wish I could have asked him how he felt about this.
I’ve heard people (who aren’t idiots) say ‘Trump is smart, he knows what he has done, so he knows what he is doing’. My takeaway, the guy is as smart as bait.
The Netanyahu reference was just imagining what would happen if Trump made a quick call to Bibi, told him he was doing a great job, the IDF is a fantastic fighting force, and maybe they could get together to have some hummus together. Strictly a humorous lead-in, Trump hasn’t done anything like that (yet).
I was just with a guest from India who was guardedly pleased with Trump because he realized that it was important to get the best and the brightest, and these people who were coming in weren’t, sort of a Bollywood version of Marty and McT’s. I didn’t press him, though I really disagreed, he was coming to Japan to talk about EFL, but I really wish I could have asked him how he felt about this.
I’ve heard people (who aren’t idiots) say ‘Trump is smart, he knows what he has done, so he knows what he is doing’. My takeaway, the guy is as smart as bait.
Funny, that was not my perception of Jupiter or the food for that matter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Now I have my headache.
Funny, that was not my perception of Jupiter or the food for that matter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Now I have my headache.
Funny, that was not my perception of Jupiter or the food for that matter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Now I have my headache.
“I’ve heard people (who aren’t idiots) say ‘Trump is smart”
smart in what way, though? in what domains is his particular skill set an asset?
sometimes coloring outside the lines is bold. sometimes it’s just coloring outside the lines.
“I’ve heard people (who aren’t idiots) say ‘Trump is smart”
smart in what way, though? in what domains is his particular skill set an asset?
sometimes coloring outside the lines is bold. sometimes it’s just coloring outside the lines.
“I’ve heard people (who aren’t idiots) say ‘Trump is smart”
smart in what way, though? in what domains is his particular skill set an asset?
sometimes coloring outside the lines is bold. sometimes it’s just coloring outside the lines.
Trump is a national security emergency. Isn’t there something we can do about it? I’m terrified.
I hope the recount works. I pray for infidelity among the electors. Can we dodge the nuclear holocaust?
Trump is a national security emergency. Isn’t there something we can do about it? I’m terrified.
I hope the recount works. I pray for infidelity among the electors. Can we dodge the nuclear holocaust?
Trump is a national security emergency. Isn’t there something we can do about it? I’m terrified.
I hope the recount works. I pray for infidelity among the electors. Can we dodge the nuclear holocaust?
Even smart people do incredibly stupid things. Sometimes especially smart people outside their envelope of knowledge and experience.
“Hey I’m smart, I can figure it out!”
Even smart people do incredibly stupid things. Sometimes especially smart people outside their envelope of knowledge and experience.
“Hey I’m smart, I can figure it out!”
Even smart people do incredibly stupid things. Sometimes especially smart people outside their envelope of knowledge and experience.
“Hey I’m smart, I can figure it out!”
Not to insult any 15 year old boys, but he reminds of one that found Paris Hilton’s phone and keeps calling all the numbers just because he can.
Smart, probably in some ways. Con men are smart often. He really, contrary to the popular narrative, stayed on point about jobs in the campaign. Every negative thing was about fixing jobs. Trade, immigration, politicians, all were destroying, taking or giving away jobs. One thing was the center of his campaign, I will bring back jobs, and not just any job, your job. It was smart, and since he pretty much ran it himself he must be smart. Some at least.
Not to insult any 15 year old boys, but he reminds of one that found Paris Hilton’s phone and keeps calling all the numbers just because he can.
Smart, probably in some ways. Con men are smart often. He really, contrary to the popular narrative, stayed on point about jobs in the campaign. Every negative thing was about fixing jobs. Trade, immigration, politicians, all were destroying, taking or giving away jobs. One thing was the center of his campaign, I will bring back jobs, and not just any job, your job. It was smart, and since he pretty much ran it himself he must be smart. Some at least.
Not to insult any 15 year old boys, but he reminds of one that found Paris Hilton’s phone and keeps calling all the numbers just because he can.
Smart, probably in some ways. Con men are smart often. He really, contrary to the popular narrative, stayed on point about jobs in the campaign. Every negative thing was about fixing jobs. Trade, immigration, politicians, all were destroying, taking or giving away jobs. One thing was the center of his campaign, I will bring back jobs, and not just any job, your job. It was smart, and since he pretty much ran it himself he must be smart. Some at least.
“Con men are smart often.”
LOL
you’re not giving me a good feeling here bro
I’m sure trump is smart in the sense of possessing a basic native intelligence. I’d even give him credit for shrewd.
the question is whether he has any f’ing clue about how to function as the head of state and executive of the US.
it’s sort of an important question.
“Con men are smart often.”
LOL
you’re not giving me a good feeling here bro
I’m sure trump is smart in the sense of possessing a basic native intelligence. I’d even give him credit for shrewd.
the question is whether he has any f’ing clue about how to function as the head of state and executive of the US.
it’s sort of an important question.
“Con men are smart often.”
LOL
you’re not giving me a good feeling here bro
I’m sure trump is smart in the sense of possessing a basic native intelligence. I’d even give him credit for shrewd.
the question is whether he has any f’ing clue about how to function as the head of state and executive of the US.
it’s sort of an important question.
“Hey I’m smart, I can figure it out!”
a personal obsetvation:
people who are really good at something often mistake that for being good at other stuff.
for some reason, this seems especially so for people who are good at business and/or making money.
quite often they are wrong.
“Hey I’m smart, I can figure it out!”
a personal obsetvation:
people who are really good at something often mistake that for being good at other stuff.
for some reason, this seems especially so for people who are good at business and/or making money.
quite often they are wrong.
“Hey I’m smart, I can figure it out!”
a personal obsetvation:
people who are really good at something often mistake that for being good at other stuff.
for some reason, this seems especially so for people who are good at business and/or making money.
quite often they are wrong.
Basically, we’re relying on the hope that all the other countries’ leaders are sane, because our new leader really isn’t. As much as I’ve despised some of our Presidents, I’ve never really been so afraid.
Basically, we’re relying on the hope that all the other countries’ leaders are sane, because our new leader really isn’t. As much as I’ve despised some of our Presidents, I’ve never really been so afraid.
Basically, we’re relying on the hope that all the other countries’ leaders are sane, because our new leader really isn’t. As much as I’ve despised some of our Presidents, I’ve never really been so afraid.
There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job, or be the part. the question is he aware that he should learn how to do it and willing.
I am on the fence still. If he decides to learn it will be lots better than people fear because he has decent instincts about people to go with the knowledge.
Otherwise it will be as good as Nixon’ last three years.
There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job, or be the part. the question is he aware that he should learn how to do it and willing.
I am on the fence still. If he decides to learn it will be lots better than people fear because he has decent instincts about people to go with the knowledge.
Otherwise it will be as good as Nixon’ last three years.
There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job, or be the part. the question is he aware that he should learn how to do it and willing.
I am on the fence still. If he decides to learn it will be lots better than people fear because he has decent instincts about people to go with the knowledge.
Otherwise it will be as good as Nixon’ last three years.
Marty: Trump “has decent instincts about people”
Say what???
Unless you are talking about the “instincts” of a conman, grifter, snake-oil salesman – but I wouldn’t put those in the same sentence as “decent.” I wouldn’t put _Trump_ in the same sentence as “decent,” in any sense. The man may or may not be a complete disaster as president, but as a human being he’s an embarrassment to us all.
Marty: Trump “has decent instincts about people”
Say what???
Unless you are talking about the “instincts” of a conman, grifter, snake-oil salesman – but I wouldn’t put those in the same sentence as “decent.” I wouldn’t put _Trump_ in the same sentence as “decent,” in any sense. The man may or may not be a complete disaster as president, but as a human being he’s an embarrassment to us all.
Marty: Trump “has decent instincts about people”
Say what???
Unless you are talking about the “instincts” of a conman, grifter, snake-oil salesman – but I wouldn’t put those in the same sentence as “decent.” I wouldn’t put _Trump_ in the same sentence as “decent,” in any sense. The man may or may not be a complete disaster as president, but as a human being he’s an embarrassment to us all.
There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job, or be the part. the question is he aware that he should learn how to do it and willing.
Assuming that he will learn anything, which I sincerely doubt, I wish he’d keep his mouth shut in the meantime.
There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job, or be the part. the question is he aware that he should learn how to do it and willing.
Assuming that he will learn anything, which I sincerely doubt, I wish he’d keep his mouth shut in the meantime.
There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job, or be the part. the question is he aware that he should learn how to do it and willing.
Assuming that he will learn anything, which I sincerely doubt, I wish he’d keep his mouth shut in the meantime.
“There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job”
it’s hard to compare things when they aren’t even on the same scale.
“I am on the fence still”
of course you are.
“There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job”
it’s hard to compare things when they aren’t even on the same scale.
“I am on the fence still”
of course you are.
“There are Presidents who knew less than they should about how to do the job”
it’s hard to compare things when they aren’t even on the same scale.
“I am on the fence still”
of course you are.
Donald Trump has the nicest friends.
Hmmm. The fence.
Donald Trump has the nicest friends.
Hmmm. The fence.
Donald Trump has the nicest friends.
Hmmm. The fence.
This piece was recommended by Loomis at LGM. It’s an analysis of how Trump appealed to the wwc and how the economy was a factor.
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.ys40jfxbw
This piece was recommended by Loomis at LGM. It’s an analysis of how Trump appealed to the wwc and how the economy was a factor.
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.ys40jfxbw
This piece was recommended by Loomis at LGM. It’s an analysis of how Trump appealed to the wwc and how the economy was a factor.
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.ys40jfxbw
And the following piece was linked by the preceding piece.
http://www.mtv.com/news/2955564/skin-in-the-game/
And the following piece was linked by the preceding piece.
http://www.mtv.com/news/2955564/skin-in-the-game/
And the following piece was linked by the preceding piece.
http://www.mtv.com/news/2955564/skin-in-the-game/
“Trump is smart”?
The word you’re looking for is cunning.
And yes, Trump is cunning.
He’s so cunning you could put a tail on his head and call him a weasel. And many have.
“Trump is smart”?
The word you’re looking for is cunning.
And yes, Trump is cunning.
He’s so cunning you could put a tail on his head and call him a weasel. And many have.
“Trump is smart”?
The word you’re looking for is cunning.
And yes, Trump is cunning.
He’s so cunning you could put a tail on his head and call him a weasel. And many have.
The latest “feature” in Trump on foreign policy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-spoke-with-taiwanese-president-a-major-break-with-decades-of-us-policy-on-china/2016/12/02/b98d3a22-b8ca-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.5799f7239aa6
This marks the first time in decades that a US President or President-elect has communicated directly with the government of Taiwan. The reaction from China will doubtless be seriously unhappy (I have a gift for understatement sometimes). If you thought our foreign policy under Trump might bear any resemblance to the past, let alone being a continuation of the existing one, time to junk that delusion (if his conversation with the President of Pakistan hadn’t already got you there).
We are going to be living in interesting times.
The latest “feature” in Trump on foreign policy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-spoke-with-taiwanese-president-a-major-break-with-decades-of-us-policy-on-china/2016/12/02/b98d3a22-b8ca-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.5799f7239aa6
This marks the first time in decades that a US President or President-elect has communicated directly with the government of Taiwan. The reaction from China will doubtless be seriously unhappy (I have a gift for understatement sometimes). If you thought our foreign policy under Trump might bear any resemblance to the past, let alone being a continuation of the existing one, time to junk that delusion (if his conversation with the President of Pakistan hadn’t already got you there).
We are going to be living in interesting times.
The latest “feature” in Trump on foreign policy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-spoke-with-taiwanese-president-a-major-break-with-decades-of-us-policy-on-china/2016/12/02/b98d3a22-b8ca-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.5799f7239aa6
This marks the first time in decades that a US President or President-elect has communicated directly with the government of Taiwan. The reaction from China will doubtless be seriously unhappy (I have a gift for understatement sometimes). If you thought our foreign policy under Trump might bear any resemblance to the past, let alone being a continuation of the existing one, time to junk that delusion (if his conversation with the President of Pakistan hadn’t already got you there).
We are going to be living in interesting times.
Trump + Taiwan + hotel.
no mysteries here.
Trump + Taiwan + hotel.
no mysteries here.
Trump + Taiwan + hotel.
no mysteries here.
Josh Marshall has an interesting take on the Taiwan call, which also touches on some of the annoying complexities of foreign policy in general, and why sometimes some of the “hypocrisy” we seem to show has a larger, legitimate purpose.
Josh Marshall has an interesting take on the Taiwan call, which also touches on some of the annoying complexities of foreign policy in general, and why sometimes some of the “hypocrisy” we seem to show has a larger, legitimate purpose.
Josh Marshall has an interesting take on the Taiwan call, which also touches on some of the annoying complexities of foreign policy in general, and why sometimes some of the “hypocrisy” we seem to show has a larger, legitimate purpose.
No mystery there. But also an indication, for anyone who somehow missed the signs, that foreign policy will be entirely subordinated to personal business interests. And short term ones at that, given that he might otherwise have been pursuing Trump hotels on the mainland….
No mystery there. But also an indication, for anyone who somehow missed the signs, that foreign policy will be entirely subordinated to personal business interests. And short term ones at that, given that he might otherwise have been pursuing Trump hotels on the mainland….
No mystery there. But also an indication, for anyone who somehow missed the signs, that foreign policy will be entirely subordinated to personal business interests. And short term ones at that, given that he might otherwise have been pursuing Trump hotels on the mainland….
“Hypocrisy” in not upsetting China is not the same thing as hypocrisy in condemning the bombing of Aleppo while supporting similar behavior by the Saudis. With the Chinese it is galling that we play along with their fantasy of one China, but it is to avoid starting a crisis that in turn might lead to war. In the case of Yemen there was the calculation that we could keep the Saudis happy, lie about their behavior, and nobody suffers except for people in Yemen. And maybe others outside Yemen someday, as some may wish to take revenge.
You really can’t justify hypocrisy in supporting a war on the civilian population in Yemen by putting quotes around a word and pointing to a very different situation.
“Hypocrisy” in not upsetting China is not the same thing as hypocrisy in condemning the bombing of Aleppo while supporting similar behavior by the Saudis. With the Chinese it is galling that we play along with their fantasy of one China, but it is to avoid starting a crisis that in turn might lead to war. In the case of Yemen there was the calculation that we could keep the Saudis happy, lie about their behavior, and nobody suffers except for people in Yemen. And maybe others outside Yemen someday, as some may wish to take revenge.
You really can’t justify hypocrisy in supporting a war on the civilian population in Yemen by putting quotes around a word and pointing to a very different situation.
“Hypocrisy” in not upsetting China is not the same thing as hypocrisy in condemning the bombing of Aleppo while supporting similar behavior by the Saudis. With the Chinese it is galling that we play along with their fantasy of one China, but it is to avoid starting a crisis that in turn might lead to war. In the case of Yemen there was the calculation that we could keep the Saudis happy, lie about their behavior, and nobody suffers except for people in Yemen. And maybe others outside Yemen someday, as some may wish to take revenge.
You really can’t justify hypocrisy in supporting a war on the civilian population in Yemen by putting quotes around a word and pointing to a very different situation.
And yeah, on Trump we see an idiot causing problems because he doesn’t know what he is doing, won’t take advice, and he isn’t even in power yet.
And yeah, on Trump we see an idiot causing problems because he doesn’t know what he is doing, won’t take advice, and he isn’t even in power yet.
And yeah, on Trump we see an idiot causing problems because he doesn’t know what he is doing, won’t take advice, and he isn’t even in power yet.
Is it that he won’t take advice? Or that he is willing to take advice from ideologues who believe in confrontation as an approach to foreign policy (especially in the Far East). Without listening to voices with alternative perspectives on how we should conduct ourselves.
Is it that he won’t take advice? Or that he is willing to take advice from ideologues who believe in confrontation as an approach to foreign policy (especially in the Far East). Without listening to voices with alternative perspectives on how we should conduct ourselves.
Is it that he won’t take advice? Or that he is willing to take advice from ideologues who believe in confrontation as an approach to foreign policy (especially in the Far East). Without listening to voices with alternative perspectives on how we should conduct ourselves.
it could have been that the president of taiwan took advantage of trump’s inexperience to make an out-of-protocol call
or it might have been a completely innocent (if problematic to the rest of the world) blunder
or trump may have intended to provoke the PRC
or trump may have been looking to further his own business interests
or trump may have made or taken the call to flip the bird to the existing protocol just for the sake of doing it
any of those things, in any number or combination, are completely possible
it could have been that the president of taiwan took advantage of trump’s inexperience to make an out-of-protocol call
or it might have been a completely innocent (if problematic to the rest of the world) blunder
or trump may have intended to provoke the PRC
or trump may have been looking to further his own business interests
or trump may have made or taken the call to flip the bird to the existing protocol just for the sake of doing it
any of those things, in any number or combination, are completely possible
it could have been that the president of taiwan took advantage of trump’s inexperience to make an out-of-protocol call
or it might have been a completely innocent (if problematic to the rest of the world) blunder
or trump may have intended to provoke the PRC
or trump may have been looking to further his own business interests
or trump may have made or taken the call to flip the bird to the existing protocol just for the sake of doing it
any of those things, in any number or combination, are completely possible
People can be smart without being wise or sensible or rational or capable of recognizing their own limitations or capable of making ethical decisions or capable of thinking logically or capable of controlling themselves.
Trump is a salesman. He was selling his brand when he ran for office. He did very well at that with less than a majority of the voters.
As far as I can tell, that’s the only kind of smarts he has.
People can be smart without being wise or sensible or rational or capable of recognizing their own limitations or capable of making ethical decisions or capable of thinking logically or capable of controlling themselves.
Trump is a salesman. He was selling his brand when he ran for office. He did very well at that with less than a majority of the voters.
As far as I can tell, that’s the only kind of smarts he has.
People can be smart without being wise or sensible or rational or capable of recognizing their own limitations or capable of making ethical decisions or capable of thinking logically or capable of controlling themselves.
Trump is a salesman. He was selling his brand when he ran for office. He did very well at that with less than a majority of the voters.
As far as I can tell, that’s the only kind of smarts he has.
I love polio…
I love polio…
I love polio…
I use the term “idiot” loosely when talking about Trump. As others have said, he might be smart in the IQ sense, or cunning or whatever. Or he might intend to cause trouble with China. The word ” idiot” applies in all the possible cases.
On another issue, Islamophobia in the Democratic Party. This was or should have been an issue in the primaries, but some of the Ellison opponents are making it pretty obvious now, whether or not you prefer someone else on other grounds.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/04/the-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-is-repugnant-but-reveals-much-about-washington/
And yes, it’s Glenn, but I agree with all of it. Glenn says things most nice liberals prefer to skip over.
I use the term “idiot” loosely when talking about Trump. As others have said, he might be smart in the IQ sense, or cunning or whatever. Or he might intend to cause trouble with China. The word ” idiot” applies in all the possible cases.
On another issue, Islamophobia in the Democratic Party. This was or should have been an issue in the primaries, but some of the Ellison opponents are making it pretty obvious now, whether or not you prefer someone else on other grounds.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/04/the-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-is-repugnant-but-reveals-much-about-washington/
And yes, it’s Glenn, but I agree with all of it. Glenn says things most nice liberals prefer to skip over.
I use the term “idiot” loosely when talking about Trump. As others have said, he might be smart in the IQ sense, or cunning or whatever. Or he might intend to cause trouble with China. The word ” idiot” applies in all the possible cases.
On another issue, Islamophobia in the Democratic Party. This was or should have been an issue in the primaries, but some of the Ellison opponents are making it pretty obvious now, whether or not you prefer someone else on other grounds.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/04/the-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-is-repugnant-but-reveals-much-about-washington/
And yes, it’s Glenn, but I agree with all of it. Glenn says things most nice liberals prefer to skip over.
It is really amazing (at least to me) how otherwise quite intelligent people can believe some totally daft things. I know one who asserts that what we used to call “childhood diseases” were actually disappearing all on their own in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And that vaccines had nothing to do with it.
Somehow the fact that they didn’t disappear elsewhere until vaccines got rolled out there is unpersuasive. If I had ever harbored the delusion the people were mostly rational beings, that put paid to it.
It is really amazing (at least to me) how otherwise quite intelligent people can believe some totally daft things. I know one who asserts that what we used to call “childhood diseases” were actually disappearing all on their own in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And that vaccines had nothing to do with it.
Somehow the fact that they didn’t disappear elsewhere until vaccines got rolled out there is unpersuasive. If I had ever harbored the delusion the people were mostly rational beings, that put paid to it.
It is really amazing (at least to me) how otherwise quite intelligent people can believe some totally daft things. I know one who asserts that what we used to call “childhood diseases” were actually disappearing all on their own in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And that vaccines had nothing to do with it.
Somehow the fact that they didn’t disappear elsewhere until vaccines got rolled out there is unpersuasive. If I had ever harbored the delusion the people were mostly rational beings, that put paid to it.
Yes, Greenwald can be a pain, but in this case I agree with pretty well the whole article, too.
Yes, Greenwald can be a pain, but in this case I agree with pretty well the whole article, too.
Yes, Greenwald can be a pain, but in this case I agree with pretty well the whole article, too.
I don’t read Greenwald under any circumstances. If he’s discussing the ADL’s comments about Keith Ellison, Josh Marshall has a good take on that, and it probably represents what most Democrats believe, including the part about being agnostic about who should be the DNC chair.
I don’t read Greenwald under any circumstances. If he’s discussing the ADL’s comments about Keith Ellison, Josh Marshall has a good take on that, and it probably represents what most Democrats believe, including the part about being agnostic about who should be the DNC chair.
I don’t read Greenwald under any circumstances. If he’s discussing the ADL’s comments about Keith Ellison, Josh Marshall has a good take on that, and it probably represents what most Democrats believe, including the part about being agnostic about who should be the DNC chair.
Ugh’s link above also seems on the money to me:
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.5rt3cek3j
Democrats need to work out how to campaign better.
Ugh’s link above also seems on the money to me:
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.5rt3cek3j
Democrats need to work out how to campaign better.
Ugh’s link above also seems on the money to me:
https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from-trump-in-retrospect-dce431b23ed0#.5rt3cek3j
Democrats need to work out how to campaign better.
Democrats need to work out how to campaign better.
Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Democrats need to work out how to campaign better.
Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Democrats need to work out how to campaign better.
Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Blaming the voters, however much you might think they deserve it, is not a fruitful path to winning elections.
Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Blaming the voters, however much you might think they deserve it, is not a fruitful path to winning elections.
Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Blaming the voters, however much you might think they deserve it, is not a fruitful path to winning elections.
Jesus wept, people, I thought fake news was one of the major problems, now it seems there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy gaming Google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook
Jesus wept, people, I thought fake news was one of the major problems, now it seems there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy gaming Google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook
Jesus wept, people, I thought fake news was one of the major problems, now it seems there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy gaming Google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook
OK, so not exactly a conspiracy, maybe something worse:
OK, so not exactly a conspiracy, maybe something worse:
OK, so not exactly a conspiracy, maybe something worse:
a vast, right-wing conspiracy gaming Google search:
Yes. It will no doubt get worse before it gets better. And Donald’s little friend, Julian Assange, is now working for Putin to crush Angela Merkel. Yes, that Putin, the one who (it made sense to Donald) should be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
a vast, right-wing conspiracy gaming Google search:
Yes. It will no doubt get worse before it gets better. And Donald’s little friend, Julian Assange, is now working for Putin to crush Angela Merkel. Yes, that Putin, the one who (it made sense to Donald) should be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
a vast, right-wing conspiracy gaming Google search:
Yes. It will no doubt get worse before it gets better. And Donald’s little friend, Julian Assange, is now working for Putin to crush Angela Merkel. Yes, that Putin, the one who (it made sense to Donald) should be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not even a US conspiracy:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.wvr3EDDNWo#.hykgMQQL0p
… young Macedonians earning thousands of dollars setting up fake pro Trump new sites. Interesting to watch if this persists post election.
Not even a US conspiracy:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.wvr3EDDNWo#.hykgMQQL0p
… young Macedonians earning thousands of dollars setting up fake pro Trump new sites. Interesting to watch if this persists post election.
Not even a US conspiracy:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.wvr3EDDNWo#.hykgMQQL0p
… young Macedonians earning thousands of dollars setting up fake pro Trump new sites. Interesting to watch if this persists post election.
Nigel, this seems much more serious to me than the macedonian fake Trump news, this seems like a meta meta fake search system feeding pernicious results to everyone, and in fact feeding pernicious search terms even before that. And then also tailoring to individuals and.their prejudices so their whole world view becomes deformed. On phone now for 48 hours or so, so no good to man or beast, but by the time I’m back on Tuesday I’ll be interested to know what you all make of this
Nigel, this seems much more serious to me than the macedonian fake Trump news, this seems like a meta meta fake search system feeding pernicious results to everyone, and in fact feeding pernicious search terms even before that. And then also tailoring to individuals and.their prejudices so their whole world view becomes deformed. On phone now for 48 hours or so, so no good to man or beast, but by the time I’m back on Tuesday I’ll be interested to know what you all make of this
Nigel, this seems much more serious to me than the macedonian fake Trump news, this seems like a meta meta fake search system feeding pernicious results to everyone, and in fact feeding pernicious search terms even before that. And then also tailoring to individuals and.their prejudices so their whole world view becomes deformed. On phone now for 48 hours or so, so no good to man or beast, but by the time I’m back on Tuesday I’ll be interested to know what you all make of this
I guess if Trump is sucking up to Russia then dissing China makes sense. In Junior High.
I guess if Trump is sucking up to Russia then dissing China makes sense. In Junior High.
I guess if Trump is sucking up to Russia then dissing China makes sense. In Junior High.
“Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Blaming the voters, however much you might think they deserve it, is not a fruitful path to winning elections.”
about 55% of eligible voters bothered to show up.
it seems to me that “get offa your @ss and cast a freaking vote” is a completely reasonable position.
cast more votes for your guy than the other folks cast for their strikes me as a 100% guaranteed path to winning elections.
“Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Blaming the voters, however much you might think they deserve it, is not a fruitful path to winning elections.”
about 55% of eligible voters bothered to show up.
it seems to me that “get offa your @ss and cast a freaking vote” is a completely reasonable position.
cast more votes for your guy than the other folks cast for their strikes me as a 100% guaranteed path to winning elections.
“Democrats mainly just need to learn to vote for their candidate.
Blaming the voters, however much you might think they deserve it, is not a fruitful path to winning elections.”
about 55% of eligible voters bothered to show up.
it seems to me that “get offa your @ss and cast a freaking vote” is a completely reasonable position.
cast more votes for your guy than the other folks cast for their strikes me as a 100% guaranteed path to winning elections.
Hye you all the Sioux won on DAPL, at least for now. The Arny Corp has withdrawn the permit and wil be looking for another route for the pipline.\\
I’ve been followint this on Facebook for a while. I have a facebook friend there ( she’s Piaute). It hs bee so insprigin to me to see the gfrwoing support.
I saw an interview with a young Native woman and she said, “we just want to win for once.”
Trump may well try to fuck things up, but Obama payed it very smart by telling the Army Corp to reconsider thei permit rather than intervenint openly himself.
I feel so inspired by Standing Rock. There is a huge desire in this country for another movement like the Civil Rights movement or the labor movement or the anti war movement: a large and diverse collection of people working together to grab attention and change the narrative The Standing Rock foks did it just right: non violent, dignified, the moral high ground all the way.
Honeslty I feel so inspired.
Hye you all the Sioux won on DAPL, at least for now. The Arny Corp has withdrawn the permit and wil be looking for another route for the pipline.\\
I’ve been followint this on Facebook for a while. I have a facebook friend there ( she’s Piaute). It hs bee so insprigin to me to see the gfrwoing support.
I saw an interview with a young Native woman and she said, “we just want to win for once.”
Trump may well try to fuck things up, but Obama payed it very smart by telling the Army Corp to reconsider thei permit rather than intervenint openly himself.
I feel so inspired by Standing Rock. There is a huge desire in this country for another movement like the Civil Rights movement or the labor movement or the anti war movement: a large and diverse collection of people working together to grab attention and change the narrative The Standing Rock foks did it just right: non violent, dignified, the moral high ground all the way.
Honeslty I feel so inspired.
Hye you all the Sioux won on DAPL, at least for now. The Arny Corp has withdrawn the permit and wil be looking for another route for the pipline.\\
I’ve been followint this on Facebook for a while. I have a facebook friend there ( she’s Piaute). It hs bee so insprigin to me to see the gfrwoing support.
I saw an interview with a young Native woman and she said, “we just want to win for once.”
Trump may well try to fuck things up, but Obama payed it very smart by telling the Army Corp to reconsider thei permit rather than intervenint openly himself.
I feel so inspired by Standing Rock. There is a huge desire in this country for another movement like the Civil Rights movement or the labor movement or the anti war movement: a large and diverse collection of people working together to grab attention and change the narrative The Standing Rock foks did it just right: non violent, dignified, the moral high ground all the way.
Honeslty I feel so inspired.
Well, yes.
But saying “get offa your @ss and cast a freaking vote” is likely not going to be the optimum approach to making it happen.
The problem may be simply that your voters aren’t turning out to vote. But the challenge for the Democratic Party is to figure out how to motivate them to do so. In particular, motivating them to do so even in the absence of an exceptionally charismatic candidate.
Well, yes.
But saying “get offa your @ss and cast a freaking vote” is likely not going to be the optimum approach to making it happen.
The problem may be simply that your voters aren’t turning out to vote. But the challenge for the Democratic Party is to figure out how to motivate them to do so. In particular, motivating them to do so even in the absence of an exceptionally charismatic candidate.
Well, yes.
But saying “get offa your @ss and cast a freaking vote” is likely not going to be the optimum approach to making it happen.
The problem may be simply that your voters aren’t turning out to vote. But the challenge for the Democratic Party is to figure out how to motivate them to do so. In particular, motivating them to do so even in the absence of an exceptionally charismatic candidate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That is down the street from my house. I’ve eaten there half a dozen times. Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.
And people are whining about putting up rainbow flags on their own homes while Pence temporarily lives in the neighborhood.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-mr-pences-new-dc-neighborhood-not-exactly-the-welcome-wagon/2016/12/03/5a7ca0f4-b974-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html
Where are Count and mcmanus?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That is down the street from my house. I’ve eaten there half a dozen times. Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.
And people are whining about putting up rainbow flags on their own homes while Pence temporarily lives in the neighborhood.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-mr-pences-new-dc-neighborhood-not-exactly-the-welcome-wagon/2016/12/03/5a7ca0f4-b974-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html
Where are Count and mcmanus?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That is down the street from my house. I’ve eaten there half a dozen times. Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.
And people are whining about putting up rainbow flags on their own homes while Pence temporarily lives in the neighborhood.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-mr-pences-new-dc-neighborhood-not-exactly-the-welcome-wagon/2016/12/03/5a7ca0f4-b974-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html
Where are Count and mcmanus?
the challenge for the Democratic Party is to figure out how to motivate them to do so.
The Democratic Party nominated a good candidate, and she won the popular vote by a significant margin. She was running against a racist demagogue, who was supported by a foreign leader with a sophisticated cybertheft and disinformation network. There is undoubtedly more to that story, including collusion of the FBI, and I hope we find out some of what occurred. And many states systematically and successfully repressed votes. Considering these odds, the Democratic candidate performed quite well.
The premise seems to be that it’s the Democratic Party leaders who are responsible, that the Democrats have “lost”, when in fact it’s the country that has lost. Too many of the people willfully ignored the truth, or bought into racism, or cynically sat on the sidelines “criticizing” and playing performance art games with their votes, instead of working to elect the only sane candidate who was running in the general election.
The country now has a kleptocratic psychopath who will assist the Republican party in dismantling everything that for generations has made this country comfortable and secure for most of its people. And that’s assuming that he doesn’t bring on nuclear war.
In the end, it’s not the Democratic Party, but the people themselves who need to step up. It’s harder now because these fascists will make the truth more difficult to discern, and will work to suppress voting rights.
It’s important that we get past our anger and work together, but I mightily resent the people who did this to our country, and it wasn’t the Democrats. One would think that with the Bush v. Gore election so recently in our memory that the people would have learned.
I’m hoping for a miracle before inauguration day, that somehow what seems inevitable doesn’t happen. Every day looks more grim.
Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.
Yes.
the challenge for the Democratic Party is to figure out how to motivate them to do so.
The Democratic Party nominated a good candidate, and she won the popular vote by a significant margin. She was running against a racist demagogue, who was supported by a foreign leader with a sophisticated cybertheft and disinformation network. There is undoubtedly more to that story, including collusion of the FBI, and I hope we find out some of what occurred. And many states systematically and successfully repressed votes. Considering these odds, the Democratic candidate performed quite well.
The premise seems to be that it’s the Democratic Party leaders who are responsible, that the Democrats have “lost”, when in fact it’s the country that has lost. Too many of the people willfully ignored the truth, or bought into racism, or cynically sat on the sidelines “criticizing” and playing performance art games with their votes, instead of working to elect the only sane candidate who was running in the general election.
The country now has a kleptocratic psychopath who will assist the Republican party in dismantling everything that for generations has made this country comfortable and secure for most of its people. And that’s assuming that he doesn’t bring on nuclear war.
In the end, it’s not the Democratic Party, but the people themselves who need to step up. It’s harder now because these fascists will make the truth more difficult to discern, and will work to suppress voting rights.
It’s important that we get past our anger and work together, but I mightily resent the people who did this to our country, and it wasn’t the Democrats. One would think that with the Bush v. Gore election so recently in our memory that the people would have learned.
I’m hoping for a miracle before inauguration day, that somehow what seems inevitable doesn’t happen. Every day looks more grim.
Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.
Yes.
the challenge for the Democratic Party is to figure out how to motivate them to do so.
The Democratic Party nominated a good candidate, and she won the popular vote by a significant margin. She was running against a racist demagogue, who was supported by a foreign leader with a sophisticated cybertheft and disinformation network. There is undoubtedly more to that story, including collusion of the FBI, and I hope we find out some of what occurred. And many states systematically and successfully repressed votes. Considering these odds, the Democratic candidate performed quite well.
The premise seems to be that it’s the Democratic Party leaders who are responsible, that the Democrats have “lost”, when in fact it’s the country that has lost. Too many of the people willfully ignored the truth, or bought into racism, or cynically sat on the sidelines “criticizing” and playing performance art games with their votes, instead of working to elect the only sane candidate who was running in the general election.
The country now has a kleptocratic psychopath who will assist the Republican party in dismantling everything that for generations has made this country comfortable and secure for most of its people. And that’s assuming that he doesn’t bring on nuclear war.
In the end, it’s not the Democratic Party, but the people themselves who need to step up. It’s harder now because these fascists will make the truth more difficult to discern, and will work to suppress voting rights.
It’s important that we get past our anger and work together, but I mightily resent the people who did this to our country, and it wasn’t the Democrats. One would think that with the Bush v. Gore election so recently in our memory that the people would have learned.
I’m hoping for a miracle before inauguration day, that somehow what seems inevitable doesn’t happen. Every day looks more grim.
Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.
Yes.
Leaders of the Western World, May 2016:
https://mobile.twitter.com/williamjordann/status/805557012272660480
Only Merkel still standing.
Leaders of the Western World, May 2016:
https://mobile.twitter.com/williamjordann/status/805557012272660480
Only Merkel still standing.
Leaders of the Western World, May 2016:
https://mobile.twitter.com/williamjordann/status/805557012272660480
Only Merkel still standing.
GFTNC, it is absolutely more serious than the Macedonian thing – I posted that to demonstrate that the proliferation of such websites need not even be ideologically motivated. It’s not even necessarily that Google search is being gamed (though that’s quite possible), but rather the apparent abdication of moral responsibility by Facebook and Google in the face of this.
Meantime, the obvious response is a similar effort from the left, which in itself is a depressing thought.
What is clear is that the voice of traditional journalism, trained seekers of fact, is a whisper against a roar. I don’t notice it because I am pre Google and don’t even use Facebook, but I am becoming the exception.
GFTNC, it is absolutely more serious than the Macedonian thing – I posted that to demonstrate that the proliferation of such websites need not even be ideologically motivated. It’s not even necessarily that Google search is being gamed (though that’s quite possible), but rather the apparent abdication of moral responsibility by Facebook and Google in the face of this.
Meantime, the obvious response is a similar effort from the left, which in itself is a depressing thought.
What is clear is that the voice of traditional journalism, trained seekers of fact, is a whisper against a roar. I don’t notice it because I am pre Google and don’t even use Facebook, but I am becoming the exception.
GFTNC, it is absolutely more serious than the Macedonian thing – I posted that to demonstrate that the proliferation of such websites need not even be ideologically motivated. It’s not even necessarily that Google search is being gamed (though that’s quite possible), but rather the apparent abdication of moral responsibility by Facebook and Google in the face of this.
Meantime, the obvious response is a similar effort from the left, which in itself is a depressing thought.
What is clear is that the voice of traditional journalism, trained seekers of fact, is a whisper against a roar. I don’t notice it because I am pre Google and don’t even use Facebook, but I am becoming the exception.
the apparent abdication of moral responsibility by Facebook and Google in the face of this
I’m not sure that they’ve abdicated moral responsibility. They certainly share blame, but their business (particularly Google’s) was never about “journalism” and they never claimed it was. They need to do more, and they know it, but it’s not that easy to do so in line with the First Amendment. I have no doubt that the article that GftNC highlights is extremely disturbing (devastating) to the folks at Google.
I am a heavy user of Google, and use Facebook too (because I need it to communicate with some people who use it exclusively). Google is an essential tool, but checking sources, and using common sense is part of the process. If a story seems outlandish, it’s especially important to try to verify it. Republicans, especially Trump, are themselves so truly outlandish, that it might be possible to lose one’s bearing on the truth, but I still feel as though I have some ability to distinguish.
Some people in this country work very hard to willfully believe lies. I’m sure there are also people who are intellectually incapable of ferreting out truth, but I think it’s more about people who find “stories” to support preexisting hate.
the apparent abdication of moral responsibility by Facebook and Google in the face of this
I’m not sure that they’ve abdicated moral responsibility. They certainly share blame, but their business (particularly Google’s) was never about “journalism” and they never claimed it was. They need to do more, and they know it, but it’s not that easy to do so in line with the First Amendment. I have no doubt that the article that GftNC highlights is extremely disturbing (devastating) to the folks at Google.
I am a heavy user of Google, and use Facebook too (because I need it to communicate with some people who use it exclusively). Google is an essential tool, but checking sources, and using common sense is part of the process. If a story seems outlandish, it’s especially important to try to verify it. Republicans, especially Trump, are themselves so truly outlandish, that it might be possible to lose one’s bearing on the truth, but I still feel as though I have some ability to distinguish.
Some people in this country work very hard to willfully believe lies. I’m sure there are also people who are intellectually incapable of ferreting out truth, but I think it’s more about people who find “stories” to support preexisting hate.
the apparent abdication of moral responsibility by Facebook and Google in the face of this
I’m not sure that they’ve abdicated moral responsibility. They certainly share blame, but their business (particularly Google’s) was never about “journalism” and they never claimed it was. They need to do more, and they know it, but it’s not that easy to do so in line with the First Amendment. I have no doubt that the article that GftNC highlights is extremely disturbing (devastating) to the folks at Google.
I am a heavy user of Google, and use Facebook too (because I need it to communicate with some people who use it exclusively). Google is an essential tool, but checking sources, and using common sense is part of the process. If a story seems outlandish, it’s especially important to try to verify it. Republicans, especially Trump, are themselves so truly outlandish, that it might be possible to lose one’s bearing on the truth, but I still feel as though I have some ability to distinguish.
Some people in this country work very hard to willfully believe lies. I’m sure there are also people who are intellectually incapable of ferreting out truth, but I think it’s more about people who find “stories” to support preexisting hate.
At least some of the “let the fake news through” is because any service that tries to apply editorial filters is opening itself up to libel/slander lawsuits for the content they host, even if it came from “Mr. Ob Pseudo, Kidrape AK.”
It’s akin to “common carrier” immunity.
And even without that, the effort and expense of ‘draining the swamp’ is going to be prohibitive, and only indirectly affects their bottom line.
We really need a powerful AI to counteract the NS.
At least some of the “let the fake news through” is because any service that tries to apply editorial filters is opening itself up to libel/slander lawsuits for the content they host, even if it came from “Mr. Ob Pseudo, Kidrape AK.”
It’s akin to “common carrier” immunity.
And even without that, the effort and expense of ‘draining the swamp’ is going to be prohibitive, and only indirectly affects their bottom line.
We really need a powerful AI to counteract the NS.
At least some of the “let the fake news through” is because any service that tries to apply editorial filters is opening itself up to libel/slander lawsuits for the content they host, even if it came from “Mr. Ob Pseudo, Kidrape AK.”
It’s akin to “common carrier” immunity.
And even without that, the effort and expense of ‘draining the swamp’ is going to be prohibitive, and only indirectly affects their bottom line.
We really need a powerful AI to counteract the NS.
Snarki’s correct – the lack of content policing on sites is at least in part (if not mostly) due to insulation from libel/slander laws.
They can get around some of this if their Terms of Service are violated (like Reddit did with the “pizzagate” group), but if they are taking things down because they believe they are false/defamatory, they are opening themselves up to suits for things they didn’t take down.
Snarki’s correct – the lack of content policing on sites is at least in part (if not mostly) due to insulation from libel/slander laws.
They can get around some of this if their Terms of Service are violated (like Reddit did with the “pizzagate” group), but if they are taking things down because they believe they are false/defamatory, they are opening themselves up to suits for things they didn’t take down.
Snarki’s correct – the lack of content policing on sites is at least in part (if not mostly) due to insulation from libel/slander laws.
They can get around some of this if their Terms of Service are violated (like Reddit did with the “pizzagate” group), but if they are taking things down because they believe they are false/defamatory, they are opening themselves up to suits for things they didn’t take down.
GFTNC, one quibble… the google searches in the Guardian story do not autocomplete with nefarious links for me, but ones which are rather more anodyne.
GFTNC, one quibble… the google searches in the Guardian story do not autocomplete with nefarious links for me, but ones which are rather more anodyne.
GFTNC, one quibble… the google searches in the Guardian story do not autocomplete with nefarious links for me, but ones which are rather more anodyne.
I’m back! North Country to London and back in one day, dog-tired. Nigel, the searches were doing it for me yesterday, maybe Google have already messed with it in response to that article, which was 3 full pages of a broadsheet (the Observer) yesterday? It looked to me like it was going to cause plenty of trouble, especially the “are women evil” one (although all the pro-Hitler stuff was pretty ripe too). It’s going to be interesting to see how this develops. And so to bed…
I’m back! North Country to London and back in one day, dog-tired. Nigel, the searches were doing it for me yesterday, maybe Google have already messed with it in response to that article, which was 3 full pages of a broadsheet (the Observer) yesterday? It looked to me like it was going to cause plenty of trouble, especially the “are women evil” one (although all the pro-Hitler stuff was pretty ripe too). It’s going to be interesting to see how this develops. And so to bed…
I’m back! North Country to London and back in one day, dog-tired. Nigel, the searches were doing it for me yesterday, maybe Google have already messed with it in response to that article, which was 3 full pages of a broadsheet (the Observer) yesterday? It looked to me like it was going to cause plenty of trouble, especially the “are women evil” one (although all the pro-Hitler stuff was pretty ripe too). It’s going to be interesting to see how this develops. And so to bed…
maybe Google have already messed with it in response to that article
I think that Google is and has been trying to address over time, but maybe this particular thing because of this particular article. As soon as I read about the google search with results leading first to a fake news story that Donald Trump won the popular vote, I googled it, and there it was. I googled it again a few hours later, and it was fixed.
They haven’t been able to keep up, but they’re trying.
All that said, Google searching is one of the most wonderful human tools ever created. Clearly, people are using it to no good, and we have to be vigilant, and fix it. But just as democracy isn’t just a project for political leaders, information isn’t just a project for search engine corporations. We all have to be vigilant and work towards truth and justice. If we believe in bottom up rather than top down, it’s on us.
maybe Google have already messed with it in response to that article
I think that Google is and has been trying to address over time, but maybe this particular thing because of this particular article. As soon as I read about the google search with results leading first to a fake news story that Donald Trump won the popular vote, I googled it, and there it was. I googled it again a few hours later, and it was fixed.
They haven’t been able to keep up, but they’re trying.
All that said, Google searching is one of the most wonderful human tools ever created. Clearly, people are using it to no good, and we have to be vigilant, and fix it. But just as democracy isn’t just a project for political leaders, information isn’t just a project for search engine corporations. We all have to be vigilant and work towards truth and justice. If we believe in bottom up rather than top down, it’s on us.
maybe Google have already messed with it in response to that article
I think that Google is and has been trying to address over time, but maybe this particular thing because of this particular article. As soon as I read about the google search with results leading first to a fake news story that Donald Trump won the popular vote, I googled it, and there it was. I googled it again a few hours later, and it was fixed.
They haven’t been able to keep up, but they’re trying.
All that said, Google searching is one of the most wonderful human tools ever created. Clearly, people are using it to no good, and we have to be vigilant, and fix it. But just as democracy isn’t just a project for political leaders, information isn’t just a project for search engine corporations. We all have to be vigilant and work towards truth and justice. If we believe in bottom up rather than top down, it’s on us.
So Google censored the results of its search?
So Google censored the results of its search?
So Google censored the results of its search?
Google corrected the search results so that the lies didn’t appear first, Marty. Sue them!
Google corrected the search results so that the lies didn’t appear first, Marty. Sue them!
Google corrected the search results so that the lies didn’t appear first, Marty. Sue them!
Google is, in some respects, the lesser worry.
The amount of information Facebook has on any of its users, and its willingness to share/sell that information to third parties – for instance for political micro targeting – is alarming.
The article might just be right when it states we do not have the conceptual equipment to deal with this new reality.
Google is, in some respects, the lesser worry.
The amount of information Facebook has on any of its users, and its willingness to share/sell that information to third parties – for instance for political micro targeting – is alarming.
The article might just be right when it states we do not have the conceptual equipment to deal with this new reality.
Google is, in some respects, the lesser worry.
The amount of information Facebook has on any of its users, and its willingness to share/sell that information to third parties – for instance for political micro targeting – is alarming.
The article might just be right when it states we do not have the conceptual equipment to deal with this new reality.
“…information isn’t just a project for search engine corporations. We all have to be vigilant and work towards truth and justice.”
Sapient, thank you for stating the most powerful and compelling argument for this.
“…information isn’t just a project for search engine corporations. We all have to be vigilant and work towards truth and justice.”
Sapient, thank you for stating the most powerful and compelling argument for this.
“…information isn’t just a project for search engine corporations. We all have to be vigilant and work towards truth and justice.”
Sapient, thank you for stating the most powerful and compelling argument for this.
So it didn’t exclude them, it reranked them? I will have to think about that. I love Sasquatch stories.
So it didn’t exclude them, it reranked them? I will have to think about that. I love Sasquatch stories.
So it didn’t exclude them, it reranked them? I will have to think about that. I love Sasquatch stories.
Google regularly tweaks the page rank algorithm if they think it’s being gamed.
it’s always being gamed, so it’s always being tweaked.
Google regularly tweaks the page rank algorithm if they think it’s being gamed.
it’s always being gamed, so it’s always being tweaked.
Google regularly tweaks the page rank algorithm if they think it’s being gamed.
it’s always being gamed, so it’s always being tweaked.
as far as Facebook goes, it’s important to remember that users of Facebook are not the customers, they are the product.
it’s not a news organization.
as far as Facebook goes, it’s important to remember that users of Facebook are not the customers, they are the product.
it’s not a news organization.
as far as Facebook goes, it’s important to remember that users of Facebook are not the customers, they are the product.
it’s not a news organization.
The Speaker of the House: “there is nowhere to go but up with respect to Obamacare,” which is “failing and failing quickly.”
And yet:
“Clearly there will be a transition and a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off,”
Which reminds me of:
If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed then why would he be in danger, why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
The Speaker of the House: “there is nowhere to go but up with respect to Obamacare,” which is “failing and failing quickly.”
And yet:
“Clearly there will be a transition and a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off,”
Which reminds me of:
If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed then why would he be in danger, why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
The Speaker of the House: “there is nowhere to go but up with respect to Obamacare,” which is “failing and failing quickly.”
And yet:
“Clearly there will be a transition and a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off,”
Which reminds me of:
If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed then why would he be in danger, why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
re: Obamacare – the (R)’s are going to see if they can 86 it ASAP, but they are going to want to make sure the repeal doesn’t actually kick in until after the mid-terms. so that the tens of millions of people who are going to be shit out of luck don’t vote their asses out.
it’s going to be one adventure in bullshit after another for at least the next four years. probably for the next generation, because these MF’ers just don’t seem to want to give it up.
rich people want more money. lots more. they want all they can get.
(R)’s want to make sure they get it.
that will be the story of the next four years.
it’s been the story of the last 40, why should it be any different now?
am I being overly reductionist? show me how.
the ‘entitlements’ we’ve all paid into for our entire working lives will be under attack. they’ve been under attack for years, now they are going to go for it because they have both houses of Congress, the white house, and will shortly have the SCOTUS. the entitlements are under attack because they want to privatize it, so that rich people can make more money off of it.
the public school system will be under attack. they want to privatize it, so that rich people can make more money off of it.
the prison system will be up for increased privatization. yeah, i know Obama just said no. Trump will say yes. they want to privatize it, so they can make more money off it.
public land will be under attack. they want to privatize it, so they can make more money off it. they’re already queueing up the tribal lands, and no i’m not talking about standing rock, i’m talking about any piece of land under tribal jurisdiction that has any scrap or any potential scrap of mineral extraction value. they want it. the tribes will claim sovereignty, but they will either find somebody cooperative to come to terms with, or they’ll just tell them to fuck off. they want their stuff, a bunch of freaking natives talking about their woo-woo sacred ground are not going to stand in their way.
when the ‘infrastructure’ bullshit kicks in, they will be coming after highways, bridges, and public works of all kinds. private companies will build it out, we will pay them to do it, and then they will own it. on our dime.
they will want the water next. nestle is already sucking public water out of MI for obscenely short money, while the people of Flint have poison running from their taps.
the king of the entitled rich pricks is going to be POTUS. the man who styles himself the master of the “art of the deal”.
watch your asses, everybody. the country is up for sale.
go ahead and tell me I’m being shrill. people are going to fucking starve, and die from bullshit preventable diseases, and Trump and the (R)’s are going to piss on them. actually, first they are going to take every damned thing they can squeeze away from them, then they are going to piss on them.
the folks who are going to get hit the worst are all the folks who think Trump is their champion. we’ll see how exactly how many shits he gives about any of them.
United States of Money.
good luck to all.
re: Obamacare – the (R)’s are going to see if they can 86 it ASAP, but they are going to want to make sure the repeal doesn’t actually kick in until after the mid-terms. so that the tens of millions of people who are going to be shit out of luck don’t vote their asses out.
it’s going to be one adventure in bullshit after another for at least the next four years. probably for the next generation, because these MF’ers just don’t seem to want to give it up.
rich people want more money. lots more. they want all they can get.
(R)’s want to make sure they get it.
that will be the story of the next four years.
it’s been the story of the last 40, why should it be any different now?
am I being overly reductionist? show me how.
the ‘entitlements’ we’ve all paid into for our entire working lives will be under attack. they’ve been under attack for years, now they are going to go for it because they have both houses of Congress, the white house, and will shortly have the SCOTUS. the entitlements are under attack because they want to privatize it, so that rich people can make more money off of it.
the public school system will be under attack. they want to privatize it, so that rich people can make more money off of it.
the prison system will be up for increased privatization. yeah, i know Obama just said no. Trump will say yes. they want to privatize it, so they can make more money off it.
public land will be under attack. they want to privatize it, so they can make more money off it. they’re already queueing up the tribal lands, and no i’m not talking about standing rock, i’m talking about any piece of land under tribal jurisdiction that has any scrap or any potential scrap of mineral extraction value. they want it. the tribes will claim sovereignty, but they will either find somebody cooperative to come to terms with, or they’ll just tell them to fuck off. they want their stuff, a bunch of freaking natives talking about their woo-woo sacred ground are not going to stand in their way.
when the ‘infrastructure’ bullshit kicks in, they will be coming after highways, bridges, and public works of all kinds. private companies will build it out, we will pay them to do it, and then they will own it. on our dime.
they will want the water next. nestle is already sucking public water out of MI for obscenely short money, while the people of Flint have poison running from their taps.
the king of the entitled rich pricks is going to be POTUS. the man who styles himself the master of the “art of the deal”.
watch your asses, everybody. the country is up for sale.
go ahead and tell me I’m being shrill. people are going to fucking starve, and die from bullshit preventable diseases, and Trump and the (R)’s are going to piss on them. actually, first they are going to take every damned thing they can squeeze away from them, then they are going to piss on them.
the folks who are going to get hit the worst are all the folks who think Trump is their champion. we’ll see how exactly how many shits he gives about any of them.
United States of Money.
good luck to all.
re: Obamacare – the (R)’s are going to see if they can 86 it ASAP, but they are going to want to make sure the repeal doesn’t actually kick in until after the mid-terms. so that the tens of millions of people who are going to be shit out of luck don’t vote their asses out.
it’s going to be one adventure in bullshit after another for at least the next four years. probably for the next generation, because these MF’ers just don’t seem to want to give it up.
rich people want more money. lots more. they want all they can get.
(R)’s want to make sure they get it.
that will be the story of the next four years.
it’s been the story of the last 40, why should it be any different now?
am I being overly reductionist? show me how.
the ‘entitlements’ we’ve all paid into for our entire working lives will be under attack. they’ve been under attack for years, now they are going to go for it because they have both houses of Congress, the white house, and will shortly have the SCOTUS. the entitlements are under attack because they want to privatize it, so that rich people can make more money off of it.
the public school system will be under attack. they want to privatize it, so that rich people can make more money off of it.
the prison system will be up for increased privatization. yeah, i know Obama just said no. Trump will say yes. they want to privatize it, so they can make more money off it.
public land will be under attack. they want to privatize it, so they can make more money off it. they’re already queueing up the tribal lands, and no i’m not talking about standing rock, i’m talking about any piece of land under tribal jurisdiction that has any scrap or any potential scrap of mineral extraction value. they want it. the tribes will claim sovereignty, but they will either find somebody cooperative to come to terms with, or they’ll just tell them to fuck off. they want their stuff, a bunch of freaking natives talking about their woo-woo sacred ground are not going to stand in their way.
when the ‘infrastructure’ bullshit kicks in, they will be coming after highways, bridges, and public works of all kinds. private companies will build it out, we will pay them to do it, and then they will own it. on our dime.
they will want the water next. nestle is already sucking public water out of MI for obscenely short money, while the people of Flint have poison running from their taps.
the king of the entitled rich pricks is going to be POTUS. the man who styles himself the master of the “art of the deal”.
watch your asses, everybody. the country is up for sale.
go ahead and tell me I’m being shrill. people are going to fucking starve, and die from bullshit preventable diseases, and Trump and the (R)’s are going to piss on them. actually, first they are going to take every damned thing they can squeeze away from them, then they are going to piss on them.
the folks who are going to get hit the worst are all the folks who think Trump is their champion. we’ll see how exactly how many shits he gives about any of them.
United States of Money.
good luck to all.
Thanks, russell. I feel so much better now.
Thanks, russell. I feel so much better now.
Thanks, russell. I feel so much better now.
my liver may not make it to 2020
my liver may not make it to 2020
my liver may not make it to 2020
Google regularly tweaks the page rank algorithm if they think it’s being gamed.
it’s always being gamed, so it’s always being tweaked.
This is obviously true, and no surprise to anyone in the business I believe. What that article revealed, if I understood it correctly (by no means a given, but supported by the various academics and internet science mavens quoted), was a completely new, hitherto unsuspected development, which has crept up and is “corrupting” the system in a kind of meta-way.
And, for anybody who did not read the article and thought it was old news, the following shows how it has affected and is continuing to affect us (and by the way, later in the article it confirms that Bannon is on the board of Cambridge Analytica):
Google regularly tweaks the page rank algorithm if they think it’s being gamed.
it’s always being gamed, so it’s always being tweaked.
This is obviously true, and no surprise to anyone in the business I believe. What that article revealed, if I understood it correctly (by no means a given, but supported by the various academics and internet science mavens quoted), was a completely new, hitherto unsuspected development, which has crept up and is “corrupting” the system in a kind of meta-way.
And, for anybody who did not read the article and thought it was old news, the following shows how it has affected and is continuing to affect us (and by the way, later in the article it confirms that Bannon is on the board of Cambridge Analytica):
Google regularly tweaks the page rank algorithm if they think it’s being gamed.
it’s always being gamed, so it’s always being tweaked.
This is obviously true, and no surprise to anyone in the business I believe. What that article revealed, if I understood it correctly (by no means a given, but supported by the various academics and internet science mavens quoted), was a completely new, hitherto unsuspected development, which has crept up and is “corrupting” the system in a kind of meta-way.
And, for anybody who did not read the article and thought it was old news, the following shows how it has affected and is continuing to affect us (and by the way, later in the article it confirms that Bannon is on the board of Cambridge Analytica):
I used to roll my eyes a lot more often at the use of the word “Orwellian.”
I used to roll my eyes a lot more often at the use of the word “Orwellian.”
I used to roll my eyes a lot more often at the use of the word “Orwellian.”
Trump has hired a crazy person as national security adviser.
Meanwhile, the pizza insanity continues.
Reporters threatened.
Trump has hired a crazy person as national security adviser.
Meanwhile, the pizza insanity continues.
Reporters threatened.
Trump has hired a crazy person as national security adviser.
Meanwhile, the pizza insanity continues.
Reporters threatened.
Aside from the defense organizations such as SPLC, ACLU, NAACP’s LDF, etc., does anyone know of a direct assistance fund for people who have been harmed by hate crimes? Like for this Cincinnati couple?
Also, there are various lobbying efforts to challenge the election based on Larry Lessig’s electoral college argument, and faithless electors.
Not a lot of hope for success here, but we really need to act in every possible way.
Aside from the defense organizations such as SPLC, ACLU, NAACP’s LDF, etc., does anyone know of a direct assistance fund for people who have been harmed by hate crimes? Like for this Cincinnati couple?
Also, there are various lobbying efforts to challenge the election based on Larry Lessig’s electoral college argument, and faithless electors.
Not a lot of hope for success here, but we really need to act in every possible way.
Aside from the defense organizations such as SPLC, ACLU, NAACP’s LDF, etc., does anyone know of a direct assistance fund for people who have been harmed by hate crimes? Like for this Cincinnati couple?
Also, there are various lobbying efforts to challenge the election based on Larry Lessig’s electoral college argument, and faithless electors.
Not a lot of hope for success here, but we really need to act in every possible way.
thank you for stating the most powerful and compelling argument for this.>
Snarki, thank you for that! I think it’s time to read How the Irish Saved Civilization.
thank you for stating the most powerful and compelling argument for this.>
Snarki, thank you for that! I think it’s time to read How the Irish Saved Civilization.
thank you for stating the most powerful and compelling argument for this.>
Snarki, thank you for that! I think it’s time to read How the Irish Saved Civilization.
This is obviously true, and no surprise to anyone in the business I believe.
Yes. Unless I misread him, however, Marty seemed unclear about it, so I thought I’d point it out.
This is a propaganda machine.
Yes. It’s always been a propaganda machine. Previously used to sell you stuff, now used to mold your view of the world.
This is why people have been on about data privacy for a generation or more.
Too late now, cat’s out of the bag.
This is obviously true, and no surprise to anyone in the business I believe.
Yes. Unless I misread him, however, Marty seemed unclear about it, so I thought I’d point it out.
This is a propaganda machine.
Yes. It’s always been a propaganda machine. Previously used to sell you stuff, now used to mold your view of the world.
This is why people have been on about data privacy for a generation or more.
Too late now, cat’s out of the bag.
This is obviously true, and no surprise to anyone in the business I believe.
Yes. Unless I misread him, however, Marty seemed unclear about it, so I thought I’d point it out.
This is a propaganda machine.
Yes. It’s always been a propaganda machine. Previously used to sell you stuff, now used to mold your view of the world.
This is why people have been on about data privacy for a generation or more.
Too late now, cat’s out of the bag.
see also, “Manufacturing Consent”, 1988, Chomsky and Herman.
but they’re a bunch of commies and hippies.
see also, “Manufacturing Consent”, 1988, Chomsky and Herman.
but they’re a bunch of commies and hippies.
see also, “Manufacturing Consent”, 1988, Chomsky and Herman.
but they’re a bunch of commies and hippies.
They really are crazy.
And it’s still more than six weeks to the inauguration….
They really are crazy.
And it’s still more than six weeks to the inauguration….
They really are crazy.
And it’s still more than six weeks to the inauguration….
“Yes. Unless I misread him, however, Marty seemed unclear about it, so I thought I’d point it out.”
I am not the least confused about the fact that Google tweaks their algorithms regularly. I am surprised that there is no complaint that they tweak their algorithms to achieve a political result.
Technology as the creator of bs news etc. is bad enough, technology as the censor and arbiter of what stuff is good and bad is much more dangerous.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
“Yes. Unless I misread him, however, Marty seemed unclear about it, so I thought I’d point it out.”
I am not the least confused about the fact that Google tweaks their algorithms regularly. I am surprised that there is no complaint that they tweak their algorithms to achieve a political result.
Technology as the creator of bs news etc. is bad enough, technology as the censor and arbiter of what stuff is good and bad is much more dangerous.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
“Yes. Unless I misread him, however, Marty seemed unclear about it, so I thought I’d point it out.”
I am not the least confused about the fact that Google tweaks their algorithms regularly. I am surprised that there is no complaint that they tweak their algorithms to achieve a political result.
Technology as the creator of bs news etc. is bad enough, technology as the censor and arbiter of what stuff is good and bad is much more dangerous.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
Like demonstrable falsehoods? And what do you mean by “get rid of”?
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
Like demonstrable falsehoods? And what do you mean by “get rid of”?
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
Like demonstrable falsehoods? And what do you mean by “get rid of”?
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
I have exactly zero problem with the idea of Google preventing a bunch of Macedonian teenagers from gaming their page rank algorithm to propagate the myth that Hilary Clinton and John Podesta are trafficking children for sex from a pizzeria in Washington DC.
I’d like to know who’s paying the kids, and I’d like international law enforcement to pay them a visit. For that matter.
You seem to think this is all he-said she-said partisan bullshit. It’s not. This is actually dangerous.
Hope nobody you love or care for is eating pizza in DC on the wrong day.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
I have exactly zero problem with the idea of Google preventing a bunch of Macedonian teenagers from gaming their page rank algorithm to propagate the myth that Hilary Clinton and John Podesta are trafficking children for sex from a pizzeria in Washington DC.
I’d like to know who’s paying the kids, and I’d like international law enforcement to pay them a visit. For that matter.
You seem to think this is all he-said she-said partisan bullshit. It’s not. This is actually dangerous.
Hope nobody you love or care for is eating pizza in DC on the wrong day.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose.
I have exactly zero problem with the idea of Google preventing a bunch of Macedonian teenagers from gaming their page rank algorithm to propagate the myth that Hilary Clinton and John Podesta are trafficking children for sex from a pizzeria in Washington DC.
I’d like to know who’s paying the kids, and I’d like international law enforcement to pay them a visit. For that matter.
You seem to think this is all he-said she-said partisan bullshit. It’s not. This is actually dangerous.
Hope nobody you love or care for is eating pizza in DC on the wrong day.
Seriously Marty, WTF?
Seriously Marty, WTF?
Seriously Marty, WTF?
They should start looking in Texas for those propagating falsehoods.
They should start looking in Texas for those propagating falsehoods.
They should start looking in Texas for those propagating falsehoods.
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose
If they are stopping supplying suggested search terms like “are women evil” and “are jews evil” in response to searches starting “are women…” and “are jews..” and then listing the 10 top results showing that women, or jews, are evil, it looks to me as if they are stopping the whole thing being gamed by people who think that jews or women are evil, which I am assuming you don’t believe are in any way mainstream political beliefs or queries, producing legitimate results?
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose
If they are stopping supplying suggested search terms like “are women evil” and “are jews evil” in response to searches starting “are women…” and “are jews..” and then listing the 10 top results showing that women, or jews, are evil, it looks to me as if they are stopping the whole thing being gamed by people who think that jews or women are evil, which I am assuming you don’t believe are in any way mainstream political beliefs or queries, producing legitimate results?
Except if they are getting rid of the stuff you don’t like I suppose
If they are stopping supplying suggested search terms like “are women evil” and “are jews evil” in response to searches starting “are women…” and “are jews..” and then listing the 10 top results showing that women, or jews, are evil, it looks to me as if they are stopping the whole thing being gamed by people who think that jews or women are evil, which I am assuming you don’t believe are in any way mainstream political beliefs or queries, producing legitimate results?
Maybe the only politically neutral solution is not to have autocomplete.
Maybe the only politically neutral solution is not to have autocomplete.
Maybe the only politically neutral solution is not to have autocomplete.
Crazy person’s son on the transition team…
Mike Pence a liar and a homophobe.
Crazy person’s son on the transition team…
Mike Pence a liar and a homophobe.
Crazy person’s son on the transition team…
Mike Pence a liar and a homophobe.
Hmmm. Maybe this is the beginning of a strategy forming, albeit this is just about terrorist-related content:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facebook-google-twitter-and-microsoft-join-forces-to-tackle-terrorist-content_uk_584681a9e4b06a503248e7f4?utm_hp_ref=uk
Our companies will begin sharing hashes of the most extreme and egregious terrorist images and videos we have removed from our services — content most likely to violate all of our respective companies’ content policies.
Obviously it should go without saying that there will be serious issues around censorship and so-called political correctness if this is extended out to fake right-wing (or other fake) “news”, but it looks to me as if they are starting to think about a concerted strategy. Or have I missed something? I am open to that suggestion….
Hmmm. Maybe this is the beginning of a strategy forming, albeit this is just about terrorist-related content:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facebook-google-twitter-and-microsoft-join-forces-to-tackle-terrorist-content_uk_584681a9e4b06a503248e7f4?utm_hp_ref=uk
Our companies will begin sharing hashes of the most extreme and egregious terrorist images and videos we have removed from our services — content most likely to violate all of our respective companies’ content policies.
Obviously it should go without saying that there will be serious issues around censorship and so-called political correctness if this is extended out to fake right-wing (or other fake) “news”, but it looks to me as if they are starting to think about a concerted strategy. Or have I missed something? I am open to that suggestion….
Hmmm. Maybe this is the beginning of a strategy forming, albeit this is just about terrorist-related content:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facebook-google-twitter-and-microsoft-join-forces-to-tackle-terrorist-content_uk_584681a9e4b06a503248e7f4?utm_hp_ref=uk
Our companies will begin sharing hashes of the most extreme and egregious terrorist images and videos we have removed from our services — content most likely to violate all of our respective companies’ content policies.
Obviously it should go without saying that there will be serious issues around censorship and so-called political correctness if this is extended out to fake right-wing (or other fake) “news”, but it looks to me as if they are starting to think about a concerted strategy. Or have I missed something? I am open to that suggestion….
Is the autocomplete implemented on the server side, or on the browser side?
I always thought it was a browser thing, since it seems to work reasonably fast, even with slow/no internet.
If Firefox caches racist search terms, I’m not sure Google is the one to blame.
Is the autocomplete implemented on the server side, or on the browser side?
I always thought it was a browser thing, since it seems to work reasonably fast, even with slow/no internet.
If Firefox caches racist search terms, I’m not sure Google is the one to blame.
Is the autocomplete implemented on the server side, or on the browser side?
I always thought it was a browser thing, since it seems to work reasonably fast, even with slow/no internet.
If Firefox caches racist search terms, I’m not sure Google is the one to blame.
“Seriously Marty, WTF?”
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
This is a not a new phenomenon, the breadth of its dissemination is technology driven but it doesn’t change the fact that people need to, and will, learn to filter it themselves.
Any attempt to enforce filtering it for them will accomplish two things. It will create a false sense of credibility for what is left there to see, and it will delay the inevitable need for people to understand the inherent challenge of understanding what is information while having every piece of data in the world at their fingertips.
“I am aghast that there is evil in the world, I thought it was all gone.” I have actually heard people say this in varying ways in the last six months or so. Oh wait, we aren’t in a post-racial world? Uh no, duh. Are lots of people still freaked out about being forced to envision homosexual sex? Uh, yes. Well, unless its lesbian sex and then most people don’t mind. Do lots of people still think that the US was established as Gods respite for good Christian folk? oh yeah. Those people often think those black folk are all right as long as they are good Baptists, except they like to dance so much.
Jesus, do ya’ll live in the same country I do? Where politics and religion have been the staple two things that are not discussed in polite company, personal or business? Why do you think that is?
Because we have always violently disagreed on both topics and the cultural pact has been to let the aggregate deal with it rather than the individual.
Now we have moved all of those discussions to the internet which forces them into personal conversations best left unhad. So people hate each other for just those reasons and we end up getting some effing search engine to protect us from the certain knowledge that some people hate some other people.
I can certainly finish typing what I want if the autocomplete pops up something I don’t.
“Seriously Marty, WTF?”
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
This is a not a new phenomenon, the breadth of its dissemination is technology driven but it doesn’t change the fact that people need to, and will, learn to filter it themselves.
Any attempt to enforce filtering it for them will accomplish two things. It will create a false sense of credibility for what is left there to see, and it will delay the inevitable need for people to understand the inherent challenge of understanding what is information while having every piece of data in the world at their fingertips.
“I am aghast that there is evil in the world, I thought it was all gone.” I have actually heard people say this in varying ways in the last six months or so. Oh wait, we aren’t in a post-racial world? Uh no, duh. Are lots of people still freaked out about being forced to envision homosexual sex? Uh, yes. Well, unless its lesbian sex and then most people don’t mind. Do lots of people still think that the US was established as Gods respite for good Christian folk? oh yeah. Those people often think those black folk are all right as long as they are good Baptists, except they like to dance so much.
Jesus, do ya’ll live in the same country I do? Where politics and religion have been the staple two things that are not discussed in polite company, personal or business? Why do you think that is?
Because we have always violently disagreed on both topics and the cultural pact has been to let the aggregate deal with it rather than the individual.
Now we have moved all of those discussions to the internet which forces them into personal conversations best left unhad. So people hate each other for just those reasons and we end up getting some effing search engine to protect us from the certain knowledge that some people hate some other people.
I can certainly finish typing what I want if the autocomplete pops up something I don’t.
“Seriously Marty, WTF?”
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
This is a not a new phenomenon, the breadth of its dissemination is technology driven but it doesn’t change the fact that people need to, and will, learn to filter it themselves.
Any attempt to enforce filtering it for them will accomplish two things. It will create a false sense of credibility for what is left there to see, and it will delay the inevitable need for people to understand the inherent challenge of understanding what is information while having every piece of data in the world at their fingertips.
“I am aghast that there is evil in the world, I thought it was all gone.” I have actually heard people say this in varying ways in the last six months or so. Oh wait, we aren’t in a post-racial world? Uh no, duh. Are lots of people still freaked out about being forced to envision homosexual sex? Uh, yes. Well, unless its lesbian sex and then most people don’t mind. Do lots of people still think that the US was established as Gods respite for good Christian folk? oh yeah. Those people often think those black folk are all right as long as they are good Baptists, except they like to dance so much.
Jesus, do ya’ll live in the same country I do? Where politics and religion have been the staple two things that are not discussed in polite company, personal or business? Why do you think that is?
Because we have always violently disagreed on both topics and the cultural pact has been to let the aggregate deal with it rather than the individual.
Now we have moved all of those discussions to the internet which forces them into personal conversations best left unhad. So people hate each other for just those reasons and we end up getting some effing search engine to protect us from the certain knowledge that some people hate some other people.
I can certainly finish typing what I want if the autocomplete pops up something I don’t.
War criminal writes book, feted at prominent DC hack-tank.
War criminal writes book, feted at prominent DC hack-tank.
War criminal writes book, feted at prominent DC hack-tank.
Marty comes out against newspapers and, really, new reporting generally. Color me unsurprised.
Marty comes out against newspapers and, really, new reporting generally. Color me unsurprised.
Marty comes out against newspapers and, really, new reporting generally. Color me unsurprised.
“Marty comes out against newspapers and, really, new reporting generally. ”
This is stupid. Just stupid. I am all for newspapers. I would love to see one that I could point to and say this is a paper that reports facts.
Google aint an effing newspaper, nor is Facebook, Nor do I want them to pretend to be, which is my point.
“Marty comes out against newspapers and, really, new reporting generally. ”
This is stupid. Just stupid. I am all for newspapers. I would love to see one that I could point to and say this is a paper that reports facts.
Google aint an effing newspaper, nor is Facebook, Nor do I want them to pretend to be, which is my point.
“Marty comes out against newspapers and, really, new reporting generally. ”
This is stupid. Just stupid. I am all for newspapers. I would love to see one that I could point to and say this is a paper that reports facts.
Google aint an effing newspaper, nor is Facebook, Nor do I want them to pretend to be, which is my point.
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
Nobody, that I have seen, is doing anything to prevent you from seeing anything. All they are doing is trying to avoid high-lighting items which are simply false to fact, or which are recruiting for acts of violence. That stuff is still out there. And a search engine will even find it for you. It just won’t guide you to it.
Do you have a problem with that?
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
Nobody, that I have seen, is doing anything to prevent you from seeing anything. All they are doing is trying to avoid high-lighting items which are simply false to fact, or which are recruiting for acts of violence. That stuff is still out there. And a search engine will even find it for you. It just won’t guide you to it.
Do you have a problem with that?
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
Nobody, that I have seen, is doing anything to prevent you from seeing anything. All they are doing is trying to avoid high-lighting items which are simply false to fact, or which are recruiting for acts of violence. That stuff is still out there. And a search engine will even find it for you. It just won’t guide you to it.
Do you have a problem with that?
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
The flip side of that is when a bunch of kids in some town in Macedonia, being paid by god knows who, start deciding what we should and shouldn’t see.
and seriously, there are some points of view that really do deserve to be challenged, whenever they pop up.
“jews are bad” is one. “hilary clinton and john podesta are trafficking children for sex from a pizzeria” is another.
I don’t care what people think in the privacy of their own homes and lives. Folks can be as weird as they like. Get your freak on.
When people start showing up at pizzerias with rifles, different story.
When people who believe that kind of shit are nominated for National Security advisor, you’re damned right some kind of correction is in order.
Jesus, do ya’ll live in the same country I do?
Maybe not.
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
The flip side of that is when a bunch of kids in some town in Macedonia, being paid by god knows who, start deciding what we should and shouldn’t see.
and seriously, there are some points of view that really do deserve to be challenged, whenever they pop up.
“jews are bad” is one. “hilary clinton and john podesta are trafficking children for sex from a pizzeria” is another.
I don’t care what people think in the privacy of their own homes and lives. Folks can be as weird as they like. Get your freak on.
When people start showing up at pizzerias with rifles, different story.
When people who believe that kind of shit are nominated for National Security advisor, you’re damned right some kind of correction is in order.
Jesus, do ya’ll live in the same country I do?
Maybe not.
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude.
The flip side of that is when a bunch of kids in some town in Macedonia, being paid by god knows who, start deciding what we should and shouldn’t see.
and seriously, there are some points of view that really do deserve to be challenged, whenever they pop up.
“jews are bad” is one. “hilary clinton and john podesta are trafficking children for sex from a pizzeria” is another.
I don’t care what people think in the privacy of their own homes and lives. Folks can be as weird as they like. Get your freak on.
When people start showing up at pizzerias with rifles, different story.
When people who believe that kind of shit are nominated for National Security advisor, you’re damned right some kind of correction is in order.
Jesus, do ya’ll live in the same country I do?
Maybe not.
“Do you have a problem with that?”
Fiddle, fiddle, here and there. If you make sure it is on the second page and surely the third page then you have removed it.
If they moved every Trump related story to the third page of any search would you have a problem with that? What about cops shooting unarmed black men, fifth page, ok? Dakota pipeline third page?
I would prefer that a computer algorithm not independently decide what is simply false to fact. Or too graphic or too hateful, that is censorship.
“Do you have a problem with that?”
Fiddle, fiddle, here and there. If you make sure it is on the second page and surely the third page then you have removed it.
If they moved every Trump related story to the third page of any search would you have a problem with that? What about cops shooting unarmed black men, fifth page, ok? Dakota pipeline third page?
I would prefer that a computer algorithm not independently decide what is simply false to fact. Or too graphic or too hateful, that is censorship.
“Do you have a problem with that?”
Fiddle, fiddle, here and there. If you make sure it is on the second page and surely the third page then you have removed it.
If they moved every Trump related story to the third page of any search would you have a problem with that? What about cops shooting unarmed black men, fifth page, ok? Dakota pipeline third page?
I would prefer that a computer algorithm not independently decide what is simply false to fact. Or too graphic or too hateful, that is censorship.
“The flip side of that is when a bunch of kids in some town in Macedonia, being paid by god knows who, start deciding what we should and shouldn’t see.”
No, what we should do is point out that is happening, a lot, not just from Macedonia. The fact that its Macedonia is irrelevant. It is people getting paid to create fake crap. We should make a big deal out of that, we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
The Tribune, Post or National Enquirer? Hm, which should I believe?
It would help if the answer wasn’t none of the above.
“The flip side of that is when a bunch of kids in some town in Macedonia, being paid by god knows who, start deciding what we should and shouldn’t see.”
No, what we should do is point out that is happening, a lot, not just from Macedonia. The fact that its Macedonia is irrelevant. It is people getting paid to create fake crap. We should make a big deal out of that, we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
The Tribune, Post or National Enquirer? Hm, which should I believe?
It would help if the answer wasn’t none of the above.
“The flip side of that is when a bunch of kids in some town in Macedonia, being paid by god knows who, start deciding what we should and shouldn’t see.”
No, what we should do is point out that is happening, a lot, not just from Macedonia. The fact that its Macedonia is irrelevant. It is people getting paid to create fake crap. We should make a big deal out of that, we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
The Tribune, Post or National Enquirer? Hm, which should I believe?
It would help if the answer wasn’t none of the above.
Well, I guess Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft are preventing you from seeing violent terrorist content. But if they were trying to do something about fake news, they could always e.g. display a banner on sites that have been implicated, without banning.
Well, I guess Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft are preventing you from seeing violent terrorist content. But if they were trying to do something about fake news, they could always e.g. display a banner on sites that have been implicated, without banning.
Well, I guess Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft are preventing you from seeing violent terrorist content. But if they were trying to do something about fake news, they could always e.g. display a banner on sites that have been implicated, without banning.
Dude, “Trump related story” is not comparable to “jews are bad”.
“Should the Dakota pipeline be routed through tribal land” is not comparable to “Secretary of state and candidate for POTUS is selling little kids for sex”.
Not in terms of truth value, or moral valence, or their potential for harmful consequences.
Not the same. Do you understand that? Do you disagree?
Are you making the argument that “jews are bad” deserves to be in the public discourse with the same level of consideration and respect as a story about Donald Trump? Or that the idea that Clinton and Podesta are selling kids for sex deserves the same public debate as whether a pipeline should be routed through tribal land?
Will people sort it out for themselves? Maybe. And maybe not. Or maybe not until they’ve killed somebody, or FUBAR’d the water supply for an entire community of people.
Anybody remember the alien space bat guy? I feel like we’re back in alien space bat territory. It’s a very strange feeling.
It’s perfectly reasonable for any medium that claims to be presenting *news*, as FB does, to fact-check that information and to filter out stuff they find to be factually false.
Every newspaper and magazine of any worth whatsoever does this. It’s called “fact checking”. The world would be a better place if more of it was in place.
Google, specifically, monitors and addresses attempts to *game their page rank algorithm*. That is not a statement about the truth value of what is returned by a search, it’s a statement about how people are trying to manipulate their technology for their own ends.
Google doesn’t want that. They are fine with people using Google to further their own interests, just not for free.
Dude, “Trump related story” is not comparable to “jews are bad”.
“Should the Dakota pipeline be routed through tribal land” is not comparable to “Secretary of state and candidate for POTUS is selling little kids for sex”.
Not in terms of truth value, or moral valence, or their potential for harmful consequences.
Not the same. Do you understand that? Do you disagree?
Are you making the argument that “jews are bad” deserves to be in the public discourse with the same level of consideration and respect as a story about Donald Trump? Or that the idea that Clinton and Podesta are selling kids for sex deserves the same public debate as whether a pipeline should be routed through tribal land?
Will people sort it out for themselves? Maybe. And maybe not. Or maybe not until they’ve killed somebody, or FUBAR’d the water supply for an entire community of people.
Anybody remember the alien space bat guy? I feel like we’re back in alien space bat territory. It’s a very strange feeling.
It’s perfectly reasonable for any medium that claims to be presenting *news*, as FB does, to fact-check that information and to filter out stuff they find to be factually false.
Every newspaper and magazine of any worth whatsoever does this. It’s called “fact checking”. The world would be a better place if more of it was in place.
Google, specifically, monitors and addresses attempts to *game their page rank algorithm*. That is not a statement about the truth value of what is returned by a search, it’s a statement about how people are trying to manipulate their technology for their own ends.
Google doesn’t want that. They are fine with people using Google to further their own interests, just not for free.
Dude, “Trump related story” is not comparable to “jews are bad”.
“Should the Dakota pipeline be routed through tribal land” is not comparable to “Secretary of state and candidate for POTUS is selling little kids for sex”.
Not in terms of truth value, or moral valence, or their potential for harmful consequences.
Not the same. Do you understand that? Do you disagree?
Are you making the argument that “jews are bad” deserves to be in the public discourse with the same level of consideration and respect as a story about Donald Trump? Or that the idea that Clinton and Podesta are selling kids for sex deserves the same public debate as whether a pipeline should be routed through tribal land?
Will people sort it out for themselves? Maybe. And maybe not. Or maybe not until they’ve killed somebody, or FUBAR’d the water supply for an entire community of people.
Anybody remember the alien space bat guy? I feel like we’re back in alien space bat territory. It’s a very strange feeling.
It’s perfectly reasonable for any medium that claims to be presenting *news*, as FB does, to fact-check that information and to filter out stuff they find to be factually false.
Every newspaper and magazine of any worth whatsoever does this. It’s called “fact checking”. The world would be a better place if more of it was in place.
Google, specifically, monitors and addresses attempts to *game their page rank algorithm*. That is not a statement about the truth value of what is returned by a search, it’s a statement about how people are trying to manipulate their technology for their own ends.
Google doesn’t want that. They are fine with people using Google to further their own interests, just not for free.
Jews are bad. Women are evil. Muslims want to kill us all.
Opinions vary. God forbid anyone responsible for for communicating information should dare to intrude on the debate with silly judgments about what is true or false.
That would be servitude.
Welcome to our brave new world. No such things as facts, we are all free as the wind to believe any damned thing at all.
And not just believe, but live it out.
Can’t wait to see how this all plays out. What a fucking mess.
Jews are bad. Women are evil. Muslims want to kill us all.
Opinions vary. God forbid anyone responsible for for communicating information should dare to intrude on the debate with silly judgments about what is true or false.
That would be servitude.
Welcome to our brave new world. No such things as facts, we are all free as the wind to believe any damned thing at all.
And not just believe, but live it out.
Can’t wait to see how this all plays out. What a fucking mess.
Jews are bad. Women are evil. Muslims want to kill us all.
Opinions vary. God forbid anyone responsible for for communicating information should dare to intrude on the debate with silly judgments about what is true or false.
That would be servitude.
Welcome to our brave new world. No such things as facts, we are all free as the wind to believe any damned thing at all.
And not just believe, but live it out.
Can’t wait to see how this all plays out. What a fucking mess.
I guess we will see who the grownups are in the House.
I guess we will see who the grownups are in the House.
I guess we will see who the grownups are in the House.
I can assure you all those things are the same thing from a First Amendment perspective. I am pretty sure the ACLU would agree.
I can assure you all those things are the same thing from a First Amendment perspective. I am pretty sure the ACLU would agree.
I can assure you all those things are the same thing from a First Amendment perspective. I am pretty sure the ACLU would agree.
I find it hard to get worked up about Google putting stuff one page 2,3, 10, whatever, when Ye Olde AOL used to do stuff like erase the town of Scunthorpe, England for _reasons_.
You have the freedom to create your very own search engine. Or use one of the non-Google ones. Bitching about how a free service hurts your precious fee-fees will get not so much sympathy.
I find it hard to get worked up about Google putting stuff one page 2,3, 10, whatever, when Ye Olde AOL used to do stuff like erase the town of Scunthorpe, England for _reasons_.
You have the freedom to create your very own search engine. Or use one of the non-Google ones. Bitching about how a free service hurts your precious fee-fees will get not so much sympathy.
I find it hard to get worked up about Google putting stuff one page 2,3, 10, whatever, when Ye Olde AOL used to do stuff like erase the town of Scunthorpe, England for _reasons_.
You have the freedom to create your very own search engine. Or use one of the non-Google ones. Bitching about how a free service hurts your precious fee-fees will get not so much sympathy.
we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that approach. IF there was some way to do it. Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. Consider the resistance to even teaching subjects that conflict with their views. (And yes, that happens on both ends of the political spectrum.)
I just don’t see any practical approach to achieve the ends you list. But if you’ve got one, by all means share.
we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that approach. IF there was some way to do it. Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. Consider the resistance to even teaching subjects that conflict with their views. (And yes, that happens on both ends of the political spectrum.)
I just don’t see any practical approach to achieve the ends you list. But if you’ve got one, by all means share.
we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that approach. IF there was some way to do it. Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. Consider the resistance to even teaching subjects that conflict with their views. (And yes, that happens on both ends of the political spectrum.)
I just don’t see any practical approach to achieve the ends you list. But if you’ve got one, by all means share.
White supremacy is the new, uh, black.
White supremacy is the new, uh, black.
White supremacy is the new, uh, black.
I can assure you all those things are the same thing from a First Amendment perspective.
People can say any damned thing they want. Yay, first amendment! It has my full support.
Media who disseminate information are not obliged to forward every damned thing that anybody says without challenge. They can even decline to disseminate things they think are false or harmful.
Hey, look, they have First Amendment rights, too!
If folks miss all of the “jews are bad” headlines from their Google search, I’m sure there are other resources they can go to.
I can assure you all those things are the same thing from a First Amendment perspective.
People can say any damned thing they want. Yay, first amendment! It has my full support.
Media who disseminate information are not obliged to forward every damned thing that anybody says without challenge. They can even decline to disseminate things they think are false or harmful.
Hey, look, they have First Amendment rights, too!
If folks miss all of the “jews are bad” headlines from their Google search, I’m sure there are other resources they can go to.
I can assure you all those things are the same thing from a First Amendment perspective.
People can say any damned thing they want. Yay, first amendment! It has my full support.
Media who disseminate information are not obliged to forward every damned thing that anybody says without challenge. They can even decline to disseminate things they think are false or harmful.
Hey, look, they have First Amendment rights, too!
If folks miss all of the “jews are bad” headlines from their Google search, I’m sure there are other resources they can go to.
My fee fees arent hurt, and you have no requirement to show any sympathy. I don’t need any. Thanks.
My fee fees arent hurt, and you have no requirement to show any sympathy. I don’t need any. Thanks.
My fee fees arent hurt, and you have no requirement to show any sympathy. I don’t need any. Thanks.
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude…
I have new for you; they’ve been deciding for quite some time now, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Any decision on how they write their algorithms is going to impact what you see. There is no such thing as ‘neutral’ search.
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude…
I have new for you; they’ve been deciding for quite some time now, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Any decision on how they write their algorithms is going to impact what you see. There is no such thing as ‘neutral’ search.
I believe that once a company/government/oligarchy starts deciding what we should and shouldn’t see then you have been protected into servitude…
I have new for you; they’ve been deciding for quite some time now, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Any decision on how they write their algorithms is going to impact what you see. There is no such thing as ‘neutral’ search.
‘News’, dammit !
‘News’, dammit !
‘News’, dammit !
Ye Olde AOL used to do stuff like erase the town of Scunthorpe, England for _reasons..
As one of the few here (probably) who has actually visited Scunthorpe, I have to say that AOL’s reasons might have carried more substance than you imagine.
Ye Olde AOL used to do stuff like erase the town of Scunthorpe, England for _reasons..
As one of the few here (probably) who has actually visited Scunthorpe, I have to say that AOL’s reasons might have carried more substance than you imagine.
Ye Olde AOL used to do stuff like erase the town of Scunthorpe, England for _reasons..
As one of the few here (probably) who has actually visited Scunthorpe, I have to say that AOL’s reasons might have carried more substance than you imagine.
If they moved every Trump related story to the third page of any search would you have a problem with that?
For the record, if a self-described neutral search service like Google deliberately moved every Trump related story to the third page based on their editorial opinion of the content, I *most definitely would* have a problem with that.
And Google does do stuff like that based on who is paying them. Likely not in the case of coverage of Trump, specifically, but for a lot of things. And people should be aware of that.
But that isn’t what GFTNC was talking about, or what anyone else was talking about.
There are things that are actually false, and harmful. Those things don’t deserve the same level of respect and consideration as things that are differences of opinion or perspective.
And yes, the line between those things can be fuzzy. But hopefully we all understand where statements like “jews are bad”, “women are evil”, and “clinton and podesta are selling kids for sex” fall on that spectrum.
If they moved every Trump related story to the third page of any search would you have a problem with that?
For the record, if a self-described neutral search service like Google deliberately moved every Trump related story to the third page based on their editorial opinion of the content, I *most definitely would* have a problem with that.
And Google does do stuff like that based on who is paying them. Likely not in the case of coverage of Trump, specifically, but for a lot of things. And people should be aware of that.
But that isn’t what GFTNC was talking about, or what anyone else was talking about.
There are things that are actually false, and harmful. Those things don’t deserve the same level of respect and consideration as things that are differences of opinion or perspective.
And yes, the line between those things can be fuzzy. But hopefully we all understand where statements like “jews are bad”, “women are evil”, and “clinton and podesta are selling kids for sex” fall on that spectrum.
If they moved every Trump related story to the third page of any search would you have a problem with that?
For the record, if a self-described neutral search service like Google deliberately moved every Trump related story to the third page based on their editorial opinion of the content, I *most definitely would* have a problem with that.
And Google does do stuff like that based on who is paying them. Likely not in the case of coverage of Trump, specifically, but for a lot of things. And people should be aware of that.
But that isn’t what GFTNC was talking about, or what anyone else was talking about.
There are things that are actually false, and harmful. Those things don’t deserve the same level of respect and consideration as things that are differences of opinion or perspective.
And yes, the line between those things can be fuzzy. But hopefully we all understand where statements like “jews are bad”, “women are evil”, and “clinton and podesta are selling kids for sex” fall on that spectrum.
Nigel, excellent Scunthorpe joke. I would say that – I considered saying something similar but was hampered by never having been there.
Nigel, excellent Scunthorpe joke. I would say that – I considered saying something similar but was hampered by never having been there.
Nigel, excellent Scunthorpe joke. I would say that – I considered saying something similar but was hampered by never having been there.
There is a definite difference between Jews are bad and Clinton and Pop estate are selling children for sex. One is an opinion shared by 10s of millions of people, and one can be shown to be factually incorrect, though I’m pretty sure Google search algorithm doesn’t know that.
While I am firmly in the camp that Jews aren’t bad, I can tell you shortly after my divorce I was sure women were evil. Though that opinion has certainly been limited to one, or two, women.
While Google has the capability and right to do anything it wants to with its search rankings, I don’t think changing them due to create a safe space on the internet for adults is a particularly good idea.
There is a definite difference between Jews are bad and Clinton and Pop estate are selling children for sex. One is an opinion shared by 10s of millions of people, and one can be shown to be factually incorrect, though I’m pretty sure Google search algorithm doesn’t know that.
While I am firmly in the camp that Jews aren’t bad, I can tell you shortly after my divorce I was sure women were evil. Though that opinion has certainly been limited to one, or two, women.
While Google has the capability and right to do anything it wants to with its search rankings, I don’t think changing them due to create a safe space on the internet for adults is a particularly good idea.
There is a definite difference between Jews are bad and Clinton and Pop estate are selling children for sex. One is an opinion shared by 10s of millions of people, and one can be shown to be factually incorrect, though I’m pretty sure Google search algorithm doesn’t know that.
While I am firmly in the camp that Jews aren’t bad, I can tell you shortly after my divorce I was sure women were evil. Though that opinion has certainly been limited to one, or two, women.
While Google has the capability and right to do anything it wants to with its search rankings, I don’t think changing them due to create a safe space on the internet for adults is a particularly good idea.
Crikey Marty, this isn’t about providing a safe space for anyone. This is about preventing a bunch of extreme ideologues (of any stripe, but this bunch appears to be far-right) from gaming the system so that it manipulates search terms, and search results, in ways that the vast majority of Google users have no way of knowing or even suspecting. You say Google has the right to do anything it wants with its search rankings: I believe from their previous statements over the years that they don’t want their search function to be suborned to spread biased propaganda, but even if they don’t much care, once this issue is sufficiently publicised they have a commercial interest in trying to address it. Like sapient, I use Google constantly, but I have considered moving to Bing or something since reading that piece, and I guess I won’t be alone. The numbers considering such a course of action wouldn’t be enough to change what I say above about the vast majority of users’ ignorance of the issue, but it’s all bad publicity, and the very opposite of the kind of image they wish to portray.
Crikey Marty, this isn’t about providing a safe space for anyone. This is about preventing a bunch of extreme ideologues (of any stripe, but this bunch appears to be far-right) from gaming the system so that it manipulates search terms, and search results, in ways that the vast majority of Google users have no way of knowing or even suspecting. You say Google has the right to do anything it wants with its search rankings: I believe from their previous statements over the years that they don’t want their search function to be suborned to spread biased propaganda, but even if they don’t much care, once this issue is sufficiently publicised they have a commercial interest in trying to address it. Like sapient, I use Google constantly, but I have considered moving to Bing or something since reading that piece, and I guess I won’t be alone. The numbers considering such a course of action wouldn’t be enough to change what I say above about the vast majority of users’ ignorance of the issue, but it’s all bad publicity, and the very opposite of the kind of image they wish to portray.
Crikey Marty, this isn’t about providing a safe space for anyone. This is about preventing a bunch of extreme ideologues (of any stripe, but this bunch appears to be far-right) from gaming the system so that it manipulates search terms, and search results, in ways that the vast majority of Google users have no way of knowing or even suspecting. You say Google has the right to do anything it wants with its search rankings: I believe from their previous statements over the years that they don’t want their search function to be suborned to spread biased propaganda, but even if they don’t much care, once this issue is sufficiently publicised they have a commercial interest in trying to address it. Like sapient, I use Google constantly, but I have considered moving to Bing or something since reading that piece, and I guess I won’t be alone. The numbers considering such a course of action wouldn’t be enough to change what I say above about the vast majority of users’ ignorance of the issue, but it’s all bad publicity, and the very opposite of the kind of image they wish to portray.
And by the way, where is the Count for God’s sake?
And by the way, where is the Count for God’s sake?
And by the way, where is the Count for God’s sake?
I don’t think changing them due to create a safe space on the internet for adults is a particularly good idea.
To speak plainly, propagating the idea that Jews are bad has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. For centuries.
Relatively recently, not just killed, but stripped for parts and burned in ovens. Right?
It’s a point of view that has, historically, been quite consequential, much more so than the average “difference of opinion”.
So, concern about it is not a triviality, or a matter of just being nice, or not giving undue offense.
If there are so many hits on “jews are bad” that it bubbles to the top of the auto-complete list, we have a fucking problem. Ditto for any of the other examples discussed in this thread.
People can say whatever they want. Other people can choose to not propagate it. And if the reason they don’t want to propagate it is that it’s hateful libelous bigotry, then I support their choice. Frankly, I applaud their choice.
Is this what making America great again is going to be? Our public discourse is going to be about whether the Jews are bad? What else, all blacks are lazy? Are we all going to be free to call other people kikes and niggers again?
What a burden will be lifted from our shoulders.
WTF man.
You may be right, we might not be living in the same country. If so, I sure as hell like mine better than yours.
I don’t think changing them due to create a safe space on the internet for adults is a particularly good idea.
To speak plainly, propagating the idea that Jews are bad has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. For centuries.
Relatively recently, not just killed, but stripped for parts and burned in ovens. Right?
It’s a point of view that has, historically, been quite consequential, much more so than the average “difference of opinion”.
So, concern about it is not a triviality, or a matter of just being nice, or not giving undue offense.
If there are so many hits on “jews are bad” that it bubbles to the top of the auto-complete list, we have a fucking problem. Ditto for any of the other examples discussed in this thread.
People can say whatever they want. Other people can choose to not propagate it. And if the reason they don’t want to propagate it is that it’s hateful libelous bigotry, then I support their choice. Frankly, I applaud their choice.
Is this what making America great again is going to be? Our public discourse is going to be about whether the Jews are bad? What else, all blacks are lazy? Are we all going to be free to call other people kikes and niggers again?
What a burden will be lifted from our shoulders.
WTF man.
You may be right, we might not be living in the same country. If so, I sure as hell like mine better than yours.
I don’t think changing them due to create a safe space on the internet for adults is a particularly good idea.
To speak plainly, propagating the idea that Jews are bad has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. For centuries.
Relatively recently, not just killed, but stripped for parts and burned in ovens. Right?
It’s a point of view that has, historically, been quite consequential, much more so than the average “difference of opinion”.
So, concern about it is not a triviality, or a matter of just being nice, or not giving undue offense.
If there are so many hits on “jews are bad” that it bubbles to the top of the auto-complete list, we have a fucking problem. Ditto for any of the other examples discussed in this thread.
People can say whatever they want. Other people can choose to not propagate it. And if the reason they don’t want to propagate it is that it’s hateful libelous bigotry, then I support their choice. Frankly, I applaud their choice.
Is this what making America great again is going to be? Our public discourse is going to be about whether the Jews are bad? What else, all blacks are lazy? Are we all going to be free to call other people kikes and niggers again?
What a burden will be lifted from our shoulders.
WTF man.
You may be right, we might not be living in the same country. If so, I sure as hell like mine better than yours.
“Is this what making America great again is going to be? Our public discourse is going to be about whether the Jews are bad? What else, all blacks are lazy? Are we all going to be free to call other people kikes and niggers again?”
Of course, lets go from Jews are bad on a search engine used all over the world to kikes and niggers.
Our public discourse is being generated by the reaction to this tiny segment of people effing around with the internet. Yet, when Trump says we should have some controls on the internet everyone freaks out and calls him a fascist. Which way do you want to go?
In the country I am from you get to say Jews are bad, burn the flag, call Trump a Fascist and put crappy fake news wherever you can because it drives clicks. Pick f**king one or the other. You don’t get to cherry pick whose rights we are going to protect.
None of that has to drive the public discourse and hasn’t for decades because we all just put it in its place in our minds. The problem is people decided that since the public discourse changed the existence of some set of those people must have gone away and they are shocked that those people still exist.
You are not surprised there are racists, you live in a place that has plenty. They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
And as for Trump, we haven’t had a single hearing on appointees, we haven’t even gotten the complete list. I hope a few don’t make it. But all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out. They are not most people. Even most Republicans.
“Is this what making America great again is going to be? Our public discourse is going to be about whether the Jews are bad? What else, all blacks are lazy? Are we all going to be free to call other people kikes and niggers again?”
Of course, lets go from Jews are bad on a search engine used all over the world to kikes and niggers.
Our public discourse is being generated by the reaction to this tiny segment of people effing around with the internet. Yet, when Trump says we should have some controls on the internet everyone freaks out and calls him a fascist. Which way do you want to go?
In the country I am from you get to say Jews are bad, burn the flag, call Trump a Fascist and put crappy fake news wherever you can because it drives clicks. Pick f**king one or the other. You don’t get to cherry pick whose rights we are going to protect.
None of that has to drive the public discourse and hasn’t for decades because we all just put it in its place in our minds. The problem is people decided that since the public discourse changed the existence of some set of those people must have gone away and they are shocked that those people still exist.
You are not surprised there are racists, you live in a place that has plenty. They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
And as for Trump, we haven’t had a single hearing on appointees, we haven’t even gotten the complete list. I hope a few don’t make it. But all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out. They are not most people. Even most Republicans.
“Is this what making America great again is going to be? Our public discourse is going to be about whether the Jews are bad? What else, all blacks are lazy? Are we all going to be free to call other people kikes and niggers again?”
Of course, lets go from Jews are bad on a search engine used all over the world to kikes and niggers.
Our public discourse is being generated by the reaction to this tiny segment of people effing around with the internet. Yet, when Trump says we should have some controls on the internet everyone freaks out and calls him a fascist. Which way do you want to go?
In the country I am from you get to say Jews are bad, burn the flag, call Trump a Fascist and put crappy fake news wherever you can because it drives clicks. Pick f**king one or the other. You don’t get to cherry pick whose rights we are going to protect.
None of that has to drive the public discourse and hasn’t for decades because we all just put it in its place in our minds. The problem is people decided that since the public discourse changed the existence of some set of those people must have gone away and they are shocked that those people still exist.
You are not surprised there are racists, you live in a place that has plenty. They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
And as for Trump, we haven’t had a single hearing on appointees, we haven’t even gotten the complete list. I hope a few don’t make it. But all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out. They are not most people. Even most Republicans.
But all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out.
Not hysteria, vehement objection.
People opposed to white supremacists aren’t the ones giving them a voice. Donald Trump is giving them a voice. He’s speaking for them, taking their advice, and nominating them for cabinet positions. That’s a “voice”.
But all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out.
Not hysteria, vehement objection.
People opposed to white supremacists aren’t the ones giving them a voice. Donald Trump is giving them a voice. He’s speaking for them, taking their advice, and nominating them for cabinet positions. That’s a “voice”.
But all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out.
Not hysteria, vehement objection.
People opposed to white supremacists aren’t the ones giving them a voice. Donald Trump is giving them a voice. He’s speaking for them, taking their advice, and nominating them for cabinet positions. That’s a “voice”.
Not hysteria, vehement objection.
Actually, I am good with the characterization of vehement objection to appointees and actions of his. I agree with some, disagree with others but in general it has run the gamut from the pretty banal to Maddog and Sessions, neither of whom I support. But we cant get to that, because the news cycle is about the search terms on Google and who hates Melania and who isn’t going to cast their EC ballot for Trump, although none of those have said they would cast them for Clinton and I’m pretty certain the House wont pick her, the recounts that are completely unlikely to change anything.
Tons of sound and fury to distract from the things we should be talking about.
Not hysteria, vehement objection.
Actually, I am good with the characterization of vehement objection to appointees and actions of his. I agree with some, disagree with others but in general it has run the gamut from the pretty banal to Maddog and Sessions, neither of whom I support. But we cant get to that, because the news cycle is about the search terms on Google and who hates Melania and who isn’t going to cast their EC ballot for Trump, although none of those have said they would cast them for Clinton and I’m pretty certain the House wont pick her, the recounts that are completely unlikely to change anything.
Tons of sound and fury to distract from the things we should be talking about.
Not hysteria, vehement objection.
Actually, I am good with the characterization of vehement objection to appointees and actions of his. I agree with some, disagree with others but in general it has run the gamut from the pretty banal to Maddog and Sessions, neither of whom I support. But we cant get to that, because the news cycle is about the search terms on Google and who hates Melania and who isn’t going to cast their EC ballot for Trump, although none of those have said they would cast them for Clinton and I’m pretty certain the House wont pick her, the recounts that are completely unlikely to change anything.
Tons of sound and fury to distract from the things we should be talking about.
Like sapient, I use Google constantly, but I have considered moving to Bing or something since reading that piece, and I guess I won’t be alone.
GftNC, you might want to consider that the fact that Google is being open about what they are doing doesn’t mean that others (e.g. Microsoft/Bing) are not doing the same thing. And just not talking about it as publicly. At least with Google, you have enough transparency that you can make allowances. With Bing…?
Like sapient, I use Google constantly, but I have considered moving to Bing or something since reading that piece, and I guess I won’t be alone.
GftNC, you might want to consider that the fact that Google is being open about what they are doing doesn’t mean that others (e.g. Microsoft/Bing) are not doing the same thing. And just not talking about it as publicly. At least with Google, you have enough transparency that you can make allowances. With Bing…?
Like sapient, I use Google constantly, but I have considered moving to Bing or something since reading that piece, and I guess I won’t be alone.
GftNC, you might want to consider that the fact that Google is being open about what they are doing doesn’t mean that others (e.g. Microsoft/Bing) are not doing the same thing. And just not talking about it as publicly. At least with Google, you have enough transparency that you can make allowances. With Bing…?
Marty, I realize that the discussion has been moving fast, and in lots of directions. But I’m re-posting this because I really would be interested in a response:
we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that approach. IF there was some way to do it. Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. Consider the resistance to even teaching subjects that conflict with their views. (And yes, that happens on both ends of the political spectrum.)
I just don’t see any practical approach to achieve the ends you list. But if you’ve got one, by all means share.
Marty, I realize that the discussion has been moving fast, and in lots of directions. But I’m re-posting this because I really would be interested in a response:
we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that approach. IF there was some way to do it. Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. Consider the resistance to even teaching subjects that conflict with their views. (And yes, that happens on both ends of the political spectrum.)
I just don’t see any practical approach to achieve the ends you list. But if you’ve got one, by all means share.
Marty, I realize that the discussion has been moving fast, and in lots of directions. But I’m re-posting this because I really would be interested in a response:
we should make sure everyone knows that its happening over and over again. We should make sure that the electorate understands the source of those articles and learns to pick and choose.
I doubt anyone here would have a problem with that approach. IF there was some way to do it. Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. Consider the resistance to even teaching subjects that conflict with their views. (And yes, that happens on both ends of the political spectrum.)
I just don’t see any practical approach to achieve the ends you list. But if you’ve got one, by all means share.
In the country I am from you get to say Jews are bad, burn the flag, call Trump a Fascist and put crappy fake news wherever you can because it drives clicks. Pick f**king one or the other. You don’t get to cherry pick whose rights we are going to protect.
Fine with me. Folks can say whatever they want.
The article that GFTNC links to discusses people deliberately manipulating technical platforms to propagate a point of view.
It also discusses steps the companies that own and operate those platforms may or may not have taken to mitigate that manipulation.
It’s not an infringement of anybody’s right to free speech for those companies to do that.
If people want to Google up all the reasons that Jews are bad, they are free to do so. It may no longer be preferentially presented to them as their first choice if they simply type “Jews” due to a bunch of people getting together to game the search results.
Or, then again, it might. Google doesn’t like having the algorithm manipulated. I’m not sure they, specifically, are all that invested in what the content is. They derive a huge revenue stream from controlling what shows up at the top of the page, that’s all. They don’t want anyone getting it for free.
Their platform, their prerogative.
The author of the piece was alarmed by the hateful content that popped up in her search results. She has concerns that skillful manipulation of the technology is influencing very consequential social and political outcomes.
That’s something I would think everyone should be concerned about.
Is anybody saying people can’t say the Jews are bad? No. If you think Jews are bad, speak right up.
Some media channels may choose not to propagate that point of view. That’s as much within their right as it is for someone else to shout it from the rooftop.
You are not surprised there are racists, you live in a place that has plenty. They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
Actually I think folks with fairly unwholesome points of view are driving the discourse with or without our involvement or reaction.
all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out.
Marty, Bannon is Trump’s chief strategy advisor. Whatever his personal views, he is a bomb-thrower and deliberately provides a platform for people with truly extreme views.
No doubt he does it to be provocative, but frankly being provoked is an appropriate response to a lot of the BS his crew traffic in.
Flynn apparently believes Clinton is involved in child sex trafficking. Just not from Comet Pizza. He’s Trump’s pick for National Security advisor.
I could continue down the list.
I guess we could all just smile away and put on our happy face, but Flynn would still be NatSec advisor.
Which would be pretty freaking bizarre. The guy is nutty.
It seems like you want everyone to treat this stuff like it’s just business as usual.
It’s not.
In the country I am from you get to say Jews are bad, burn the flag, call Trump a Fascist and put crappy fake news wherever you can because it drives clicks. Pick f**king one or the other. You don’t get to cherry pick whose rights we are going to protect.
Fine with me. Folks can say whatever they want.
The article that GFTNC links to discusses people deliberately manipulating technical platforms to propagate a point of view.
It also discusses steps the companies that own and operate those platforms may or may not have taken to mitigate that manipulation.
It’s not an infringement of anybody’s right to free speech for those companies to do that.
If people want to Google up all the reasons that Jews are bad, they are free to do so. It may no longer be preferentially presented to them as their first choice if they simply type “Jews” due to a bunch of people getting together to game the search results.
Or, then again, it might. Google doesn’t like having the algorithm manipulated. I’m not sure they, specifically, are all that invested in what the content is. They derive a huge revenue stream from controlling what shows up at the top of the page, that’s all. They don’t want anyone getting it for free.
Their platform, their prerogative.
The author of the piece was alarmed by the hateful content that popped up in her search results. She has concerns that skillful manipulation of the technology is influencing very consequential social and political outcomes.
That’s something I would think everyone should be concerned about.
Is anybody saying people can’t say the Jews are bad? No. If you think Jews are bad, speak right up.
Some media channels may choose not to propagate that point of view. That’s as much within their right as it is for someone else to shout it from the rooftop.
You are not surprised there are racists, you live in a place that has plenty. They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
Actually I think folks with fairly unwholesome points of view are driving the discourse with or without our involvement or reaction.
all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out.
Marty, Bannon is Trump’s chief strategy advisor. Whatever his personal views, he is a bomb-thrower and deliberately provides a platform for people with truly extreme views.
No doubt he does it to be provocative, but frankly being provoked is an appropriate response to a lot of the BS his crew traffic in.
Flynn apparently believes Clinton is involved in child sex trafficking. Just not from Comet Pizza. He’s Trump’s pick for National Security advisor.
I could continue down the list.
I guess we could all just smile away and put on our happy face, but Flynn would still be NatSec advisor.
Which would be pretty freaking bizarre. The guy is nutty.
It seems like you want everyone to treat this stuff like it’s just business as usual.
It’s not.
In the country I am from you get to say Jews are bad, burn the flag, call Trump a Fascist and put crappy fake news wherever you can because it drives clicks. Pick f**king one or the other. You don’t get to cherry pick whose rights we are going to protect.
Fine with me. Folks can say whatever they want.
The article that GFTNC links to discusses people deliberately manipulating technical platforms to propagate a point of view.
It also discusses steps the companies that own and operate those platforms may or may not have taken to mitigate that manipulation.
It’s not an infringement of anybody’s right to free speech for those companies to do that.
If people want to Google up all the reasons that Jews are bad, they are free to do so. It may no longer be preferentially presented to them as their first choice if they simply type “Jews” due to a bunch of people getting together to game the search results.
Or, then again, it might. Google doesn’t like having the algorithm manipulated. I’m not sure they, specifically, are all that invested in what the content is. They derive a huge revenue stream from controlling what shows up at the top of the page, that’s all. They don’t want anyone getting it for free.
Their platform, their prerogative.
The author of the piece was alarmed by the hateful content that popped up in her search results. She has concerns that skillful manipulation of the technology is influencing very consequential social and political outcomes.
That’s something I would think everyone should be concerned about.
Is anybody saying people can’t say the Jews are bad? No. If you think Jews are bad, speak right up.
Some media channels may choose not to propagate that point of view. That’s as much within their right as it is for someone else to shout it from the rooftop.
You are not surprised there are racists, you live in a place that has plenty. They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
Actually I think folks with fairly unwholesome points of view are driving the discourse with or without our involvement or reaction.
all this hysteria is giving the alt-right and the white supremacists a voice they haven’t had and wont have if we don’t keep freaking out.
Marty, Bannon is Trump’s chief strategy advisor. Whatever his personal views, he is a bomb-thrower and deliberately provides a platform for people with truly extreme views.
No doubt he does it to be provocative, but frankly being provoked is an appropriate response to a lot of the BS his crew traffic in.
Flynn apparently believes Clinton is involved in child sex trafficking. Just not from Comet Pizza. He’s Trump’s pick for National Security advisor.
I could continue down the list.
I guess we could all just smile away and put on our happy face, but Flynn would still be NatSec advisor.
Which would be pretty freaking bizarre. The guy is nutty.
It seems like you want everyone to treat this stuff like it’s just business as usual.
It’s not.
I hear you wj, although it seems Google wasn’t talking about this, if they really knew about the scale of it, til this Albright character’s research broke it wide open. We’ll just have to see how it develops, before deciding what to do about it.
I hear you wj, although it seems Google wasn’t talking about this, if they really knew about the scale of it, til this Albright character’s research broke it wide open. We’ll just have to see how it develops, before deciding what to do about it.
I hear you wj, although it seems Google wasn’t talking about this, if they really knew about the scale of it, til this Albright character’s research broke it wide open. We’ll just have to see how it develops, before deciding what to do about it.
‘Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. ”
I don’t, because all of our leadership has undermined the confidence in the media and the media has responded by taking sides.
Once sides are taken it is almost impossible to recreate a sense of balance.
The best example I can use is John Dickerson. For lots of years he was the news person that I felt maintained both a fair mind and a demand for truth, well after Russert. This year he has clearly taken a side, more than once. His interview with Gary Johnson was intended was dominated with why are you even running questions, don’t you think you should drop out to help the never trumpers. I will never trust his input again, certainly not Stephanopoulos, and the others to varying degrees.
So who would be the place to get the facts? I don’t know how to build that trust. But we should try. And Politifact etc. wont do it, they do not have the gravitas. Which seems to me what we miss.
‘Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. ”
I don’t, because all of our leadership has undermined the confidence in the media and the media has responded by taking sides.
Once sides are taken it is almost impossible to recreate a sense of balance.
The best example I can use is John Dickerson. For lots of years he was the news person that I felt maintained both a fair mind and a demand for truth, well after Russert. This year he has clearly taken a side, more than once. His interview with Gary Johnson was intended was dominated with why are you even running questions, don’t you think you should drop out to help the never trumpers. I will never trust his input again, certainly not Stephanopoulos, and the others to varying degrees.
So who would be the place to get the facts? I don’t know how to build that trust. But we should try. And Politifact etc. wont do it, they do not have the gravitas. Which seems to me what we miss.
‘Do you have one? Consider current views of what media on the “other side” (broadly defined as “anything I don’t already believe”) say. ”
I don’t, because all of our leadership has undermined the confidence in the media and the media has responded by taking sides.
Once sides are taken it is almost impossible to recreate a sense of balance.
The best example I can use is John Dickerson. For lots of years he was the news person that I felt maintained both a fair mind and a demand for truth, well after Russert. This year he has clearly taken a side, more than once. His interview with Gary Johnson was intended was dominated with why are you even running questions, don’t you think you should drop out to help the never trumpers. I will never trust his input again, certainly not Stephanopoulos, and the others to varying degrees.
So who would be the place to get the facts? I don’t know how to build that trust. But we should try. And Politifact etc. wont do it, they do not have the gravitas. Which seems to me what we miss.
My bad, I just reread: Albright’s research is not specifically about Google, it’s about the “shadow network” and how it spreads in general. But I guess the article, plus all the “fake news” hooha, has helped to concentrate their minds.
My bad, I just reread: Albright’s research is not specifically about Google, it’s about the “shadow network” and how it spreads in general. But I guess the article, plus all the “fake news” hooha, has helped to concentrate their minds.
My bad, I just reread: Albright’s research is not specifically about Google, it’s about the “shadow network” and how it spreads in general. But I guess the article, plus all the “fake news” hooha, has helped to concentrate their minds.
They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
Though Marty is, and will probably remain, blissfully unaware, this is what white privilege looks like. Failing to understand that people who aren’t in the privileged demographic niche that he is has him think that the problem is that people ought to just suck it up and stop complaining.
They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
Though Marty is, and will probably remain, blissfully unaware, this is what white privilege looks like. Failing to understand that people who aren’t in the privileged demographic niche that he is has him think that the problem is that people ought to just suck it up and stop complaining.
They only get to drive the discourse if we react to them.
Though Marty is, and will probably remain, blissfully unaware, this is what white privilege looks like. Failing to understand that people who aren’t in the privileged demographic niche that he is has him think that the problem is that people ought to just suck it up and stop complaining.
Marty, I think you are correct that there isn’t a place that would be widely regarded as an unbiased source of facts.
It seems to me that reality pretty much puts paid to the idea that we can teach the electorate how to pick and choose. So the question becomes, what do we do instead?
Marty, I think you are correct that there isn’t a place that would be widely regarded as an unbiased source of facts.
It seems to me that reality pretty much puts paid to the idea that we can teach the electorate how to pick and choose. So the question becomes, what do we do instead?
Marty, I think you are correct that there isn’t a place that would be widely regarded as an unbiased source of facts.
It seems to me that reality pretty much puts paid to the idea that we can teach the electorate how to pick and choose. So the question becomes, what do we do instead?
for more or less balanced basic news, I like reuters, the AP, and the Monitor. the good old BBC also seems ok.
if you want depth you have to dig for yourself.
also, i hope it doesn’t need saying, but just in case it does:
tens of millions of people can believe that Jews are bad, and it can be utter contemptible BS.
both of those things can be, and are, so.
for more or less balanced basic news, I like reuters, the AP, and the Monitor. the good old BBC also seems ok.
if you want depth you have to dig for yourself.
also, i hope it doesn’t need saying, but just in case it does:
tens of millions of people can believe that Jews are bad, and it can be utter contemptible BS.
both of those things can be, and are, so.
for more or less balanced basic news, I like reuters, the AP, and the Monitor. the good old BBC also seems ok.
if you want depth you have to dig for yourself.
also, i hope it doesn’t need saying, but just in case it does:
tens of millions of people can believe that Jews are bad, and it can be utter contemptible BS.
both of those things can be, and are, so.
“both of those things can be, and are, so.”
yes, they are.
“both of those things can be, and are, so.”
yes, they are.
“both of those things can be, and are, so.”
yes, they are.
thank you.
thank you.
thank you.
Back a bit late. The Josh Marshall piece on Ellison doesn’t go far enough. It’s a touchy subject with Democrats, since people have been kept in line on the Palestinian issue precisely because people like Greenblatt are willing to call people antisemites if they criticize Israel or the Israel lobby too much. It’s why Clinton took some of the positions she took, at one point attacking Trump from the right and practically embracing Netanyahu, who is in many ways like Trump. The fascinating thing about Greenblatt is that he says he would register as a Muslim, but acts like Abe Foxman on the subject of Israel.
The point of the Greenwald piece and others is that bigotry and pandering to bigotry is not a Trump invention. He has taken it to new heights, but give a politician the right incentives and many in both parties will behave in deeply cynical ways. Greenwald doesn’t care at all about Democratic sensitivities, so he spells it out. Marshall doesn’t.
A little bit more honesty on a consistent basis when politicians play these contemptible games and maybe we wouldn’t have sunk to the point where Trump style lying becomes the norm. He didn’t come out of nowhere. One reason he initially interested people is that along with all the lies and bigotry, he also said some things which were true, things that the other Republicans still couldn’t say about the foolishness of the Iraq War. There were no serious consequences for any politician or pundit from that massive display of murderous idiocy and it is obvious that many people in both parties learned almost nothing from it, except that future disastrous interventions should preferably be done without boots on the ground. In Trump’s various ravings, at times he seemed to recognize he could score points on this issue. I would be interested in knowing how many military people and their families supported Trump for this reason. Anecdotally I have seen people say it played a role. It may seem weird, but I have seen people say they supported Trump as the one less likely to get us into war. You don’t have to agree with that–I don’t, though I do think Clinton was a likely disaster herself–but it was a not uncommon argument in blogs I have read.
A great many Americans thought we have clueless elites in both parties. And they didn’t trust the press either. I agree with a lot of this. We were ripe for a demagogue. As for Clinton’s totals, some of those were lesser evil votes.
Back a bit late. The Josh Marshall piece on Ellison doesn’t go far enough. It’s a touchy subject with Democrats, since people have been kept in line on the Palestinian issue precisely because people like Greenblatt are willing to call people antisemites if they criticize Israel or the Israel lobby too much. It’s why Clinton took some of the positions she took, at one point attacking Trump from the right and practically embracing Netanyahu, who is in many ways like Trump. The fascinating thing about Greenblatt is that he says he would register as a Muslim, but acts like Abe Foxman on the subject of Israel.
The point of the Greenwald piece and others is that bigotry and pandering to bigotry is not a Trump invention. He has taken it to new heights, but give a politician the right incentives and many in both parties will behave in deeply cynical ways. Greenwald doesn’t care at all about Democratic sensitivities, so he spells it out. Marshall doesn’t.
A little bit more honesty on a consistent basis when politicians play these contemptible games and maybe we wouldn’t have sunk to the point where Trump style lying becomes the norm. He didn’t come out of nowhere. One reason he initially interested people is that along with all the lies and bigotry, he also said some things which were true, things that the other Republicans still couldn’t say about the foolishness of the Iraq War. There were no serious consequences for any politician or pundit from that massive display of murderous idiocy and it is obvious that many people in both parties learned almost nothing from it, except that future disastrous interventions should preferably be done without boots on the ground. In Trump’s various ravings, at times he seemed to recognize he could score points on this issue. I would be interested in knowing how many military people and their families supported Trump for this reason. Anecdotally I have seen people say it played a role. It may seem weird, but I have seen people say they supported Trump as the one less likely to get us into war. You don’t have to agree with that–I don’t, though I do think Clinton was a likely disaster herself–but it was a not uncommon argument in blogs I have read.
A great many Americans thought we have clueless elites in both parties. And they didn’t trust the press either. I agree with a lot of this. We were ripe for a demagogue. As for Clinton’s totals, some of those were lesser evil votes.
Back a bit late. The Josh Marshall piece on Ellison doesn’t go far enough. It’s a touchy subject with Democrats, since people have been kept in line on the Palestinian issue precisely because people like Greenblatt are willing to call people antisemites if they criticize Israel or the Israel lobby too much. It’s why Clinton took some of the positions she took, at one point attacking Trump from the right and practically embracing Netanyahu, who is in many ways like Trump. The fascinating thing about Greenblatt is that he says he would register as a Muslim, but acts like Abe Foxman on the subject of Israel.
The point of the Greenwald piece and others is that bigotry and pandering to bigotry is not a Trump invention. He has taken it to new heights, but give a politician the right incentives and many in both parties will behave in deeply cynical ways. Greenwald doesn’t care at all about Democratic sensitivities, so he spells it out. Marshall doesn’t.
A little bit more honesty on a consistent basis when politicians play these contemptible games and maybe we wouldn’t have sunk to the point where Trump style lying becomes the norm. He didn’t come out of nowhere. One reason he initially interested people is that along with all the lies and bigotry, he also said some things which were true, things that the other Republicans still couldn’t say about the foolishness of the Iraq War. There were no serious consequences for any politician or pundit from that massive display of murderous idiocy and it is obvious that many people in both parties learned almost nothing from it, except that future disastrous interventions should preferably be done without boots on the ground. In Trump’s various ravings, at times he seemed to recognize he could score points on this issue. I would be interested in knowing how many military people and their families supported Trump for this reason. Anecdotally I have seen people say it played a role. It may seem weird, but I have seen people say they supported Trump as the one less likely to get us into war. You don’t have to agree with that–I don’t, though I do think Clinton was a likely disaster herself–but it was a not uncommon argument in blogs I have read.
A great many Americans thought we have clueless elites in both parties. And they didn’t trust the press either. I agree with a lot of this. We were ripe for a demagogue. As for Clinton’s totals, some of those were lesser evil votes.
I have to agree with much of what Donald says.
This piece by a Clinton campaign volunteer is quite interesting as to the motivations of undecided voters, and how Trump came across to them:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/21/understanding-undecided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html
The reaction to the ‘deplorables’ comment is striking:
Last week, I reread all of my notes. There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
All hell broke loose…
I have to agree with much of what Donald says.
This piece by a Clinton campaign volunteer is quite interesting as to the motivations of undecided voters, and how Trump came across to them:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/21/understanding-undecided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html
The reaction to the ‘deplorables’ comment is striking:
Last week, I reread all of my notes. There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
All hell broke loose…
I have to agree with much of what Donald says.
This piece by a Clinton campaign volunteer is quite interesting as to the motivations of undecided voters, and how Trump came across to them:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/21/understanding-undecided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html
The reaction to the ‘deplorables’ comment is striking:
Last week, I reread all of my notes. There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
All hell broke loose…
It was nice to see Donald Trump tweet a lie and make Boeing’s stock drop by 1.5 billion. More of this please, so we can get the alliance between business interests and bible trash destroyed forever.
It was nice to see Donald Trump tweet a lie and make Boeing’s stock drop by 1.5 billion. More of this please, so we can get the alliance between business interests and bible trash destroyed forever.
It was nice to see Donald Trump tweet a lie and make Boeing’s stock drop by 1.5 billion. More of this please, so we can get the alliance between business interests and bible trash destroyed forever.
“I have seen people say they supported Trump as the one less likely to get us into war”
you might be able to make the case that he was the one less likely to get us into a war on purpose.
“I have seen people say they supported Trump as the one less likely to get us into war”
you might be able to make the case that he was the one less likely to get us into a war on purpose.
“I have seen people say they supported Trump as the one less likely to get us into war”
you might be able to make the case that he was the one less likely to get us into a war on purpose.
Nigel, I’m sorry, but I don’t buy “George’s” resentment in the Boston Globe story. “Now I see my tax dollars going to handouts for others who don’t want to work as hard as I did, and I can’t afford my health care.”
Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true. Think about the sentiment that really comes from.
This article is much more honest.
Nigel, I’m sorry, but I don’t buy “George’s” resentment in the Boston Globe story. “Now I see my tax dollars going to handouts for others who don’t want to work as hard as I did, and I can’t afford my health care.”
Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true. Think about the sentiment that really comes from.
This article is much more honest.
Nigel, I’m sorry, but I don’t buy “George’s” resentment in the Boston Globe story. “Now I see my tax dollars going to handouts for others who don’t want to work as hard as I did, and I can’t afford my health care.”
Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true. Think about the sentiment that really comes from.
This article is much more honest.
“Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true. Think about the sentiment that really comes from. ”
Because you know George well enough to dispute the authors accuracy in understanding their conversations with a real human being over the course of months. So George is just lying. So let’s just mock them, the writers and the people they actually talked to.
Because none of them actually come up with your preferred answer when they talk to like, a real person, rather than your imaginary every WWC voter.
“Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true. Think about the sentiment that really comes from. ”
Because you know George well enough to dispute the authors accuracy in understanding their conversations with a real human being over the course of months. So George is just lying. So let’s just mock them, the writers and the people they actually talked to.
Because none of them actually come up with your preferred answer when they talk to like, a real person, rather than your imaginary every WWC voter.
“Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true. Think about the sentiment that really comes from. ”
Because you know George well enough to dispute the authors accuracy in understanding their conversations with a real human being over the course of months. So George is just lying. So let’s just mock them, the writers and the people they actually talked to.
Because none of them actually come up with your preferred answer when they talk to like, a real person, rather than your imaginary every WWC voter.
Because none of them actually come up with your preferred answer when they talk to like, a real person, rather than your imaginary every WWC voter.
They’re so wise, Marty! And they got what they wanted. Time to quit feeling sorry for them.
Because none of them actually come up with your preferred answer when they talk to like, a real person, rather than your imaginary every WWC voter.
They’re so wise, Marty! And they got what they wanted. Time to quit feeling sorry for them.
Because none of them actually come up with your preferred answer when they talk to like, a real person, rather than your imaginary every WWC voter.
They’re so wise, Marty! And they got what they wanted. Time to quit feeling sorry for them.
Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true…
I think you miss the point entirely. Dismissing the feelings of voters who quite conceivably decided the election, just because what they believe might be factually inaccurate is a recipe for losing the next election.
Read what they said about Trump; they didn’t believe half (or more) of what he said, but they voted for him.
Just like the debate over the ‘deplorables’. Whether or not the comment might somehow have been justified (and the content in which it was made) is irrelevant; what counts is the effect.
Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles; they do have to campaign smarter. Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true…
I think you miss the point entirely. Dismissing the feelings of voters who quite conceivably decided the election, just because what they believe might be factually inaccurate is a recipe for losing the next election.
Read what they said about Trump; they didn’t believe half (or more) of what he said, but they voted for him.
Just like the debate over the ‘deplorables’. Whether or not the comment might somehow have been justified (and the content in which it was made) is irrelevant; what counts is the effect.
Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles; they do have to campaign smarter. Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
Think about that. Think about the fact that it really isn’t true…
I think you miss the point entirely. Dismissing the feelings of voters who quite conceivably decided the election, just because what they believe might be factually inaccurate is a recipe for losing the next election.
Read what they said about Trump; they didn’t believe half (or more) of what he said, but they voted for him.
Just like the debate over the ‘deplorables’. Whether or not the comment might somehow have been justified (and the content in which it was made) is irrelevant; what counts is the effect.
Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles; they do have to campaign smarter. Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
FWIW, whether “George” actually exists, or is a composite of people, or even somebody the author just made up, the statements attributed to George are things that I’ve heard from real live people.
I also agree that, to the degree that any one thing wins or loses elections, the “deplorables” statement sunk Clinton. It was her “47%”. It offended a lot of people, and gave Trump supporters a rallying cry.
I fully expect the Trump presidency to be a freaking mess. Every single thing he does, every single day of his presidency, is going to create potential conflicts of interest for himself, his family, and his businesses. On a daily basis, he will be making decisions that create potential or tangible violations of the emoluments clause.
If his performance so far is any indicator, every single day he is going to make incredibly provocative, apparently impulsive statements that are going to leave the rest of the world wondering WTF he is on about. Then, the following day, or perhaps the following minute, he’ll say something else.
And because he’s the POTUS, for each of these random daily apparently off-the-cuff brain farts, a million different sets of people, in a million different situations, are going to have a million different messes to clean up.
I could go on.
I find myself profoundly angry at the folks who voted him in, because IMO doing so was an act of unprecedented political and civic irresponsibility.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
It’s not going to go particularly well, and there’s going to be a lot of damage. I’m mostly just trying to not yell at people, because we actually are going to have to live with each other.
I’ve taken to ending a lot of my comments by saying “good luck to all”, which I’m sure seems like some kind of despairing throwing up of my hands.
To be honest, I wish I could just throw up my hands and say screw it. But none of us can, really.
We’ve made a mess of our country, and now we have to see if we can fix it.
FWIW, whether “George” actually exists, or is a composite of people, or even somebody the author just made up, the statements attributed to George are things that I’ve heard from real live people.
I also agree that, to the degree that any one thing wins or loses elections, the “deplorables” statement sunk Clinton. It was her “47%”. It offended a lot of people, and gave Trump supporters a rallying cry.
I fully expect the Trump presidency to be a freaking mess. Every single thing he does, every single day of his presidency, is going to create potential conflicts of interest for himself, his family, and his businesses. On a daily basis, he will be making decisions that create potential or tangible violations of the emoluments clause.
If his performance so far is any indicator, every single day he is going to make incredibly provocative, apparently impulsive statements that are going to leave the rest of the world wondering WTF he is on about. Then, the following day, or perhaps the following minute, he’ll say something else.
And because he’s the POTUS, for each of these random daily apparently off-the-cuff brain farts, a million different sets of people, in a million different situations, are going to have a million different messes to clean up.
I could go on.
I find myself profoundly angry at the folks who voted him in, because IMO doing so was an act of unprecedented political and civic irresponsibility.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
It’s not going to go particularly well, and there’s going to be a lot of damage. I’m mostly just trying to not yell at people, because we actually are going to have to live with each other.
I’ve taken to ending a lot of my comments by saying “good luck to all”, which I’m sure seems like some kind of despairing throwing up of my hands.
To be honest, I wish I could just throw up my hands and say screw it. But none of us can, really.
We’ve made a mess of our country, and now we have to see if we can fix it.
FWIW, whether “George” actually exists, or is a composite of people, or even somebody the author just made up, the statements attributed to George are things that I’ve heard from real live people.
I also agree that, to the degree that any one thing wins or loses elections, the “deplorables” statement sunk Clinton. It was her “47%”. It offended a lot of people, and gave Trump supporters a rallying cry.
I fully expect the Trump presidency to be a freaking mess. Every single thing he does, every single day of his presidency, is going to create potential conflicts of interest for himself, his family, and his businesses. On a daily basis, he will be making decisions that create potential or tangible violations of the emoluments clause.
If his performance so far is any indicator, every single day he is going to make incredibly provocative, apparently impulsive statements that are going to leave the rest of the world wondering WTF he is on about. Then, the following day, or perhaps the following minute, he’ll say something else.
And because he’s the POTUS, for each of these random daily apparently off-the-cuff brain farts, a million different sets of people, in a million different situations, are going to have a million different messes to clean up.
I could go on.
I find myself profoundly angry at the folks who voted him in, because IMO doing so was an act of unprecedented political and civic irresponsibility.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
It’s not going to go particularly well, and there’s going to be a lot of damage. I’m mostly just trying to not yell at people, because we actually are going to have to live with each other.
I’ve taken to ending a lot of my comments by saying “good luck to all”, which I’m sure seems like some kind of despairing throwing up of my hands.
To be honest, I wish I could just throw up my hands and say screw it. But none of us can, really.
We’ve made a mess of our country, and now we have to see if we can fix it.
Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
I would say that being morally self-satisfied is, in fact, the problem.
Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
I would say that being morally self-satisfied is, in fact, the problem.
Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
I would say that being morally self-satisfied is, in fact, the problem.
Nigel quoted a part of the Globe story. Here’s a bit more of it:
Without having known any personally, I am willing to stipulate that many slave-holders in ante-bellum Dixie were “hard-working, church-going, family-loving” people. “Despicable” may have been a better description of them than “deplorable”.
George and his hard-working, church-going, family-loving, not-slave-owning friends might or might not have felt lumped together with the hard-working, church-going, family-loving slave-owners back in the day. We can never know.
What does seem clear is that some people nowadays (and who’s to say we’re NOT living in another anti-bellum period) are positively eager to believe that THEY are the ones the shoe fits. Or the basket, I should say.
By a couple of percentage points, the American electorate preferred the woman who described the smelly old shoe because they did NOT think it fit them. But the “American electorate” counts for nothing in our Federal system. If enough voters in the right States can be persuaded that deploring racism and homophobia is tantamount to despising THEM, a vulgarian like He, Trump has it made in the shade.
–TP
Nigel quoted a part of the Globe story. Here’s a bit more of it:
Without having known any personally, I am willing to stipulate that many slave-holders in ante-bellum Dixie were “hard-working, church-going, family-loving” people. “Despicable” may have been a better description of them than “deplorable”.
George and his hard-working, church-going, family-loving, not-slave-owning friends might or might not have felt lumped together with the hard-working, church-going, family-loving slave-owners back in the day. We can never know.
What does seem clear is that some people nowadays (and who’s to say we’re NOT living in another anti-bellum period) are positively eager to believe that THEY are the ones the shoe fits. Or the basket, I should say.
By a couple of percentage points, the American electorate preferred the woman who described the smelly old shoe because they did NOT think it fit them. But the “American electorate” counts for nothing in our Federal system. If enough voters in the right States can be persuaded that deploring racism and homophobia is tantamount to despising THEM, a vulgarian like He, Trump has it made in the shade.
–TP
Nigel quoted a part of the Globe story. Here’s a bit more of it:
Without having known any personally, I am willing to stipulate that many slave-holders in ante-bellum Dixie were “hard-working, church-going, family-loving” people. “Despicable” may have been a better description of them than “deplorable”.
George and his hard-working, church-going, family-loving, not-slave-owning friends might or might not have felt lumped together with the hard-working, church-going, family-loving slave-owners back in the day. We can never know.
What does seem clear is that some people nowadays (and who’s to say we’re NOT living in another anti-bellum period) are positively eager to believe that THEY are the ones the shoe fits. Or the basket, I should say.
By a couple of percentage points, the American electorate preferred the woman who described the smelly old shoe because they did NOT think it fit them. But the “American electorate” counts for nothing in our Federal system. If enough voters in the right States can be persuaded that deploring racism and homophobia is tantamount to despising THEM, a vulgarian like He, Trump has it made in the shade.
–TP
He told me that he looked up the word in the dictionary, and that it meant something so bad that there is no hope
Oh ffs. The problem is that the American people have the f**king vocabulary level of a 6th grader.
Yes, it’s from déplorer, which is French for ‘to give up as hopeless’, but in English it means to hold something as not acceptable. Hillary said
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.
If ‘George’ wants to tell me that being a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic in the US is now acceptable, (unless he is being descriptive rather than prescriptive). he needs a swift kick in the ass.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/18/trumps-grammar-in-speeches-just-below-6th-grade-level-study-finds/?utm_term=.def0197793f3
He told me that he looked up the word in the dictionary, and that it meant something so bad that there is no hope
Oh ffs. The problem is that the American people have the f**king vocabulary level of a 6th grader.
Yes, it’s from déplorer, which is French for ‘to give up as hopeless’, but in English it means to hold something as not acceptable. Hillary said
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.
If ‘George’ wants to tell me that being a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic in the US is now acceptable, (unless he is being descriptive rather than prescriptive). he needs a swift kick in the ass.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/18/trumps-grammar-in-speeches-just-below-6th-grade-level-study-finds/?utm_term=.def0197793f3
He told me that he looked up the word in the dictionary, and that it meant something so bad that there is no hope
Oh ffs. The problem is that the American people have the f**king vocabulary level of a 6th grader.
Yes, it’s from déplorer, which is French for ‘to give up as hopeless’, but in English it means to hold something as not acceptable. Hillary said
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.
If ‘George’ wants to tell me that being a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic in the US is now acceptable, (unless he is being descriptive rather than prescriptive). he needs a swift kick in the ass.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/18/trumps-grammar-in-speeches-just-below-6th-grade-level-study-finds/?utm_term=.def0197793f3
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true. And I’m tired of posting links about the economy, how the WWC did better under Clinton and Obama, and worse under Republicans. It’s time to look it up, and to stop letting people languish in that lie.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true. And I’m tired of posting links about the economy, how the WWC did better under Clinton and Obama, and worse under Republicans. It’s time to look it up, and to stop letting people languish in that lie.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true. And I’m tired of posting links about the economy, how the WWC did better under Clinton and Obama, and worse under Republicans. It’s time to look it up, and to stop letting people languish in that lie.
If enough voters in the right States can be persuaded that deploring racism and homophobia is tantamount to despising THEM, a vulgarian like He, Trump has it made in the shade.
If enough can be persuaded, and enough can be suppressed, that is.
If enough voters in the right States can be persuaded that deploring racism and homophobia is tantamount to despising THEM, a vulgarian like He, Trump has it made in the shade.
If enough can be persuaded, and enough can be suppressed, that is.
If enough voters in the right States can be persuaded that deploring racism and homophobia is tantamount to despising THEM, a vulgarian like He, Trump has it made in the shade.
If enough can be persuaded, and enough can be suppressed, that is.
sapient, does it occur to you that it is entirely possible for the WWC’s incomes to have grown (even grown in real, as opposed to merely nominal terms). While they still feel (correctly!) that most of the benefits of the growth in the economy have gone elsewhere.
People tend to be more sensitive to relative, versus absolute, wealth. A person in grinding poverty in the US would be middle or even upper middle class in much of the world, based on what things they can afford and expect to own. That is, I think, part of the disconnect you and Russell are having. The raw numbers, however accurate, just don’t tell the whole story.
sapient, does it occur to you that it is entirely possible for the WWC’s incomes to have grown (even grown in real, as opposed to merely nominal terms). While they still feel (correctly!) that most of the benefits of the growth in the economy have gone elsewhere.
People tend to be more sensitive to relative, versus absolute, wealth. A person in grinding poverty in the US would be middle or even upper middle class in much of the world, based on what things they can afford and expect to own. That is, I think, part of the disconnect you and Russell are having. The raw numbers, however accurate, just don’t tell the whole story.
sapient, does it occur to you that it is entirely possible for the WWC’s incomes to have grown (even grown in real, as opposed to merely nominal terms). While they still feel (correctly!) that most of the benefits of the growth in the economy have gone elsewhere.
People tend to be more sensitive to relative, versus absolute, wealth. A person in grinding poverty in the US would be middle or even upper middle class in much of the world, based on what things they can afford and expect to own. That is, I think, part of the disconnect you and Russell are having. The raw numbers, however accurate, just don’t tell the whole story.
Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles; they do have to campaign smarter. Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
Being morally self-satisfied is not all they did. They proposed policy and governed with the interests of the people in mind. That’s what wasn’t enough. They should also have blown racist dog-whistles, and not run a woman candidate.
Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles; they do have to campaign smarter. Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
Being morally self-satisfied is not all they did. They proposed policy and governed with the interests of the people in mind. That’s what wasn’t enough. They should also have blown racist dog-whistles, and not run a woman candidate.
Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles; they do have to campaign smarter. Being morally self-satisfied is not enough.
Being morally self-satisfied is not all they did. They proposed policy and governed with the interests of the people in mind. That’s what wasn’t enough. They should also have blown racist dog-whistles, and not run a woman candidate.
Oh ffs. The problem is that the American people have the f**king vocabulary level of a 6th grader.
…After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Surely the problem is that the Democrats need to learn to appeal to the 6th graders, too ?
Oh ffs. The problem is that the American people have the f**king vocabulary level of a 6th grader.
…After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Surely the problem is that the Democrats need to learn to appeal to the 6th graders, too ?
Oh ffs. The problem is that the American people have the f**king vocabulary level of a 6th grader.
…After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Surely the problem is that the Democrats need to learn to appeal to the 6th graders, too ?
While they still feel (correctly!) that most of the benefits of the growth in the economy have gone elsewhere.
Do you know what, wj? Most of the benefits of the growth in the economy hasn’t gone to me either. Just saying – I don’t make much money, either. But my answer isn’t to denigrate people of other faiths, promote rounding up immigrants who hope to make their lives better by moving to this country, and resenting the hell out of everyone else. Weird that it’s not my response.
While they still feel (correctly!) that most of the benefits of the growth in the economy have gone elsewhere.
Do you know what, wj? Most of the benefits of the growth in the economy hasn’t gone to me either. Just saying – I don’t make much money, either. But my answer isn’t to denigrate people of other faiths, promote rounding up immigrants who hope to make their lives better by moving to this country, and resenting the hell out of everyone else. Weird that it’s not my response.
While they still feel (correctly!) that most of the benefits of the growth in the economy have gone elsewhere.
Do you know what, wj? Most of the benefits of the growth in the economy hasn’t gone to me either. Just saying – I don’t make much money, either. But my answer isn’t to denigrate people of other faiths, promote rounding up immigrants who hope to make their lives better by moving to this country, and resenting the hell out of everyone else. Weird that it’s not my response.
How people respond to the situation is a separate question from how they feel about it. But until you acknowledge how they do feel, and what the basis is, you can’t do anything about their response.
How people respond to the situation is a separate question from how they feel about it. But until you acknowledge how they do feel, and what the basis is, you can’t do anything about their response.
How people respond to the situation is a separate question from how they feel about it. But until you acknowledge how they do feel, and what the basis is, you can’t do anything about their response.
But until you acknowledge how they do feel, and what the basis is, you can’t do anything about their response.
I do acknowledge how they feel. They are resentful. And not because nobody’s paid attention to them. They are resentful as a matter of cultural identity. Remember what Marty said? Middle finger.
But until you acknowledge how they do feel, and what the basis is, you can’t do anything about their response.
I do acknowledge how they feel. They are resentful. And not because nobody’s paid attention to them. They are resentful as a matter of cultural identity. Remember what Marty said? Middle finger.
But until you acknowledge how they do feel, and what the basis is, you can’t do anything about their response.
I do acknowledge how they feel. They are resentful. And not because nobody’s paid attention to them. They are resentful as a matter of cultural identity. Remember what Marty said? Middle finger.
sapient, you worked like a dog for HRC and the Democrats, and understandably you are devastated and bitter that they lost, and that they lost to such a person.
I hope you will forgive my impertinence for commenting in this way when I am not an American, but it’s no good continuing to restate why HRC was better than Trump, why the Dems were and would be better than the Rs for the WWC as well as most other people, and how misguided the WWC and everybody else who voted for Trump were and are. We are where we are, and we have to figure out how to get out of it as soon as possible. That is not going to happen if we keep on insulting the intelligence and motives of all the people who voted for Trump, and anyone trying to find an explanation for why they voted that way. We need to change their minds, and of course, we are hoping that Trump will do most of that for us, without trashing the country too much, in the next 2 and 4 years, but trying to account for what has happened is part of finding a strategy to overcome it.
sapient, you worked like a dog for HRC and the Democrats, and understandably you are devastated and bitter that they lost, and that they lost to such a person.
I hope you will forgive my impertinence for commenting in this way when I am not an American, but it’s no good continuing to restate why HRC was better than Trump, why the Dems were and would be better than the Rs for the WWC as well as most other people, and how misguided the WWC and everybody else who voted for Trump were and are. We are where we are, and we have to figure out how to get out of it as soon as possible. That is not going to happen if we keep on insulting the intelligence and motives of all the people who voted for Trump, and anyone trying to find an explanation for why they voted that way. We need to change their minds, and of course, we are hoping that Trump will do most of that for us, without trashing the country too much, in the next 2 and 4 years, but trying to account for what has happened is part of finding a strategy to overcome it.
sapient, you worked like a dog for HRC and the Democrats, and understandably you are devastated and bitter that they lost, and that they lost to such a person.
I hope you will forgive my impertinence for commenting in this way when I am not an American, but it’s no good continuing to restate why HRC was better than Trump, why the Dems were and would be better than the Rs for the WWC as well as most other people, and how misguided the WWC and everybody else who voted for Trump were and are. We are where we are, and we have to figure out how to get out of it as soon as possible. That is not going to happen if we keep on insulting the intelligence and motives of all the people who voted for Trump, and anyone trying to find an explanation for why they voted that way. We need to change their minds, and of course, we are hoping that Trump will do most of that for us, without trashing the country too much, in the next 2 and 4 years, but trying to account for what has happened is part of finding a strategy to overcome it.
That is not going to happen if we keep on insulting the intelligence and motives of all the people who voted for Trump, and anyone trying to find an explanation for why they voted that way.
You are mistaken. Fascists shouldn’t be coddled. They have agency. They’re the ones who need to explain how their choices help them.
That is not going to happen if we keep on insulting the intelligence and motives of all the people who voted for Trump, and anyone trying to find an explanation for why they voted that way.
You are mistaken. Fascists shouldn’t be coddled. They have agency. They’re the ones who need to explain how their choices help them.
That is not going to happen if we keep on insulting the intelligence and motives of all the people who voted for Trump, and anyone trying to find an explanation for why they voted that way.
You are mistaken. Fascists shouldn’t be coddled. They have agency. They’re the ones who need to explain how their choices help them.
Do you think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist?
Do you think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist?
Do you think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist?
Do you think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist?
Just as much as the Germans who allowed Hitler to do his thing.
Do you think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist?
Just as much as the Germans who allowed Hitler to do his thing.
Do you think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist?
Just as much as the Germans who allowed Hitler to do his thing.
I see.
I see.
I see.
Nigel, if someone is going to seize on the fact that deplore comes from deplorer and then transitively assume that this means that Hillary (and by extension, the entire Democratic party) has ‘given them up as hopeless’, it seems like they are looking for reasons and no amount of appealing to them is going to make a difference.
This argument that we have to somehow ‘appeal’ to this seems to make a mockery of the fact that there are hard choices to make. Sugarcoating everything to get middle class republicans to vote for Democrats seems a lot like the classical definition of Broderism.
Nigel, if someone is going to seize on the fact that deplore comes from deplorer and then transitively assume that this means that Hillary (and by extension, the entire Democratic party) has ‘given them up as hopeless’, it seems like they are looking for reasons and no amount of appealing to them is going to make a difference.
This argument that we have to somehow ‘appeal’ to this seems to make a mockery of the fact that there are hard choices to make. Sugarcoating everything to get middle class republicans to vote for Democrats seems a lot like the classical definition of Broderism.
Nigel, if someone is going to seize on the fact that deplore comes from deplorer and then transitively assume that this means that Hillary (and by extension, the entire Democratic party) has ‘given them up as hopeless’, it seems like they are looking for reasons and no amount of appealing to them is going to make a difference.
This argument that we have to somehow ‘appeal’ to this seems to make a mockery of the fact that there are hard choices to make. Sugarcoating everything to get middle class republicans to vote for Democrats seems a lot like the classical definition of Broderism.
They are resentful. And not because nobody’s paid attention to them. They are resentful as a matter of cultural identity. Remember what Marty said? Middle finger.
Again, you may feel that it is not true that nobody’s paid attention to them. But that isn’t how they see it. In their view, nobody has paid attention to them and to their cultural identity.
It isn’t that resentment is part of that cultural identity. It is the same resentment that any group feels when their identity is be disrespected. They don’t like it.
It may well be objectively true that they have not been ignored. But since they see it differently, one of the challenges if you want to win them back is to change that perception. And the first step in doing that is realizing that it exists. It isn’t that resentment is just a part of their culture. (And a good thing, too. Because if it were, then your cause would be hopeless.)
They are resentful. And not because nobody’s paid attention to them. They are resentful as a matter of cultural identity. Remember what Marty said? Middle finger.
Again, you may feel that it is not true that nobody’s paid attention to them. But that isn’t how they see it. In their view, nobody has paid attention to them and to their cultural identity.
It isn’t that resentment is part of that cultural identity. It is the same resentment that any group feels when their identity is be disrespected. They don’t like it.
It may well be objectively true that they have not been ignored. But since they see it differently, one of the challenges if you want to win them back is to change that perception. And the first step in doing that is realizing that it exists. It isn’t that resentment is just a part of their culture. (And a good thing, too. Because if it were, then your cause would be hopeless.)
They are resentful. And not because nobody’s paid attention to them. They are resentful as a matter of cultural identity. Remember what Marty said? Middle finger.
Again, you may feel that it is not true that nobody’s paid attention to them. But that isn’t how they see it. In their view, nobody has paid attention to them and to their cultural identity.
It isn’t that resentment is part of that cultural identity. It is the same resentment that any group feels when their identity is be disrespected. They don’t like it.
It may well be objectively true that they have not been ignored. But since they see it differently, one of the challenges if you want to win them back is to change that perception. And the first step in doing that is realizing that it exists. It isn’t that resentment is just a part of their culture. (And a good thing, too. Because if it were, then your cause would be hopeless.)
But since they see it differently, one of the challenges if you want to win them back is to change that perception.
Perhaps you can do that for the country. I cannot do that, because I don’t know how to change their perception that to deal with their various grievances, they have to attack other groups of people (usually based on their religion, ethnicity or gender). We’ve tried coddling them.
It’s time for them to be adults and own their preferences. They congregate in areas of the country where they vote for fewer government services (to the extent that they reject federal money so that they can’t get better health care coverage). They vote for people who suppress minorities’ voting rights. They vote for anti-union government. They deny science. They insist that their religion be taught to people who don’t share their beliefs. Now they’ve voted for an unstable person who deals in racism, kleptocracy, and chaos.
Stop excusing them. They chose all of this freely. They own this situation and there’s no excuse for it. It’s not my job to persuade them – logic didn’t work. It’s my job to fight them, and to persuade likeminded people (a majority of the country) that the way we’re headed is an emergency that cannot happen.
But since they see it differently, one of the challenges if you want to win them back is to change that perception.
Perhaps you can do that for the country. I cannot do that, because I don’t know how to change their perception that to deal with their various grievances, they have to attack other groups of people (usually based on their religion, ethnicity or gender). We’ve tried coddling them.
It’s time for them to be adults and own their preferences. They congregate in areas of the country where they vote for fewer government services (to the extent that they reject federal money so that they can’t get better health care coverage). They vote for people who suppress minorities’ voting rights. They vote for anti-union government. They deny science. They insist that their religion be taught to people who don’t share their beliefs. Now they’ve voted for an unstable person who deals in racism, kleptocracy, and chaos.
Stop excusing them. They chose all of this freely. They own this situation and there’s no excuse for it. It’s not my job to persuade them – logic didn’t work. It’s my job to fight them, and to persuade likeminded people (a majority of the country) that the way we’re headed is an emergency that cannot happen.
But since they see it differently, one of the challenges if you want to win them back is to change that perception.
Perhaps you can do that for the country. I cannot do that, because I don’t know how to change their perception that to deal with their various grievances, they have to attack other groups of people (usually based on their religion, ethnicity or gender). We’ve tried coddling them.
It’s time for them to be adults and own their preferences. They congregate in areas of the country where they vote for fewer government services (to the extent that they reject federal money so that they can’t get better health care coverage). They vote for people who suppress minorities’ voting rights. They vote for anti-union government. They deny science. They insist that their religion be taught to people who don’t share their beliefs. Now they’ve voted for an unstable person who deals in racism, kleptocracy, and chaos.
Stop excusing them. They chose all of this freely. They own this situation and there’s no excuse for it. It’s not my job to persuade them – logic didn’t work. It’s my job to fight them, and to persuade likeminded people (a majority of the country) that the way we’re headed is an emergency that cannot happen.
Sugarcoating everything to get middle class republicans to vote for Democrats seems a lot like the classical definition of Broderism.
No.
Elections are won at the margin.
Simply refraining from a generalised insult which could conceivably include a third of the electorate would be a start.
Minutely parsing every comment isn’t the point – indeed it’s exactly the anti-point.
… And what wj said.
Sugarcoating everything to get middle class republicans to vote for Democrats seems a lot like the classical definition of Broderism.
No.
Elections are won at the margin.
Simply refraining from a generalised insult which could conceivably include a third of the electorate would be a start.
Minutely parsing every comment isn’t the point – indeed it’s exactly the anti-point.
… And what wj said.
Sugarcoating everything to get middle class republicans to vote for Democrats seems a lot like the classical definition of Broderism.
No.
Elections are won at the margin.
Simply refraining from a generalised insult which could conceivably include a third of the electorate would be a start.
Minutely parsing every comment isn’t the point – indeed it’s exactly the anti-point.
… And what wj said.
Simply refraining from a generalised insult which could conceivably include a third of the electorate would be a start.
Well, we’ll make sure that our next candidate, who Republicans chant to “Lock him up!” doesn’t say that naughty word, “deplorable.” That should work!
Simply refraining from a generalised insult which could conceivably include a third of the electorate would be a start.
Well, we’ll make sure that our next candidate, who Republicans chant to “Lock him up!” doesn’t say that naughty word, “deplorable.” That should work!
Simply refraining from a generalised insult which could conceivably include a third of the electorate would be a start.
Well, we’ll make sure that our next candidate, who Republicans chant to “Lock him up!” doesn’t say that naughty word, “deplorable.” That should work!
Of course, what wj said.
Of course, what wj said.
Of course, what wj said.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true.
Maybe you’re right.
I’m not really the right person to ask about this. I’m not George.
It seems that people are pissed off. I don’t completely know why, there are probably lots of different reasons. I figure it’s probably best to start by taking them at face value.
Some of Trump’s supporters are, plainly, Nazis. Like, literally.
Some are folks who seem to find an exhilarating sense of freedom in being able once again to call other people faggot and nigger.
And a lot of them are folks who find their circumstances and their prospects much reduced, and feel like nobody really gives a crap about that. Except Trump, maybe. At least he says he does. So even though he’s a blatant flaming asshole, they figured they’d give him a shot.
I don’t think it was a good choice. Wasn’t my choice to make.
Probably a wide range of other folks in the mix also, but those seem to be the most notable ones.
At any rate, I’m not sure what value there is in yelling at them at this point. None of us are going anywhere, we need to figure this out.
I do understand your anger, I think.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true.
Maybe you’re right.
I’m not really the right person to ask about this. I’m not George.
It seems that people are pissed off. I don’t completely know why, there are probably lots of different reasons. I figure it’s probably best to start by taking them at face value.
Some of Trump’s supporters are, plainly, Nazis. Like, literally.
Some are folks who seem to find an exhilarating sense of freedom in being able once again to call other people faggot and nigger.
And a lot of them are folks who find their circumstances and their prospects much reduced, and feel like nobody really gives a crap about that. Except Trump, maybe. At least he says he does. So even though he’s a blatant flaming asshole, they figured they’d give him a shot.
I don’t think it was a good choice. Wasn’t my choice to make.
Probably a wide range of other folks in the mix also, but those seem to be the most notable ones.
At any rate, I’m not sure what value there is in yelling at them at this point. None of us are going anywhere, we need to figure this out.
I do understand your anger, I think.
However, nobody’s done a damned thing for most of those folks in about forty years. So it’s hard for me to say why exactly they should give a crap what I think.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true.
Maybe you’re right.
I’m not really the right person to ask about this. I’m not George.
It seems that people are pissed off. I don’t completely know why, there are probably lots of different reasons. I figure it’s probably best to start by taking them at face value.
Some of Trump’s supporters are, plainly, Nazis. Like, literally.
Some are folks who seem to find an exhilarating sense of freedom in being able once again to call other people faggot and nigger.
And a lot of them are folks who find their circumstances and their prospects much reduced, and feel like nobody really gives a crap about that. Except Trump, maybe. At least he says he does. So even though he’s a blatant flaming asshole, they figured they’d give him a shot.
I don’t think it was a good choice. Wasn’t my choice to make.
Probably a wide range of other folks in the mix also, but those seem to be the most notable ones.
At any rate, I’m not sure what value there is in yelling at them at this point. None of us are going anywhere, we need to figure this out.
I do understand your anger, I think.
Well, we’ll make sure that our next candidate, who Republicans chant to “Lock him up!” doesn’t say that naughty word, “deplorable.” That should work!
Unless you have a plan to bar such people from voting, you have to figure out how to get them to vote the way you would prefer.
Elections are won at the margin.
The “lock her up” crowd was not at the margins, so Nigel’s point stands.
Well, we’ll make sure that our next candidate, who Republicans chant to “Lock him up!” doesn’t say that naughty word, “deplorable.” That should work!
Unless you have a plan to bar such people from voting, you have to figure out how to get them to vote the way you would prefer.
Elections are won at the margin.
The “lock her up” crowd was not at the margins, so Nigel’s point stands.
Well, we’ll make sure that our next candidate, who Republicans chant to “Lock him up!” doesn’t say that naughty word, “deplorable.” That should work!
Unless you have a plan to bar such people from voting, you have to figure out how to get them to vote the way you would prefer.
Elections are won at the margin.
The “lock her up” crowd was not at the margins, so Nigel’s point stands.
Unless you have a plan to bar such people from voting, you have to figure out how to get them to vote the way you would prefer.
You seem to have the very optimistic view that “such people” are going to allow the rest of us to vote in future. Their history doesn’t support that likelihood at all.
Unless you have a plan to bar such people from voting, you have to figure out how to get them to vote the way you would prefer.
You seem to have the very optimistic view that “such people” are going to allow the rest of us to vote in future. Their history doesn’t support that likelihood at all.
Unless you have a plan to bar such people from voting, you have to figure out how to get them to vote the way you would prefer.
You seem to have the very optimistic view that “such people” are going to allow the rest of us to vote in future. Their history doesn’t support that likelihood at all.
It also helps to keep clear on the point that Russell made.
Some of Trump’s supporters are flat out racists, Nazis, and other scum. No argument that they shouldn’t get any sympathy for their views. And nobody is under the delusion that you are going to win them around, no matter what you do.
But other Trump supporters, IMO a substantial majority of them, are nothing of the kind. They have real (to them) grievances, grievances which can be addressed without doing violence to liberal (or, for that matter, conservative) principles. Insisting on lumping them in with the first group is a) wrong on the facts, and b) counterproductive.
It also helps to keep clear on the point that Russell made.
Some of Trump’s supporters are flat out racists, Nazis, and other scum. No argument that they shouldn’t get any sympathy for their views. And nobody is under the delusion that you are going to win them around, no matter what you do.
But other Trump supporters, IMO a substantial majority of them, are nothing of the kind. They have real (to them) grievances, grievances which can be addressed without doing violence to liberal (or, for that matter, conservative) principles. Insisting on lumping them in with the first group is a) wrong on the facts, and b) counterproductive.
It also helps to keep clear on the point that Russell made.
Some of Trump’s supporters are flat out racists, Nazis, and other scum. No argument that they shouldn’t get any sympathy for their views. And nobody is under the delusion that you are going to win them around, no matter what you do.
But other Trump supporters, IMO a substantial majority of them, are nothing of the kind. They have real (to them) grievances, grievances which can be addressed without doing violence to liberal (or, for that matter, conservative) principles. Insisting on lumping them in with the first group is a) wrong on the facts, and b) counterproductive.
Insisting on lumping them in with the first group is a) wrong on the facts, and b) counterproductive.
I would suggest that y’all talk among yourselves about the nice way to treat people who supported the candidate with very blatant fascist tendencies, and who is clearly riddled with a history of corruption, fraud and racism, even in his “businessman” role.
I call them fascists, or fascist enablers. I believe that they successfully suppressed the vote in many red states where they won. You are welcome to patronize them, and coddle them, and pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing.
Insisting on lumping them in with the first group is a) wrong on the facts, and b) counterproductive.
I would suggest that y’all talk among yourselves about the nice way to treat people who supported the candidate with very blatant fascist tendencies, and who is clearly riddled with a history of corruption, fraud and racism, even in his “businessman” role.
I call them fascists, or fascist enablers. I believe that they successfully suppressed the vote in many red states where they won. You are welcome to patronize them, and coddle them, and pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing.
Insisting on lumping them in with the first group is a) wrong on the facts, and b) counterproductive.
I would suggest that y’all talk among yourselves about the nice way to treat people who supported the candidate with very blatant fascist tendencies, and who is clearly riddled with a history of corruption, fraud and racism, even in his “businessman” role.
I call them fascists, or fascist enablers. I believe that they successfully suppressed the vote in many red states where they won. You are welcome to patronize them, and coddle them, and pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing.
I call them fascists, or fascist enablers.
Is that your plan for winning elections in the future?
I call them fascists, or fascist enablers.
Is that your plan for winning elections in the future?
I call them fascists, or fascist enablers.
Is that your plan for winning elections in the future?
Is that your plan for winning elections in the future?
If there are elections? If there are elections, I probably will try to GOTV of people who care about the country. I will leave it to you to coddle the fascists.
Is that your plan for winning elections in the future?
If there are elections? If there are elections, I probably will try to GOTV of people who care about the country. I will leave it to you to coddle the fascists.
Is that your plan for winning elections in the future?
If there are elections? If there are elections, I probably will try to GOTV of people who care about the country. I will leave it to you to coddle the fascists.
Meanwhile, this abomination is ongoing.
God bless america.
Meanwhile, this abomination is ongoing.
God bless america.
Meanwhile, this abomination is ongoing.
God bless america.
…I probably will try to GOTV of people who care about the country.
That sounds like a good idea.
I will leave it to you to coddle the fascists.
I think the problem with your characterization of every Trump voter, to a person, is that you assume they see and know what you do and that they process it the same way you do, but they still somehow decide that it’s okay.
I think many Trump voters don’t think about things and analyze them the way most of people who frequent this blog do, speaking very generally of course. I’m not saying our minds all work exactly the same way, but I’d say people here generally tend to seek out facts fairly rigorously and apply logic in good faith to the degree they are able, despite whatever internal, subconscious biases they may have.
A good number of people who voted for Trump do not or are not very good at seeking out facts, do not have the knowledge base to contextualize those facts to apply them to political decision-making, and rely far more on the general gut-feeling someone gives them. They may dress that up afterwards with superficial rationalizations about, say, emails and trustworthiness on one hand and business acumen and toughness on the other.
So some of the fascists and fascist-enablers did know what they were doing, and there’s really no point in trying to reach them. But others only *felt* what they were doing, and it didn’t feel like what it actually was.
What Democrats need to do is figure out how to make those people *feel* like voting for Democrats. That doesn’t mean abandoning facts or forgetting about the people who *think* about how they should vote, based on proposed policies and knowledge of history, economics, international affairs, science, etc.
It means recognizing that making logical sense and pointing out facts to persuade the necessary number of people to vote a particular way just isn’t enough, even if you *think* it should be.
…I probably will try to GOTV of people who care about the country.
That sounds like a good idea.
I will leave it to you to coddle the fascists.
I think the problem with your characterization of every Trump voter, to a person, is that you assume they see and know what you do and that they process it the same way you do, but they still somehow decide that it’s okay.
I think many Trump voters don’t think about things and analyze them the way most of people who frequent this blog do, speaking very generally of course. I’m not saying our minds all work exactly the same way, but I’d say people here generally tend to seek out facts fairly rigorously and apply logic in good faith to the degree they are able, despite whatever internal, subconscious biases they may have.
A good number of people who voted for Trump do not or are not very good at seeking out facts, do not have the knowledge base to contextualize those facts to apply them to political decision-making, and rely far more on the general gut-feeling someone gives them. They may dress that up afterwards with superficial rationalizations about, say, emails and trustworthiness on one hand and business acumen and toughness on the other.
So some of the fascists and fascist-enablers did know what they were doing, and there’s really no point in trying to reach them. But others only *felt* what they were doing, and it didn’t feel like what it actually was.
What Democrats need to do is figure out how to make those people *feel* like voting for Democrats. That doesn’t mean abandoning facts or forgetting about the people who *think* about how they should vote, based on proposed policies and knowledge of history, economics, international affairs, science, etc.
It means recognizing that making logical sense and pointing out facts to persuade the necessary number of people to vote a particular way just isn’t enough, even if you *think* it should be.
…I probably will try to GOTV of people who care about the country.
That sounds like a good idea.
I will leave it to you to coddle the fascists.
I think the problem with your characterization of every Trump voter, to a person, is that you assume they see and know what you do and that they process it the same way you do, but they still somehow decide that it’s okay.
I think many Trump voters don’t think about things and analyze them the way most of people who frequent this blog do, speaking very generally of course. I’m not saying our minds all work exactly the same way, but I’d say people here generally tend to seek out facts fairly rigorously and apply logic in good faith to the degree they are able, despite whatever internal, subconscious biases they may have.
A good number of people who voted for Trump do not or are not very good at seeking out facts, do not have the knowledge base to contextualize those facts to apply them to political decision-making, and rely far more on the general gut-feeling someone gives them. They may dress that up afterwards with superficial rationalizations about, say, emails and trustworthiness on one hand and business acumen and toughness on the other.
So some of the fascists and fascist-enablers did know what they were doing, and there’s really no point in trying to reach them. But others only *felt* what they were doing, and it didn’t feel like what it actually was.
What Democrats need to do is figure out how to make those people *feel* like voting for Democrats. That doesn’t mean abandoning facts or forgetting about the people who *think* about how they should vote, based on proposed policies and knowledge of history, economics, international affairs, science, etc.
It means recognizing that making logical sense and pointing out facts to persuade the necessary number of people to vote a particular way just isn’t enough, even if you *think* it should be.
I would suggest that y’all talk among yourselves about the nice way to treat people who supported the candidate with very blatant fascist tendencies, and who is clearly riddled with a history of corruption, fraud and racism, even in his “businessman” role.
I don’t suppose there’s a single commenter here who disagrees with your characterisation Of Trump. What I think we are talking about is trying to prevent such an outcome happening again, by finding a way to communicate with the people who were not nazis, but ignorant, or misled, or going on (erroneous) gut instinct. If elections are still going to be held, and the vote not more significantly suppressed, this approach starts to reach the foothills of a strategy for the future. If democracy is over in America, I imagine that the people on this blog will fight with you on the barricades.
I would suggest that y’all talk among yourselves about the nice way to treat people who supported the candidate with very blatant fascist tendencies, and who is clearly riddled with a history of corruption, fraud and racism, even in his “businessman” role.
I don’t suppose there’s a single commenter here who disagrees with your characterisation Of Trump. What I think we are talking about is trying to prevent such an outcome happening again, by finding a way to communicate with the people who were not nazis, but ignorant, or misled, or going on (erroneous) gut instinct. If elections are still going to be held, and the vote not more significantly suppressed, this approach starts to reach the foothills of a strategy for the future. If democracy is over in America, I imagine that the people on this blog will fight with you on the barricades.
I would suggest that y’all talk among yourselves about the nice way to treat people who supported the candidate with very blatant fascist tendencies, and who is clearly riddled with a history of corruption, fraud and racism, even in his “businessman” role.
I don’t suppose there’s a single commenter here who disagrees with your characterisation Of Trump. What I think we are talking about is trying to prevent such an outcome happening again, by finding a way to communicate with the people who were not nazis, but ignorant, or misled, or going on (erroneous) gut instinct. If elections are still going to be held, and the vote not more significantly suppressed, this approach starts to reach the foothills of a strategy for the future. If democracy is over in America, I imagine that the people on this blog will fight with you on the barricades.
I think the problem with your characterization of every Trump voter, to a person, is that you assume they see and know what you do and that they process it the same way you do, but they still somehow decide that it’s okay.
I’m sure that not “every Trump voter, to a person” is a bad person. It’s probably also true that not “every German, to a person” was a bad person. But they let things happen in a way that was not recoverable by persuasion or peaceful means. Sucks for them to be grouped with people who actually did the dirty work, but it was their fault too for enabling it. It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
I think the problem with your characterization of every Trump voter, to a person, is that you assume they see and know what you do and that they process it the same way you do, but they still somehow decide that it’s okay.
I’m sure that not “every Trump voter, to a person” is a bad person. It’s probably also true that not “every German, to a person” was a bad person. But they let things happen in a way that was not recoverable by persuasion or peaceful means. Sucks for them to be grouped with people who actually did the dirty work, but it was their fault too for enabling it. It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
I think the problem with your characterization of every Trump voter, to a person, is that you assume they see and know what you do and that they process it the same way you do, but they still somehow decide that it’s okay.
I’m sure that not “every Trump voter, to a person” is a bad person. It’s probably also true that not “every German, to a person” was a bad person. But they let things happen in a way that was not recoverable by persuasion or peaceful means. Sucks for them to be grouped with people who actually did the dirty work, but it was their fault too for enabling it. It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
“A good number of people who voted for Hitler do not or are not very good at seeking out facts, do not have the knowledge base to contextualize those facts to apply them to political decision-making, and rely far more on the general gut-feeling someone gives them. They may dress that up afterwards with superficial rationalizations about, say, emails and trustworthiness on one hand and business acumen and toughness on the other.”
Same old, same old.
“If democracy is over in America, I imagine that the people on this blog will fight with you on the barricades.”
Anyone see Count lately?
“A good number of people who voted for Hitler do not or are not very good at seeking out facts, do not have the knowledge base to contextualize those facts to apply them to political decision-making, and rely far more on the general gut-feeling someone gives them. They may dress that up afterwards with superficial rationalizations about, say, emails and trustworthiness on one hand and business acumen and toughness on the other.”
Same old, same old.
“If democracy is over in America, I imagine that the people on this blog will fight with you on the barricades.”
Anyone see Count lately?
“A good number of people who voted for Hitler do not or are not very good at seeking out facts, do not have the knowledge base to contextualize those facts to apply them to political decision-making, and rely far more on the general gut-feeling someone gives them. They may dress that up afterwards with superficial rationalizations about, say, emails and trustworthiness on one hand and business acumen and toughness on the other.”
Same old, same old.
“If democracy is over in America, I imagine that the people on this blog will fight with you on the barricades.”
Anyone see Count lately?
I’m still cogitating on my intended comment on Islam and diversity plus I’m still very jammed at work.
But, I have to stick my oar in. The bent toward lumping millions of complex individuals into three or four sound bite friendly groups and then reading their collective three or four minds may not actually be something that can be done, particularly if, as I tend to think, those single, collective three or four minds don’t exist. That’s point number one. Point number two is, sorry to say, the Democrat candidate was pretty awful. Maybe not if you’re a Democrat, but for a lot of other people, she was pretty awful.
So, how many Trump votes were really anti-HRC votes? Who knows and good luck getting a reliable answer. Maybe the better question is: how many more votes would Trump have gotten if he’d been 40% less of a clown?
Now, do Trump voters want to end democracy, re-enslave African Americans and make Sapient’s friends into forced breeders? Probably not. Do they care if marginal, largely symbolic Climate Change initiatives aren’t part of the administration’s feel good news releases? I doubt it. Are a lot of anti-Trump conservatives glad that HRC isn’t making the next SCOTUS appointment? Yes. Are a lot of anti-Trump conservatives having an ongoing meltdown like so many on the left? Not really.
Trump may well turn out the be the train wreck the progressive left in particular expects him to be. Or, like his awesome business acumen and world class real estate empire, it could turn out to be not nearly the big deal he said it would be.
But, in terms of why people voted for Trump, put HRC somewhere in the middle if not near the top of the list.
I’m still cogitating on my intended comment on Islam and diversity plus I’m still very jammed at work.
But, I have to stick my oar in. The bent toward lumping millions of complex individuals into three or four sound bite friendly groups and then reading their collective three or four minds may not actually be something that can be done, particularly if, as I tend to think, those single, collective three or four minds don’t exist. That’s point number one. Point number two is, sorry to say, the Democrat candidate was pretty awful. Maybe not if you’re a Democrat, but for a lot of other people, she was pretty awful.
So, how many Trump votes were really anti-HRC votes? Who knows and good luck getting a reliable answer. Maybe the better question is: how many more votes would Trump have gotten if he’d been 40% less of a clown?
Now, do Trump voters want to end democracy, re-enslave African Americans and make Sapient’s friends into forced breeders? Probably not. Do they care if marginal, largely symbolic Climate Change initiatives aren’t part of the administration’s feel good news releases? I doubt it. Are a lot of anti-Trump conservatives glad that HRC isn’t making the next SCOTUS appointment? Yes. Are a lot of anti-Trump conservatives having an ongoing meltdown like so many on the left? Not really.
Trump may well turn out the be the train wreck the progressive left in particular expects him to be. Or, like his awesome business acumen and world class real estate empire, it could turn out to be not nearly the big deal he said it would be.
But, in terms of why people voted for Trump, put HRC somewhere in the middle if not near the top of the list.
I’m still cogitating on my intended comment on Islam and diversity plus I’m still very jammed at work.
But, I have to stick my oar in. The bent toward lumping millions of complex individuals into three or four sound bite friendly groups and then reading their collective three or four minds may not actually be something that can be done, particularly if, as I tend to think, those single, collective three or four minds don’t exist. That’s point number one. Point number two is, sorry to say, the Democrat candidate was pretty awful. Maybe not if you’re a Democrat, but for a lot of other people, she was pretty awful.
So, how many Trump votes were really anti-HRC votes? Who knows and good luck getting a reliable answer. Maybe the better question is: how many more votes would Trump have gotten if he’d been 40% less of a clown?
Now, do Trump voters want to end democracy, re-enslave African Americans and make Sapient’s friends into forced breeders? Probably not. Do they care if marginal, largely symbolic Climate Change initiatives aren’t part of the administration’s feel good news releases? I doubt it. Are a lot of anti-Trump conservatives glad that HRC isn’t making the next SCOTUS appointment? Yes. Are a lot of anti-Trump conservatives having an ongoing meltdown like so many on the left? Not really.
Trump may well turn out the be the train wreck the progressive left in particular expects him to be. Or, like his awesome business acumen and world class real estate empire, it could turn out to be not nearly the big deal he said it would be.
But, in terms of why people voted for Trump, put HRC somewhere in the middle if not near the top of the list.
It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
I’m all for it, and maybe the awful reality of a Trump presidency will eventually spur some people to do just that. But I’d also like to figure out how to keep it from getting that far next time.
It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
I’m all for it, and maybe the awful reality of a Trump presidency will eventually spur some people to do just that. But I’d also like to figure out how to keep it from getting that far next time.
It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
I’m all for it, and maybe the awful reality of a Trump presidency will eventually spur some people to do just that. But I’d also like to figure out how to keep it from getting that far next time.
Equally foolish group mind reading from the right:
“In fact many millions of Americans of specifically chose him to the instrument of progressive destruction, the illiberal man who would meet force with force (unlike all those “GOPe pansies” who don’t realize you have to “punch back twice as hard.”) In other words, an awful lot of American voters surveyed the cultural and political landscape — including a wave of progressive illiberalism — from the Obama administration to campuses to corporations, and said, “You want war? Then war you shall have.””
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=2
Equally foolish group mind reading from the right:
“In fact many millions of Americans of specifically chose him to the instrument of progressive destruction, the illiberal man who would meet force with force (unlike all those “GOPe pansies” who don’t realize you have to “punch back twice as hard.”) In other words, an awful lot of American voters surveyed the cultural and political landscape — including a wave of progressive illiberalism — from the Obama administration to campuses to corporations, and said, “You want war? Then war you shall have.””
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=2
Equally foolish group mind reading from the right:
“In fact many millions of Americans of specifically chose him to the instrument of progressive destruction, the illiberal man who would meet force with force (unlike all those “GOPe pansies” who don’t realize you have to “punch back twice as hard.”) In other words, an awful lot of American voters surveyed the cultural and political landscape — including a wave of progressive illiberalism — from the Obama administration to campuses to corporations, and said, “You want war? Then war you shall have.””
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=2
You are welcome to patronize them, and coddle them, and pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing.
I have family members who voted for Trump. It causes me no small amount of cognitive dissonance to hold the positive things I know about them, and the fact that they voted for Trump, in my head at the same time.
Nonetheless, I’m obliged to maintain a relationship with them. Not patronize or coddle them, but deal with them as mostly reasonable human beings that I know, and have either known all my life or theirs.
It takes some doing at times. There are topics we don’t discuss, or discuss very gingerly. We both try to find opportunities to acknowledge whatever we can find of merit in the other party’s point of view.
A sizable gap remains. But, they are my family, and I’m not willing to end contact with them over the results of the election.
IMO Trump is plainly already abusing the office he doesn’t even hold yet for his own personal gain and that of his family. IMO Trump would, today, plainly and egregiously be in violation of the emoluments clause if he were POTUS.
His “non-employment” of his son-in-law as advisor is a blatant violation of the spirit of anti-nepotism laws, if not the letter. And the letter is surely arguable.
I can relate a very, very long list of the ways in which Trump is a thoroughly inappropriate POTUS-elect, and will be a thoroughly inappropriate POTUS. To be perfectly frank, it offends me profoundly that he won the office. Profoundly. The man is an entitled ass, who has never, in a long and very publicly lived life, demonstrated that he’s ever given a rat’s ass about anyone other than himself.
All of that said, about half the people who voted, voted for him. Some of them are Nazis, some are unreconstructed bigots. I doubt that all of them are.
People probably had 1000 different reasons for voting for him. Some of those people may be open to voting differently next time, both at the mid-terms and in 2020.
I don’t want to give them any reason not to do so. That’s not coddling, it’s just a basic, strategic decision I’m making, about how I will try to deal with people in spite of being profoundly angry with them, and it’s a decision that I’m making in my own interest and in the interest of the country.
I’ve done my share of yelling at people and, frankly, at the clouds over the last few weeks. It hasn’t changed anything.
I agree that there is a real opportunity for something akin to fascism in the Trump presidency. Maybe not fascism, exactly, probably something more like the kind of kleptocratic authoritarian nationalism that we see, for instance, in Putin’s Russia.
I figure the best thing I can do to avoid that is to leave the door open to people who might want to reconsider their choice.
That’s just me, we all have to do whatever seems best to us.
You are welcome to patronize them, and coddle them, and pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing.
I have family members who voted for Trump. It causes me no small amount of cognitive dissonance to hold the positive things I know about them, and the fact that they voted for Trump, in my head at the same time.
Nonetheless, I’m obliged to maintain a relationship with them. Not patronize or coddle them, but deal with them as mostly reasonable human beings that I know, and have either known all my life or theirs.
It takes some doing at times. There are topics we don’t discuss, or discuss very gingerly. We both try to find opportunities to acknowledge whatever we can find of merit in the other party’s point of view.
A sizable gap remains. But, they are my family, and I’m not willing to end contact with them over the results of the election.
IMO Trump is plainly already abusing the office he doesn’t even hold yet for his own personal gain and that of his family. IMO Trump would, today, plainly and egregiously be in violation of the emoluments clause if he were POTUS.
His “non-employment” of his son-in-law as advisor is a blatant violation of the spirit of anti-nepotism laws, if not the letter. And the letter is surely arguable.
I can relate a very, very long list of the ways in which Trump is a thoroughly inappropriate POTUS-elect, and will be a thoroughly inappropriate POTUS. To be perfectly frank, it offends me profoundly that he won the office. Profoundly. The man is an entitled ass, who has never, in a long and very publicly lived life, demonstrated that he’s ever given a rat’s ass about anyone other than himself.
All of that said, about half the people who voted, voted for him. Some of them are Nazis, some are unreconstructed bigots. I doubt that all of them are.
People probably had 1000 different reasons for voting for him. Some of those people may be open to voting differently next time, both at the mid-terms and in 2020.
I don’t want to give them any reason not to do so. That’s not coddling, it’s just a basic, strategic decision I’m making, about how I will try to deal with people in spite of being profoundly angry with them, and it’s a decision that I’m making in my own interest and in the interest of the country.
I’ve done my share of yelling at people and, frankly, at the clouds over the last few weeks. It hasn’t changed anything.
I agree that there is a real opportunity for something akin to fascism in the Trump presidency. Maybe not fascism, exactly, probably something more like the kind of kleptocratic authoritarian nationalism that we see, for instance, in Putin’s Russia.
I figure the best thing I can do to avoid that is to leave the door open to people who might want to reconsider their choice.
That’s just me, we all have to do whatever seems best to us.
You are welcome to patronize them, and coddle them, and pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing.
I have family members who voted for Trump. It causes me no small amount of cognitive dissonance to hold the positive things I know about them, and the fact that they voted for Trump, in my head at the same time.
Nonetheless, I’m obliged to maintain a relationship with them. Not patronize or coddle them, but deal with them as mostly reasonable human beings that I know, and have either known all my life or theirs.
It takes some doing at times. There are topics we don’t discuss, or discuss very gingerly. We both try to find opportunities to acknowledge whatever we can find of merit in the other party’s point of view.
A sizable gap remains. But, they are my family, and I’m not willing to end contact with them over the results of the election.
IMO Trump is plainly already abusing the office he doesn’t even hold yet for his own personal gain and that of his family. IMO Trump would, today, plainly and egregiously be in violation of the emoluments clause if he were POTUS.
His “non-employment” of his son-in-law as advisor is a blatant violation of the spirit of anti-nepotism laws, if not the letter. And the letter is surely arguable.
I can relate a very, very long list of the ways in which Trump is a thoroughly inappropriate POTUS-elect, and will be a thoroughly inappropriate POTUS. To be perfectly frank, it offends me profoundly that he won the office. Profoundly. The man is an entitled ass, who has never, in a long and very publicly lived life, demonstrated that he’s ever given a rat’s ass about anyone other than himself.
All of that said, about half the people who voted, voted for him. Some of them are Nazis, some are unreconstructed bigots. I doubt that all of them are.
People probably had 1000 different reasons for voting for him. Some of those people may be open to voting differently next time, both at the mid-terms and in 2020.
I don’t want to give them any reason not to do so. That’s not coddling, it’s just a basic, strategic decision I’m making, about how I will try to deal with people in spite of being profoundly angry with them, and it’s a decision that I’m making in my own interest and in the interest of the country.
I’ve done my share of yelling at people and, frankly, at the clouds over the last few weeks. It hasn’t changed anything.
I agree that there is a real opportunity for something akin to fascism in the Trump presidency. Maybe not fascism, exactly, probably something more like the kind of kleptocratic authoritarian nationalism that we see, for instance, in Putin’s Russia.
I figure the best thing I can do to avoid that is to leave the door open to people who might want to reconsider their choice.
That’s just me, we all have to do whatever seems best to us.
“You want war? Then war you shall have.”
This actually gave me a good laugh. It made me think of Marvin the Martian, one of my favorite WB characters.
Still standing athwart it all, lo these decades later. There’s something sort of semi-beautiful in that, even if demented.
Jump back in when you have the time McK, it’s always good to hear from you.
“You want war? Then war you shall have.”
This actually gave me a good laugh. It made me think of Marvin the Martian, one of my favorite WB characters.
Still standing athwart it all, lo these decades later. There’s something sort of semi-beautiful in that, even if demented.
Jump back in when you have the time McK, it’s always good to hear from you.
“You want war? Then war you shall have.”
This actually gave me a good laugh. It made me think of Marvin the Martian, one of my favorite WB characters.
Still standing athwart it all, lo these decades later. There’s something sort of semi-beautiful in that, even if demented.
Jump back in when you have the time McK, it’s always good to hear from you.
And here are the 538 folks discussing (among other things) exactly the same issues we are talking about. To wit, where should the Democrats go from here?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/
And here are the 538 folks discussing (among other things) exactly the same issues we are talking about. To wit, where should the Democrats go from here?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/
And here are the 538 folks discussing (among other things) exactly the same issues we are talking about. To wit, where should the Democrats go from here?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/
They congregate in areas of the country where they vote for fewer government services (to the extent that they reject federal money so that they can’t get better health care coverage). They vote for people who suppress minorities’ voting rights. They vote for anti-union government. They deny science. They insist that their religion be taught to people who don’t share their beliefs.
You say this, as you previously have said that you have no sympathy for people in red states where the economic situation is worse than the coasts. You say with great righteousness that those parts of the country have brought this upon themselves, and there plight is something they need to own. This is not a sentiment unique to you.
Do you stop to think for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there might be a connection between reduced Democratic turnout (and independent support) in some key purple states when this sort of attitude gets floated about? When you tell the political plurality in purple states that they brought this upon themselves for not living in a solidly blue region where Dems firmly hold the levers of power, does it seem possible that these pious invocations sound an awful lot like “screw you, I’ve got mine” on the lips of supposed allies? You advocate mass punishment for middle-class Democrats and independents (alongside the fascist-or-conscious-and-willful-enabler-to-a-person Republicans, natch) for the ghastly sin of living in the wrong place. What should they do? Pull up roots with their non-existent opulent savings so as to make blue states even bluer and relieve the GOP in purple states of the periodic chore of gerrymandering?
If your party tells you your wants and needs don’t matter, but still demands your loyalty and demonizes you should you even hesitate for a moment in yielding it to them… it’s not really your party, even if you share the same nominal values. Telling the Rust Belt/flyover country/what-have-you that they’ve damned themselves and deserve nothing but scorn until they get their act together on their own may feel satisfying, but you can hardly complain if they don’t feel inclined to support you, no matter how unqualified and corrupt your opponent might be and no matter how many times you remind them of that…
[Sidenote: the week before the election, my household got three pro-Clinton mailers. None of them discussed Clinton’s goals in any detail, but they were quite verbose when it came to Trump’s, and how disastrous it would be should he win. Pitch-perfect.]
They congregate in areas of the country where they vote for fewer government services (to the extent that they reject federal money so that they can’t get better health care coverage). They vote for people who suppress minorities’ voting rights. They vote for anti-union government. They deny science. They insist that their religion be taught to people who don’t share their beliefs.
You say this, as you previously have said that you have no sympathy for people in red states where the economic situation is worse than the coasts. You say with great righteousness that those parts of the country have brought this upon themselves, and there plight is something they need to own. This is not a sentiment unique to you.
Do you stop to think for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there might be a connection between reduced Democratic turnout (and independent support) in some key purple states when this sort of attitude gets floated about? When you tell the political plurality in purple states that they brought this upon themselves for not living in a solidly blue region where Dems firmly hold the levers of power, does it seem possible that these pious invocations sound an awful lot like “screw you, I’ve got mine” on the lips of supposed allies? You advocate mass punishment for middle-class Democrats and independents (alongside the fascist-or-conscious-and-willful-enabler-to-a-person Republicans, natch) for the ghastly sin of living in the wrong place. What should they do? Pull up roots with their non-existent opulent savings so as to make blue states even bluer and relieve the GOP in purple states of the periodic chore of gerrymandering?
If your party tells you your wants and needs don’t matter, but still demands your loyalty and demonizes you should you even hesitate for a moment in yielding it to them… it’s not really your party, even if you share the same nominal values. Telling the Rust Belt/flyover country/what-have-you that they’ve damned themselves and deserve nothing but scorn until they get their act together on their own may feel satisfying, but you can hardly complain if they don’t feel inclined to support you, no matter how unqualified and corrupt your opponent might be and no matter how many times you remind them of that…
[Sidenote: the week before the election, my household got three pro-Clinton mailers. None of them discussed Clinton’s goals in any detail, but they were quite verbose when it came to Trump’s, and how disastrous it would be should he win. Pitch-perfect.]
They congregate in areas of the country where they vote for fewer government services (to the extent that they reject federal money so that they can’t get better health care coverage). They vote for people who suppress minorities’ voting rights. They vote for anti-union government. They deny science. They insist that their religion be taught to people who don’t share their beliefs.
You say this, as you previously have said that you have no sympathy for people in red states where the economic situation is worse than the coasts. You say with great righteousness that those parts of the country have brought this upon themselves, and there plight is something they need to own. This is not a sentiment unique to you.
Do you stop to think for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there might be a connection between reduced Democratic turnout (and independent support) in some key purple states when this sort of attitude gets floated about? When you tell the political plurality in purple states that they brought this upon themselves for not living in a solidly blue region where Dems firmly hold the levers of power, does it seem possible that these pious invocations sound an awful lot like “screw you, I’ve got mine” on the lips of supposed allies? You advocate mass punishment for middle-class Democrats and independents (alongside the fascist-or-conscious-and-willful-enabler-to-a-person Republicans, natch) for the ghastly sin of living in the wrong place. What should they do? Pull up roots with their non-existent opulent savings so as to make blue states even bluer and relieve the GOP in purple states of the periodic chore of gerrymandering?
If your party tells you your wants and needs don’t matter, but still demands your loyalty and demonizes you should you even hesitate for a moment in yielding it to them… it’s not really your party, even if you share the same nominal values. Telling the Rust Belt/flyover country/what-have-you that they’ve damned themselves and deserve nothing but scorn until they get their act together on their own may feel satisfying, but you can hardly complain if they don’t feel inclined to support you, no matter how unqualified and corrupt your opponent might be and no matter how many times you remind them of that…
[Sidenote: the week before the election, my household got three pro-Clinton mailers. None of them discussed Clinton’s goals in any detail, but they were quite verbose when it came to Trump’s, and how disastrous it would be should he win. Pitch-perfect.]
It’s like the “one” China policy. Sure we’ll say the appropriate things and even cutoff formal diplomatic relations from one side – but still sell arms to that same side and put them under our military umbrella. Is it a denial of reality and a fair dose diplomatic mumbo jumbo? Sure. Would (does) it feel good to flip the Red Chinese the bird* for their repressive ways? Probably. But ISTM this kind of Schrodinger’s cat approach to Taiwan/China is a small price to pay to keep out of a shooting war.
Same here on the WWC?
*Do I need to capitalize this? I’ll ask Goose.
It’s like the “one” China policy. Sure we’ll say the appropriate things and even cutoff formal diplomatic relations from one side – but still sell arms to that same side and put them under our military umbrella. Is it a denial of reality and a fair dose diplomatic mumbo jumbo? Sure. Would (does) it feel good to flip the Red Chinese the bird* for their repressive ways? Probably. But ISTM this kind of Schrodinger’s cat approach to Taiwan/China is a small price to pay to keep out of a shooting war.
Same here on the WWC?
*Do I need to capitalize this? I’ll ask Goose.
It’s like the “one” China policy. Sure we’ll say the appropriate things and even cutoff formal diplomatic relations from one side – but still sell arms to that same side and put them under our military umbrella. Is it a denial of reality and a fair dose diplomatic mumbo jumbo? Sure. Would (does) it feel good to flip the Red Chinese the bird* for their repressive ways? Probably. But ISTM this kind of Schrodinger’s cat approach to Taiwan/China is a small price to pay to keep out of a shooting war.
Same here on the WWC?
*Do I need to capitalize this? I’ll ask Goose.
This also seems relevant:
From 1980 to 2014, average national income per adult grew by 61 percent in the United States, yet the average pre-tax income of the bottom 50 percent of individual income earners stagnated at about $16,000 per adult after adjusting for inflation.5 In contrast, income skyrocketed at the top of the income distribution, rising 121 percent for the top 10 percent, 205 percent for the top 1 percent, and 636 percent for the top 0.001 percent. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
…
From 1980 to 2014, for example, NONE of the growth in per-adult national income went to the bottom 50 percent, while 32 percent went to the middle class (defined as adults between the median and the 90th percentile), 68 percent to the top 10 percent, and 36 percent to the top 1 percent.
Figures 1 and 2 are, indeed, worth seeing. (my emphasis in the quote)
This also seems relevant:
From 1980 to 2014, average national income per adult grew by 61 percent in the United States, yet the average pre-tax income of the bottom 50 percent of individual income earners stagnated at about $16,000 per adult after adjusting for inflation.5 In contrast, income skyrocketed at the top of the income distribution, rising 121 percent for the top 10 percent, 205 percent for the top 1 percent, and 636 percent for the top 0.001 percent. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
…
From 1980 to 2014, for example, NONE of the growth in per-adult national income went to the bottom 50 percent, while 32 percent went to the middle class (defined as adults between the median and the 90th percentile), 68 percent to the top 10 percent, and 36 percent to the top 1 percent.
Figures 1 and 2 are, indeed, worth seeing. (my emphasis in the quote)
This also seems relevant:
From 1980 to 2014, average national income per adult grew by 61 percent in the United States, yet the average pre-tax income of the bottom 50 percent of individual income earners stagnated at about $16,000 per adult after adjusting for inflation.5 In contrast, income skyrocketed at the top of the income distribution, rising 121 percent for the top 10 percent, 205 percent for the top 1 percent, and 636 percent for the top 0.001 percent. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
…
From 1980 to 2014, for example, NONE of the growth in per-adult national income went to the bottom 50 percent, while 32 percent went to the middle class (defined as adults between the median and the 90th percentile), 68 percent to the top 10 percent, and 36 percent to the top 1 percent.
Figures 1 and 2 are, indeed, worth seeing. (my emphasis in the quote)
Telling the Rust Belt/flyover country/what-have-you that they’ve damned themselves and deserve nothing but scorn until they get their act together on their own…
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc. Different sources, different target . . . identical message.
Telling the Rust Belt/flyover country/what-have-you that they’ve damned themselves and deserve nothing but scorn until they get their act together on their own…
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc. Different sources, different target . . . identical message.
Telling the Rust Belt/flyover country/what-have-you that they’ve damned themselves and deserve nothing but scorn until they get their act together on their own…
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc. Different sources, different target . . . identical message.
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc.
Easier to stop being a racist, misogynistic, and (or) religious bigot than to stop being poor (and certainly black), ISTM.
But agree the overall message isn’t going to be well received in either case.
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc.
Easier to stop being a racist, misogynistic, and (or) religious bigot than to stop being poor (and certainly black), ISTM.
But agree the overall message isn’t going to be well received in either case.
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc.
Easier to stop being a racist, misogynistic, and (or) religious bigot than to stop being poor (and certainly black), ISTM.
But agree the overall message isn’t going to be well received in either case.
In any event, the electoral college contest was close enough that you can point to virtually any reason for “why Trump won” – all it had to do was move the needle by ~80,000 votes in certain geographic areas.
We can look a little closer at the places where there was a big swing from 2012 to 2016 in favor of Trump and get some more relevant data for future strategic use.
But there is an awful lot of introspection and finger pointing going on over a candidate that won the popular vote by 2.6 million ballots and got nearly as many votes as Obama did in 2012 (it appears she is 9,000 votes behind).
One would think this would spark a large movement to get rid of the electoral college. But instead we’ve got the GOP acting like it’s 1984 (in more ways than one….).
In any event, the electoral college contest was close enough that you can point to virtually any reason for “why Trump won” – all it had to do was move the needle by ~80,000 votes in certain geographic areas.
We can look a little closer at the places where there was a big swing from 2012 to 2016 in favor of Trump and get some more relevant data for future strategic use.
But there is an awful lot of introspection and finger pointing going on over a candidate that won the popular vote by 2.6 million ballots and got nearly as many votes as Obama did in 2012 (it appears she is 9,000 votes behind).
One would think this would spark a large movement to get rid of the electoral college. But instead we’ve got the GOP acting like it’s 1984 (in more ways than one….).
In any event, the electoral college contest was close enough that you can point to virtually any reason for “why Trump won” – all it had to do was move the needle by ~80,000 votes in certain geographic areas.
We can look a little closer at the places where there was a big swing from 2012 to 2016 in favor of Trump and get some more relevant data for future strategic use.
But there is an awful lot of introspection and finger pointing going on over a candidate that won the popular vote by 2.6 million ballots and got nearly as many votes as Obama did in 2012 (it appears she is 9,000 votes behind).
One would think this would spark a large movement to get rid of the electoral college. But instead we’ve got the GOP acting like it’s 1984 (in more ways than one….).
the question that all of this arguing about the sainted and neglected white working class leads me to is this:
where is the economic pony?
it’s great that all of the people who feel they have been left behind now feel that they have a voice. they flipped the bird to all of us snotty elitists, their guy is headed for the white house (at least part time).
now what? what is going to change?
automation is not going to stop. maybe – big maybe – offshoring will be less common. some of it, probably a lot of it, will continue.
there are probably a lot of rank and file jobs that you can send off shore, pay a big tariff on, and still come out ahead. assuming anything like a tariff ever happens, which remains to be seen. even if Trump is for real about that, it has to get through congress, and they have their own agendas.
my wife’s people come from Butler PA. used to be a good steel industry there, now there is one shop. it takes about one-tenth the number of guys to run it compared to a steel shop 50 years ago. they used to build Pullman cars there. we don’t build train cars here anymore. we hate trains.
not a lot going on in Butler these days.
agriculture is increasingly automated, and is also increasingly capital-intensive and centralized.
small businesses are being freaking crushed by big boxes.
coal is not coming back to the OH valley. the export market is drying up and it’s cheaper to get the coal out of the Powder River and Illinois basins. and those are, increasingly, automated operations.
oil and gas are sure to grow, if you’re willing to live in a freaking man-camp, separated from your family for months at a stretch, you will probably be able to find some work work over the next few years. off and on, depending on global demand and prices.
is everyone gonna write mobile apps?
where is the pony? what rabbit is trump gonna pull out of his hat, even assuming he’s interested in doing so?
blaming those god-damned elitists is only going to be fun for so long. sooner or later, people are going to need to eat.
what happens then, when the thrill of sticking it to people like me wears off? what happens when all the spangles on your “fuck your feelings” shirt come off in the wash?
who gets blamed next? sooner or later we’re gonna run out of judases. then, somebody’s actually going to have to, you know, actually make something happen.
anybody here think Trump has the chops for that? or the interest? or the commitment?
if he doesn’t, what happens then?
the question that all of this arguing about the sainted and neglected white working class leads me to is this:
where is the economic pony?
it’s great that all of the people who feel they have been left behind now feel that they have a voice. they flipped the bird to all of us snotty elitists, their guy is headed for the white house (at least part time).
now what? what is going to change?
automation is not going to stop. maybe – big maybe – offshoring will be less common. some of it, probably a lot of it, will continue.
there are probably a lot of rank and file jobs that you can send off shore, pay a big tariff on, and still come out ahead. assuming anything like a tariff ever happens, which remains to be seen. even if Trump is for real about that, it has to get through congress, and they have their own agendas.
my wife’s people come from Butler PA. used to be a good steel industry there, now there is one shop. it takes about one-tenth the number of guys to run it compared to a steel shop 50 years ago. they used to build Pullman cars there. we don’t build train cars here anymore. we hate trains.
not a lot going on in Butler these days.
agriculture is increasingly automated, and is also increasingly capital-intensive and centralized.
small businesses are being freaking crushed by big boxes.
coal is not coming back to the OH valley. the export market is drying up and it’s cheaper to get the coal out of the Powder River and Illinois basins. and those are, increasingly, automated operations.
oil and gas are sure to grow, if you’re willing to live in a freaking man-camp, separated from your family for months at a stretch, you will probably be able to find some work work over the next few years. off and on, depending on global demand and prices.
is everyone gonna write mobile apps?
where is the pony? what rabbit is trump gonna pull out of his hat, even assuming he’s interested in doing so?
blaming those god-damned elitists is only going to be fun for so long. sooner or later, people are going to need to eat.
what happens then, when the thrill of sticking it to people like me wears off? what happens when all the spangles on your “fuck your feelings” shirt come off in the wash?
who gets blamed next? sooner or later we’re gonna run out of judases. then, somebody’s actually going to have to, you know, actually make something happen.
anybody here think Trump has the chops for that? or the interest? or the commitment?
if he doesn’t, what happens then?
the question that all of this arguing about the sainted and neglected white working class leads me to is this:
where is the economic pony?
it’s great that all of the people who feel they have been left behind now feel that they have a voice. they flipped the bird to all of us snotty elitists, their guy is headed for the white house (at least part time).
now what? what is going to change?
automation is not going to stop. maybe – big maybe – offshoring will be less common. some of it, probably a lot of it, will continue.
there are probably a lot of rank and file jobs that you can send off shore, pay a big tariff on, and still come out ahead. assuming anything like a tariff ever happens, which remains to be seen. even if Trump is for real about that, it has to get through congress, and they have their own agendas.
my wife’s people come from Butler PA. used to be a good steel industry there, now there is one shop. it takes about one-tenth the number of guys to run it compared to a steel shop 50 years ago. they used to build Pullman cars there. we don’t build train cars here anymore. we hate trains.
not a lot going on in Butler these days.
agriculture is increasingly automated, and is also increasingly capital-intensive and centralized.
small businesses are being freaking crushed by big boxes.
coal is not coming back to the OH valley. the export market is drying up and it’s cheaper to get the coal out of the Powder River and Illinois basins. and those are, increasingly, automated operations.
oil and gas are sure to grow, if you’re willing to live in a freaking man-camp, separated from your family for months at a stretch, you will probably be able to find some work work over the next few years. off and on, depending on global demand and prices.
is everyone gonna write mobile apps?
where is the pony? what rabbit is trump gonna pull out of his hat, even assuming he’s interested in doing so?
blaming those god-damned elitists is only going to be fun for so long. sooner or later, people are going to need to eat.
what happens then, when the thrill of sticking it to people like me wears off? what happens when all the spangles on your “fuck your feelings” shirt come off in the wash?
who gets blamed next? sooner or later we’re gonna run out of judases. then, somebody’s actually going to have to, you know, actually make something happen.
anybody here think Trump has the chops for that? or the interest? or the commitment?
if he doesn’t, what happens then?
and not for nothing, but the “fuck your feelings” thing – that may just come back to bite some folks in the ass.
just saying.
and not for nothing, but the “fuck your feelings” thing – that may just come back to bite some folks in the ass.
just saying.
and not for nothing, but the “fuck your feelings” thing – that may just come back to bite some folks in the ass.
just saying.
Do you stop to think for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there might be a connection between reduced Democratic turnout (and independent support) in some key purple states when this sort of attitude gets floated about?
It’s my fault that you want to screw yourselves? Time for you to own it. You wanted Trump? Own it. You want a better life? Work for it. Unionize. Vote for progress. And as to this:
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc. Different sources, different target . . . identical message.
No. Their “target” is non-white people. Non-white people don’t vote to bring the country down. When they vote (when their votes aren’t suppressed), they vote (as a demographic) for social welfare and change. They don’t vote for hate.
Do you stop to think for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there might be a connection between reduced Democratic turnout (and independent support) in some key purple states when this sort of attitude gets floated about?
It’s my fault that you want to screw yourselves? Time for you to own it. You wanted Trump? Own it. You want a better life? Work for it. Unionize. Vote for progress. And as to this:
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc. Different sources, different target . . . identical message.
No. Their “target” is non-white people. Non-white people don’t vote to bring the country down. When they vote (when their votes aren’t suppressed), they vote (as a demographic) for social welfare and change. They don’t vote for hate.
Do you stop to think for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there might be a connection between reduced Democratic turnout (and independent support) in some key purple states when this sort of attitude gets floated about?
It’s my fault that you want to screw yourselves? Time for you to own it. You wanted Trump? Own it. You want a better life? Work for it. Unionize. Vote for progress. And as to this:
Notice how closely this parallels what libertarian/conservative Republicans say about the poor, blacks, etc. Different sources, different target . . . identical message.
No. Their “target” is non-white people. Non-white people don’t vote to bring the country down. When they vote (when their votes aren’t suppressed), they vote (as a demographic) for social welfare and change. They don’t vote for hate.
But, in terms of why people voted for Trump, put HRC somewhere in the middle if not near the top of the list.
At the very top of the list is the American electorate’s long-time habit of re-electing incumbent presidents and then voting for a president of the other party. All the “white working class” and “fly-over country” and “basket of deplorables” analysis in the world is but a footnote to the simple statistical fact that in 2016 the American electorate failed to kick the habit.
As for elections being won or lost “at the margin”, let’s not forget that outnumbering the supporters of a racist, misogynist, bombastic vulgarian with fascist tendencies is not necessarily a matter of persuading the wrong-headed; motivating the complacent can also do the trick.
It goes without saying that we librul coastal elitists could be all wrong in our expectation that He, Trump and his billionaires-and-generals administration will make the fly-over white “working class” voters understand who is really indifferent to their “economic plight”. We will find out by 2020, but remember: habits are hard to kick.
–TP
But, in terms of why people voted for Trump, put HRC somewhere in the middle if not near the top of the list.
At the very top of the list is the American electorate’s long-time habit of re-electing incumbent presidents and then voting for a president of the other party. All the “white working class” and “fly-over country” and “basket of deplorables” analysis in the world is but a footnote to the simple statistical fact that in 2016 the American electorate failed to kick the habit.
As for elections being won or lost “at the margin”, let’s not forget that outnumbering the supporters of a racist, misogynist, bombastic vulgarian with fascist tendencies is not necessarily a matter of persuading the wrong-headed; motivating the complacent can also do the trick.
It goes without saying that we librul coastal elitists could be all wrong in our expectation that He, Trump and his billionaires-and-generals administration will make the fly-over white “working class” voters understand who is really indifferent to their “economic plight”. We will find out by 2020, but remember: habits are hard to kick.
–TP
But, in terms of why people voted for Trump, put HRC somewhere in the middle if not near the top of the list.
At the very top of the list is the American electorate’s long-time habit of re-electing incumbent presidents and then voting for a president of the other party. All the “white working class” and “fly-over country” and “basket of deplorables” analysis in the world is but a footnote to the simple statistical fact that in 2016 the American electorate failed to kick the habit.
As for elections being won or lost “at the margin”, let’s not forget that outnumbering the supporters of a racist, misogynist, bombastic vulgarian with fascist tendencies is not necessarily a matter of persuading the wrong-headed; motivating the complacent can also do the trick.
It goes without saying that we librul coastal elitists could be all wrong in our expectation that He, Trump and his billionaires-and-generals administration will make the fly-over white “working class” voters understand who is really indifferent to their “economic plight”. We will find out by 2020, but remember: habits are hard to kick.
–TP
By the way, NV, maybe you’re from Ohio? I forget …
Anyway, apparently, the lovely Ohio WWC non-coastal elite legislature just passed Senate Bill 331, preventing Ohio cities from raising the minimum wage.
Probably the fault of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, or some other nasty woman.
By the way, NV, maybe you’re from Ohio? I forget …
Anyway, apparently, the lovely Ohio WWC non-coastal elite legislature just passed Senate Bill 331, preventing Ohio cities from raising the minimum wage.
Probably the fault of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, or some other nasty woman.
By the way, NV, maybe you’re from Ohio? I forget …
Anyway, apparently, the lovely Ohio WWC non-coastal elite legislature just passed Senate Bill 331, preventing Ohio cities from raising the minimum wage.
Probably the fault of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, or some other nasty woman.
Comments are being eaten?
Comments are being eaten?
Comments are being eaten?
Sapient – can’t tell on my phone. Going to bed but will try to remember to check tomorrow.
Sapient – can’t tell on my phone. Going to bed but will try to remember to check tomorrow.
Sapient – can’t tell on my phone. Going to bed but will try to remember to check tomorrow.
It’s my fault that you want to screw yourselves? Time for you to own it. You wanted Trump? Own it. You want a better life? Work for it. Unionize. Vote for progress.
sapient, you’re trolling. You’re taking quotes out of context to give yourself an excuse to spew invective. You wanna change the subject and talk about owning something? How’s about you own the consequences of your backing – and screaming bloody murder to anyone who opposed, and trying to pass off as the most qualified candidate EVAR – someone who could only narrowly beat the least popular candidate in our lifetimes in the popular vote (and don’t try to tell me 2% isn’t narrow), and lost to him in the electoral college? And that you did all this knowing well in advance how widely disliked she was outside the party, and how numerous her electoral weaknesses were? Despite polls all the way back to last fall clearly saying she’d have her head handed to her on a platter if anyone but Trump won the GOP primary, and even he’d be close for her?
Or if you don’t feel like owning the consequences of your choices and your actions (i.e., President Trump), we can go back to what I was actually talking about: the fact that in your self-righteous eagerness to condemn the inhabitants of non-blue states, you’re writing off the Democrats and left-leaning independents who live there. This isn’t about the Republicans in purple states. They’re not the only ones you’re saying need punished. You’re telling the Dems and left-indies that they can go straight to hell for not clapping loudly enough during the election, and that it’s justified because they don’t live in blue states where there’s a clear Democratic majority to protect them from the possible consequences of being a political plurality or minority. Again, according to you, we deserve what we get no matter how we vote, work, organize, live, etc., so… what the hell should we do? The most obvious solution in keeping with your rhetoric is to abandon ship, go live in blue states, and let the purple states (and their electors) turn red. Is that what you want? That sounds like what you want, but I don’t actually think it is.
The alternative is not telling us to go to hell for the sin of living in places where we’re political pluralities or minorities. Even if that means you don’t get to watch the deplorables get it good and hard like you know they so richly deserve.
The alternative to the alternative is to watch the party members that your neoliberal centerist coastal identity-politics-über-alles NRL cohort have marginalized leave or try to seize control of the Democratic Party. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually want that either, but frankly it seems like this alternative is more realistic than the other one, and it looks like this is where we’re heading. So disillusionment, fragmentation, and infighting. On the plus side, though, with this option you’ll still get to sit in your coastal ivory tower and lecture us on how we need to do as you say for nothing more than the warm fuzzy feeling of virtuous behavior while you OTOH do it for a warm fuzzy plus preferential economic policies. So there is that.
It’s my fault that you want to screw yourselves? Time for you to own it. You wanted Trump? Own it. You want a better life? Work for it. Unionize. Vote for progress.
sapient, you’re trolling. You’re taking quotes out of context to give yourself an excuse to spew invective. You wanna change the subject and talk about owning something? How’s about you own the consequences of your backing – and screaming bloody murder to anyone who opposed, and trying to pass off as the most qualified candidate EVAR – someone who could only narrowly beat the least popular candidate in our lifetimes in the popular vote (and don’t try to tell me 2% isn’t narrow), and lost to him in the electoral college? And that you did all this knowing well in advance how widely disliked she was outside the party, and how numerous her electoral weaknesses were? Despite polls all the way back to last fall clearly saying she’d have her head handed to her on a platter if anyone but Trump won the GOP primary, and even he’d be close for her?
Or if you don’t feel like owning the consequences of your choices and your actions (i.e., President Trump), we can go back to what I was actually talking about: the fact that in your self-righteous eagerness to condemn the inhabitants of non-blue states, you’re writing off the Democrats and left-leaning independents who live there. This isn’t about the Republicans in purple states. They’re not the only ones you’re saying need punished. You’re telling the Dems and left-indies that they can go straight to hell for not clapping loudly enough during the election, and that it’s justified because they don’t live in blue states where there’s a clear Democratic majority to protect them from the possible consequences of being a political plurality or minority. Again, according to you, we deserve what we get no matter how we vote, work, organize, live, etc., so… what the hell should we do? The most obvious solution in keeping with your rhetoric is to abandon ship, go live in blue states, and let the purple states (and their electors) turn red. Is that what you want? That sounds like what you want, but I don’t actually think it is.
The alternative is not telling us to go to hell for the sin of living in places where we’re political pluralities or minorities. Even if that means you don’t get to watch the deplorables get it good and hard like you know they so richly deserve.
The alternative to the alternative is to watch the party members that your neoliberal centerist coastal identity-politics-über-alles NRL cohort have marginalized leave or try to seize control of the Democratic Party. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually want that either, but frankly it seems like this alternative is more realistic than the other one, and it looks like this is where we’re heading. So disillusionment, fragmentation, and infighting. On the plus side, though, with this option you’ll still get to sit in your coastal ivory tower and lecture us on how we need to do as you say for nothing more than the warm fuzzy feeling of virtuous behavior while you OTOH do it for a warm fuzzy plus preferential economic policies. So there is that.
It’s my fault that you want to screw yourselves? Time for you to own it. You wanted Trump? Own it. You want a better life? Work for it. Unionize. Vote for progress.
sapient, you’re trolling. You’re taking quotes out of context to give yourself an excuse to spew invective. You wanna change the subject and talk about owning something? How’s about you own the consequences of your backing – and screaming bloody murder to anyone who opposed, and trying to pass off as the most qualified candidate EVAR – someone who could only narrowly beat the least popular candidate in our lifetimes in the popular vote (and don’t try to tell me 2% isn’t narrow), and lost to him in the electoral college? And that you did all this knowing well in advance how widely disliked she was outside the party, and how numerous her electoral weaknesses were? Despite polls all the way back to last fall clearly saying she’d have her head handed to her on a platter if anyone but Trump won the GOP primary, and even he’d be close for her?
Or if you don’t feel like owning the consequences of your choices and your actions (i.e., President Trump), we can go back to what I was actually talking about: the fact that in your self-righteous eagerness to condemn the inhabitants of non-blue states, you’re writing off the Democrats and left-leaning independents who live there. This isn’t about the Republicans in purple states. They’re not the only ones you’re saying need punished. You’re telling the Dems and left-indies that they can go straight to hell for not clapping loudly enough during the election, and that it’s justified because they don’t live in blue states where there’s a clear Democratic majority to protect them from the possible consequences of being a political plurality or minority. Again, according to you, we deserve what we get no matter how we vote, work, organize, live, etc., so… what the hell should we do? The most obvious solution in keeping with your rhetoric is to abandon ship, go live in blue states, and let the purple states (and their electors) turn red. Is that what you want? That sounds like what you want, but I don’t actually think it is.
The alternative is not telling us to go to hell for the sin of living in places where we’re political pluralities or minorities. Even if that means you don’t get to watch the deplorables get it good and hard like you know they so richly deserve.
The alternative to the alternative is to watch the party members that your neoliberal centerist coastal identity-politics-über-alles NRL cohort have marginalized leave or try to seize control of the Democratic Party. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually want that either, but frankly it seems like this alternative is more realistic than the other one, and it looks like this is where we’re heading. So disillusionment, fragmentation, and infighting. On the plus side, though, with this option you’ll still get to sit in your coastal ivory tower and lecture us on how we need to do as you say for nothing more than the warm fuzzy feeling of virtuous behavior while you OTOH do it for a warm fuzzy plus preferential economic policies. So there is that.
I wrote this comment this morning, but then neglected to hit post, so it’s not responding to anything after Nigel’s query about Dems appealing to 6th graders.
====
I agree in principle that we need to build bridges rather than walls, we are stronger together, yada yada yada. However, as my comment about ‘George’ tries to suggest, there are voters who have the right to vote (that I do not suggest of depriving them of) who pretend to be in that convincible middle, but actually would rather be skinned alive than vote for someone who seemed to lean the least little bit to the left. It’s the concern troll writ large-they will how they just want to have an honest debate, but examine one side with a microscope while leaving large swathes of the other side terra incognito.
I’m not so sure that George isn’t a cousin to Thomas Friedman’s taxi driving informant or even a distant relation to Jayson Blair’s or Stephen Glass’ cast of characters (and it it definitely a sign of the times that I look at everyone’s words with the initial question ‘prove to me you are not just making shit up’), but assuming that he is real, here is a person who has to reach for the Old French etymology to dismiss HRC, but can effortlessly deal with the range of expressions issuing from Trump’s piehole. That ability, to give one person (who is amazingly a white man) and shit on another (who, bizarrely enough, is a woman) seems to be the textbook definition of sexism.
I’m from Mississippi and like Russell, have tons of people I know and love who issue all kinds of crap about politics and, like Russell, I keep off of topics that are just going to blow up. I’m not going to go into their house and read them the riot act. But, if there is engagement (and I’m talking about ‘George’ here, so that engagement may be attenuated), there needs to be some give and take. That 6th graders are not so good at that does not mean that we should stop demanding it.
I wrote this comment this morning, but then neglected to hit post, so it’s not responding to anything after Nigel’s query about Dems appealing to 6th graders.
====
I agree in principle that we need to build bridges rather than walls, we are stronger together, yada yada yada. However, as my comment about ‘George’ tries to suggest, there are voters who have the right to vote (that I do not suggest of depriving them of) who pretend to be in that convincible middle, but actually would rather be skinned alive than vote for someone who seemed to lean the least little bit to the left. It’s the concern troll writ large-they will how they just want to have an honest debate, but examine one side with a microscope while leaving large swathes of the other side terra incognito.
I’m not so sure that George isn’t a cousin to Thomas Friedman’s taxi driving informant or even a distant relation to Jayson Blair’s or Stephen Glass’ cast of characters (and it it definitely a sign of the times that I look at everyone’s words with the initial question ‘prove to me you are not just making shit up’), but assuming that he is real, here is a person who has to reach for the Old French etymology to dismiss HRC, but can effortlessly deal with the range of expressions issuing from Trump’s piehole. That ability, to give one person (who is amazingly a white man) and shit on another (who, bizarrely enough, is a woman) seems to be the textbook definition of sexism.
I’m from Mississippi and like Russell, have tons of people I know and love who issue all kinds of crap about politics and, like Russell, I keep off of topics that are just going to blow up. I’m not going to go into their house and read them the riot act. But, if there is engagement (and I’m talking about ‘George’ here, so that engagement may be attenuated), there needs to be some give and take. That 6th graders are not so good at that does not mean that we should stop demanding it.
I wrote this comment this morning, but then neglected to hit post, so it’s not responding to anything after Nigel’s query about Dems appealing to 6th graders.
====
I agree in principle that we need to build bridges rather than walls, we are stronger together, yada yada yada. However, as my comment about ‘George’ tries to suggest, there are voters who have the right to vote (that I do not suggest of depriving them of) who pretend to be in that convincible middle, but actually would rather be skinned alive than vote for someone who seemed to lean the least little bit to the left. It’s the concern troll writ large-they will how they just want to have an honest debate, but examine one side with a microscope while leaving large swathes of the other side terra incognito.
I’m not so sure that George isn’t a cousin to Thomas Friedman’s taxi driving informant or even a distant relation to Jayson Blair’s or Stephen Glass’ cast of characters (and it it definitely a sign of the times that I look at everyone’s words with the initial question ‘prove to me you are not just making shit up’), but assuming that he is real, here is a person who has to reach for the Old French etymology to dismiss HRC, but can effortlessly deal with the range of expressions issuing from Trump’s piehole. That ability, to give one person (who is amazingly a white man) and shit on another (who, bizarrely enough, is a woman) seems to be the textbook definition of sexism.
I’m from Mississippi and like Russell, have tons of people I know and love who issue all kinds of crap about politics and, like Russell, I keep off of topics that are just going to blow up. I’m not going to go into their house and read them the riot act. But, if there is engagement (and I’m talking about ‘George’ here, so that engagement may be attenuated), there needs to be some give and take. That 6th graders are not so good at that does not mean that we should stop demanding it.
“All the “white working class” and “fly-over country” and “basket of deplorables” analysis in the world is but a footnote to the simple statistical fact that in 2016 the American electorate failed to kick the habit”
This sounds right, to me.
I’m trying to figure out if there’s any difference between Trump supporters and Nixon’s moral majority. or the Reagan democrats. or W’s people.
if there is, I don’t really see it.
I agree that little has been done to address the structural issues that are affecting rural communities. we do provide a minimal safety net but people generally prefer to contribute rather than be dependent. all people.
I’m not only open to addressing those things, I’m eager to do so. because everyone living here deserves equal attention to, and concern for, their needs and issues.
I am not open to arguing about all of the ‘real america’ BS. a lot of different kinds of people live here, and always have, and we’re all real americans. that’s just the way it is, and the way it’s been, and the way it’s gonna be. not because I say so, it just is so.
and I’m not really open to attempts to minimize what an inappropriate person Trump is for the office of POTUS. the man is, and I fully expect will continue to be, a disruptive calamitous ass. he will do damage to us all. barring impeachment, which is far from out of the question, we are stuck with him.
make no mistake, the folks who voted him in are going to be required to own that.
in any case, here we go once again down the weary path of ‘national dialogue’ to ‘heal our divisions’. I think it might make more sense to just accept our ‘divisions’ as a given and carry on down the weary and well trodden path of negotiating the terms under which we’re gonna put up with each other.
if you wear your “fuck your feelings” or “trump that bitch” shirt to the table, conversation over. that shit is rude.
“All the “white working class” and “fly-over country” and “basket of deplorables” analysis in the world is but a footnote to the simple statistical fact that in 2016 the American electorate failed to kick the habit”
This sounds right, to me.
I’m trying to figure out if there’s any difference between Trump supporters and Nixon’s moral majority. or the Reagan democrats. or W’s people.
if there is, I don’t really see it.
I agree that little has been done to address the structural issues that are affecting rural communities. we do provide a minimal safety net but people generally prefer to contribute rather than be dependent. all people.
I’m not only open to addressing those things, I’m eager to do so. because everyone living here deserves equal attention to, and concern for, their needs and issues.
I am not open to arguing about all of the ‘real america’ BS. a lot of different kinds of people live here, and always have, and we’re all real americans. that’s just the way it is, and the way it’s been, and the way it’s gonna be. not because I say so, it just is so.
and I’m not really open to attempts to minimize what an inappropriate person Trump is for the office of POTUS. the man is, and I fully expect will continue to be, a disruptive calamitous ass. he will do damage to us all. barring impeachment, which is far from out of the question, we are stuck with him.
make no mistake, the folks who voted him in are going to be required to own that.
in any case, here we go once again down the weary path of ‘national dialogue’ to ‘heal our divisions’. I think it might make more sense to just accept our ‘divisions’ as a given and carry on down the weary and well trodden path of negotiating the terms under which we’re gonna put up with each other.
if you wear your “fuck your feelings” or “trump that bitch” shirt to the table, conversation over. that shit is rude.
“All the “white working class” and “fly-over country” and “basket of deplorables” analysis in the world is but a footnote to the simple statistical fact that in 2016 the American electorate failed to kick the habit”
This sounds right, to me.
I’m trying to figure out if there’s any difference between Trump supporters and Nixon’s moral majority. or the Reagan democrats. or W’s people.
if there is, I don’t really see it.
I agree that little has been done to address the structural issues that are affecting rural communities. we do provide a minimal safety net but people generally prefer to contribute rather than be dependent. all people.
I’m not only open to addressing those things, I’m eager to do so. because everyone living here deserves equal attention to, and concern for, their needs and issues.
I am not open to arguing about all of the ‘real america’ BS. a lot of different kinds of people live here, and always have, and we’re all real americans. that’s just the way it is, and the way it’s been, and the way it’s gonna be. not because I say so, it just is so.
and I’m not really open to attempts to minimize what an inappropriate person Trump is for the office of POTUS. the man is, and I fully expect will continue to be, a disruptive calamitous ass. he will do damage to us all. barring impeachment, which is far from out of the question, we are stuck with him.
make no mistake, the folks who voted him in are going to be required to own that.
in any case, here we go once again down the weary path of ‘national dialogue’ to ‘heal our divisions’. I think it might make more sense to just accept our ‘divisions’ as a given and carry on down the weary and well trodden path of negotiating the terms under which we’re gonna put up with each other.
if you wear your “fuck your feelings” or “trump that bitch” shirt to the table, conversation over. that shit is rude.
here is a person who has to reach for the Old French etymology to dismiss HRC, but can effortlessly deal with the range of expressions issuing from Trump’s piehole.
This. I’m not sure why people were so selectively offended by someone who called people a name, people who were saying about her “Lock Her Up.”
if you wear your “fuck your feelings” or “trump that bitch” shirt to the table, conversation over. that shit is rude.
Again, I’m shocked, just shocked that the target of this rudeness would utter a sentence during the campaign expressing displeasure with people who exhibited that behavior.
here is a person who has to reach for the Old French etymology to dismiss HRC, but can effortlessly deal with the range of expressions issuing from Trump’s piehole.
This. I’m not sure why people were so selectively offended by someone who called people a name, people who were saying about her “Lock Her Up.”
if you wear your “fuck your feelings” or “trump that bitch” shirt to the table, conversation over. that shit is rude.
Again, I’m shocked, just shocked that the target of this rudeness would utter a sentence during the campaign expressing displeasure with people who exhibited that behavior.
here is a person who has to reach for the Old French etymology to dismiss HRC, but can effortlessly deal with the range of expressions issuing from Trump’s piehole.
This. I’m not sure why people were so selectively offended by someone who called people a name, people who were saying about her “Lock Her Up.”
if you wear your “fuck your feelings” or “trump that bitch” shirt to the table, conversation over. that shit is rude.
Again, I’m shocked, just shocked that the target of this rudeness would utter a sentence during the campaign expressing displeasure with people who exhibited that behavior.
I’m sure that not “every Trump voter, to a person” is a bad person. It’s probably also true that not “every German, to a person” was a bad person. But they let things happen in a way that was not recoverable by persuasion or peaceful means. Sucks for them to be grouped with people who actually did the dirty work, but it was their fault too for enabling it. It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
That doesn’t even make sense.
I’m sure that not “every Trump voter, to a person” is a bad person. It’s probably also true that not “every German, to a person” was a bad person. But they let things happen in a way that was not recoverable by persuasion or peaceful means. Sucks for them to be grouped with people who actually did the dirty work, but it was their fault too for enabling it. It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
That doesn’t even make sense.
I’m sure that not “every Trump voter, to a person” is a bad person. It’s probably also true that not “every German, to a person” was a bad person. But they let things happen in a way that was not recoverable by persuasion or peaceful means. Sucks for them to be grouped with people who actually did the dirty work, but it was their fault too for enabling it. It’s time for people to look at themselves in the mirror and decide who they are.
That doesn’t even make sense.
That doesn’t even make sense.
Hitler was popular and empowered not only by people who openly supported him, but also by people who were passive. People who don’t stand up against horror don’t deserve the respect of people who do. That goes as well for Trump.
That doesn’t even make sense.
Hitler was popular and empowered not only by people who openly supported him, but also by people who were passive. People who don’t stand up against horror don’t deserve the respect of people who do. That goes as well for Trump.
That doesn’t even make sense.
Hitler was popular and empowered not only by people who openly supported him, but also by people who were passive. People who don’t stand up against horror don’t deserve the respect of people who do. That goes as well for Trump.
Sapient – can’t tell on my phone. Going to bed but will try to remember to check tomorrow.
No worries, Ugh. Seems not to be a problem now.
Sapient – can’t tell on my phone. Going to bed but will try to remember to check tomorrow.
No worries, Ugh. Seems not to be a problem now.
Sapient – can’t tell on my phone. Going to bed but will try to remember to check tomorrow.
No worries, Ugh. Seems not to be a problem now.
Hitler was popular and empowered not only by people who openly supported him, but also by people who were passive.
There were quite a number of active Nazis, people of position within that party, who frankly didn’t give a crap about Jews one way or the other.
They just saw a guy on the make and thought they’d jump on his coat-tails.
Hitler was popular and empowered not only by people who openly supported him, but also by people who were passive.
There were quite a number of active Nazis, people of position within that party, who frankly didn’t give a crap about Jews one way or the other.
They just saw a guy on the make and thought they’d jump on his coat-tails.
Hitler was popular and empowered not only by people who openly supported him, but also by people who were passive.
There were quite a number of active Nazis, people of position within that party, who frankly didn’t give a crap about Jews one way or the other.
They just saw a guy on the make and thought they’d jump on his coat-tails.
If only there had been an alternative to Nazism that appealed to enough people at the time to prevent Hitler’s rise to power.
If only there had been an alternative to Nazism that appealed to enough people at the time to prevent Hitler’s rise to power.
If only there had been an alternative to Nazism that appealed to enough people at the time to prevent Hitler’s rise to power.
“They just saw a guy on the make and thought they’d jump on his coat-tails.”
Not to mention the “economically stressed who were outraged that their Kultur was looked down upon, and just wanted to give the middle finger to everyone”
How, exactly, that is more excusable is left for the apologists.
“They just saw a guy on the make and thought they’d jump on his coat-tails.”
Not to mention the “economically stressed who were outraged that their Kultur was looked down upon, and just wanted to give the middle finger to everyone”
How, exactly, that is more excusable is left for the apologists.
“They just saw a guy on the make and thought they’d jump on his coat-tails.”
Not to mention the “economically stressed who were outraged that their Kultur was looked down upon, and just wanted to give the middle finger to everyone”
How, exactly, that is more excusable is left for the apologists.
Meanwhile, Trump responds to union leader Chuck Jones (not *that* Chuck Jones!), who was critical of the Carrier deal, with – can you guess? – a tweet storm.
Trump supporters follow up on that by threatening Jones and his kids.
Our national dialogue continues. Doesn’t seem like we’re at the kum-by-ya happy place yet.
Pro tip – if you want your fears and concerns to receive a sympathetic hearing, don’t threaten people or their kids.
Meanwhile, Trump responds to union leader Chuck Jones (not *that* Chuck Jones!), who was critical of the Carrier deal, with – can you guess? – a tweet storm.
Trump supporters follow up on that by threatening Jones and his kids.
Our national dialogue continues. Doesn’t seem like we’re at the kum-by-ya happy place yet.
Pro tip – if you want your fears and concerns to receive a sympathetic hearing, don’t threaten people or their kids.
Meanwhile, Trump responds to union leader Chuck Jones (not *that* Chuck Jones!), who was critical of the Carrier deal, with – can you guess? – a tweet storm.
Trump supporters follow up on that by threatening Jones and his kids.
Our national dialogue continues. Doesn’t seem like we’re at the kum-by-ya happy place yet.
Pro tip – if you want your fears and concerns to receive a sympathetic hearing, don’t threaten people or their kids.
” Trump responds to union leader Chuck Jones (not *that* Chuck Jones!), who was critical of the Carrier deal, with – can you guess? – a tweet storm.”
If it included “Yer Dithpicable!” (other Chuck Jones) it would have been better.
” Trump responds to union leader Chuck Jones (not *that* Chuck Jones!), who was critical of the Carrier deal, with – can you guess? – a tweet storm.”
If it included “Yer Dithpicable!” (other Chuck Jones) it would have been better.
” Trump responds to union leader Chuck Jones (not *that* Chuck Jones!), who was critical of the Carrier deal, with – can you guess? – a tweet storm.”
If it included “Yer Dithpicable!” (other Chuck Jones) it would have been better.
How, exactly, that is more excusable is left for the apologists.
Apologists for what? Looking for explanations isn’t being an apologist. That’s the line I usually see from conservatives who see sociological explanations for anti-social behavior at a statistical level as liberal excuse-making for individual bad-actors.
Who cares if conditions are such that more people will make bad choices than otherwise would if we changed things? Let’s enjoy punishing the wrong-doers!
What would you prefer – preventing the likes of Hitler or casting blame on those who supported the likes of Hitler?
It’s not about excusing; it’s about preventing.
How, exactly, that is more excusable is left for the apologists.
Apologists for what? Looking for explanations isn’t being an apologist. That’s the line I usually see from conservatives who see sociological explanations for anti-social behavior at a statistical level as liberal excuse-making for individual bad-actors.
Who cares if conditions are such that more people will make bad choices than otherwise would if we changed things? Let’s enjoy punishing the wrong-doers!
What would you prefer – preventing the likes of Hitler or casting blame on those who supported the likes of Hitler?
It’s not about excusing; it’s about preventing.
How, exactly, that is more excusable is left for the apologists.
Apologists for what? Looking for explanations isn’t being an apologist. That’s the line I usually see from conservatives who see sociological explanations for anti-social behavior at a statistical level as liberal excuse-making for individual bad-actors.
Who cares if conditions are such that more people will make bad choices than otherwise would if we changed things? Let’s enjoy punishing the wrong-doers!
What would you prefer – preventing the likes of Hitler or casting blame on those who supported the likes of Hitler?
It’s not about excusing; it’s about preventing.
Amen hsh, amen.
Amen hsh, amen.
Amen hsh, amen.
That’s the line I usually see from conservatives who see sociological explanations for anti-social behavior at a statistical level as liberal excuse-making for individual bad-actors.
Yes. This is the quandary Bill Bennett appears to be in now. White people are starting to display all of the social dysfunction that he’s scolded black people for, for all of these years.
So now he’s in the position of having to scold white people.
Who cares if conditions are such that more people will make bad choices than otherwise would if we changed things?
Me. I do.
It’s not about excusing; it’s about preventing.
I agree.
The dilemma I find myself in is that I don’t see an openness to discussing solutions that seem like they might actually make anything better. Or, frankly, even an analysis that is likely to lead to any such solutions.
There are guys like Bannon, who is a freaking self-described Leninist bomb-thrower, and who just wants to burn everything down so he can do… what, exactly? What is the upside he is offering?
Or guys like Ryan, who are ideologically married to Ayn Randian free-market ubermensch bullshit, and don’t appear to give a good god damn if their Very Big Ideas literally kill people.
Or guys like McConnell, who just want to cover their own asses, and don’t seem to have the spine to do anything that is going to risk their cherished place in the world.
Let’s talk about how to build an economy that will provide a reliable and satisfying life for everyone. I want that conversation.
To actually do it is going to take thoughtful analysis, and planning, and effort. Like, a generation of effort. It’s a big job.
Who wants to do it? I do. That’s who.
All I am seeing from Trump is pissy tweet storms, and a general assumption that he can do whatever the f**k he wants, and 200+ years of very hard-won protocol and tradition be damned.
I don’t think he has the chops to make anything constructive happen, and that worries me, because if he doesn’t, then all of his supporters are going to be profoundly disappointed and pissed off.
And they are going to be looking for somebody to blame. And when they do that, they are not going to be looking at Trump, and they for sure are not going to be looking in the mirror.
They’re going to be looking for somebody else.
It could really go south. No joke.
So I’d love to have the conversation. Who’s talking? Anybody?
Tweets are not a conversation.
That’s the line I usually see from conservatives who see sociological explanations for anti-social behavior at a statistical level as liberal excuse-making for individual bad-actors.
Yes. This is the quandary Bill Bennett appears to be in now. White people are starting to display all of the social dysfunction that he’s scolded black people for, for all of these years.
So now he’s in the position of having to scold white people.
Who cares if conditions are such that more people will make bad choices than otherwise would if we changed things?
Me. I do.
It’s not about excusing; it’s about preventing.
I agree.
The dilemma I find myself in is that I don’t see an openness to discussing solutions that seem like they might actually make anything better. Or, frankly, even an analysis that is likely to lead to any such solutions.
There are guys like Bannon, who is a freaking self-described Leninist bomb-thrower, and who just wants to burn everything down so he can do… what, exactly? What is the upside he is offering?
Or guys like Ryan, who are ideologically married to Ayn Randian free-market ubermensch bullshit, and don’t appear to give a good god damn if their Very Big Ideas literally kill people.
Or guys like McConnell, who just want to cover their own asses, and don’t seem to have the spine to do anything that is going to risk their cherished place in the world.
Let’s talk about how to build an economy that will provide a reliable and satisfying life for everyone. I want that conversation.
To actually do it is going to take thoughtful analysis, and planning, and effort. Like, a generation of effort. It’s a big job.
Who wants to do it? I do. That’s who.
All I am seeing from Trump is pissy tweet storms, and a general assumption that he can do whatever the f**k he wants, and 200+ years of very hard-won protocol and tradition be damned.
I don’t think he has the chops to make anything constructive happen, and that worries me, because if he doesn’t, then all of his supporters are going to be profoundly disappointed and pissed off.
And they are going to be looking for somebody to blame. And when they do that, they are not going to be looking at Trump, and they for sure are not going to be looking in the mirror.
They’re going to be looking for somebody else.
It could really go south. No joke.
So I’d love to have the conversation. Who’s talking? Anybody?
Tweets are not a conversation.
That’s the line I usually see from conservatives who see sociological explanations for anti-social behavior at a statistical level as liberal excuse-making for individual bad-actors.
Yes. This is the quandary Bill Bennett appears to be in now. White people are starting to display all of the social dysfunction that he’s scolded black people for, for all of these years.
So now he’s in the position of having to scold white people.
Who cares if conditions are such that more people will make bad choices than otherwise would if we changed things?
Me. I do.
It’s not about excusing; it’s about preventing.
I agree.
The dilemma I find myself in is that I don’t see an openness to discussing solutions that seem like they might actually make anything better. Or, frankly, even an analysis that is likely to lead to any such solutions.
There are guys like Bannon, who is a freaking self-described Leninist bomb-thrower, and who just wants to burn everything down so he can do… what, exactly? What is the upside he is offering?
Or guys like Ryan, who are ideologically married to Ayn Randian free-market ubermensch bullshit, and don’t appear to give a good god damn if their Very Big Ideas literally kill people.
Or guys like McConnell, who just want to cover their own asses, and don’t seem to have the spine to do anything that is going to risk their cherished place in the world.
Let’s talk about how to build an economy that will provide a reliable and satisfying life for everyone. I want that conversation.
To actually do it is going to take thoughtful analysis, and planning, and effort. Like, a generation of effort. It’s a big job.
Who wants to do it? I do. That’s who.
All I am seeing from Trump is pissy tweet storms, and a general assumption that he can do whatever the f**k he wants, and 200+ years of very hard-won protocol and tradition be damned.
I don’t think he has the chops to make anything constructive happen, and that worries me, because if he doesn’t, then all of his supporters are going to be profoundly disappointed and pissed off.
And they are going to be looking for somebody to blame. And when they do that, they are not going to be looking at Trump, and they for sure are not going to be looking in the mirror.
They’re going to be looking for somebody else.
It could really go south. No joke.
So I’d love to have the conversation. Who’s talking? Anybody?
Tweets are not a conversation.
I’m thinking more about how to get at least some of them voted out. I’m thinking of how to peel off enough of the people who voted them in or stayed home or voted 3rd party to go D next time.
Maybe the Rs in office will do that all by themselves by overreaching and screwing enough people over that they get tossed in 2 or 4 years. My fear is that the damage they’ll do won’t be apparent soon enough for that to happen.
Either way, there has to be a Democratic plan for electoral success.
I’m thinking more about how to get at least some of them voted out. I’m thinking of how to peel off enough of the people who voted them in or stayed home or voted 3rd party to go D next time.
Maybe the Rs in office will do that all by themselves by overreaching and screwing enough people over that they get tossed in 2 or 4 years. My fear is that the damage they’ll do won’t be apparent soon enough for that to happen.
Either way, there has to be a Democratic plan for electoral success.
I’m thinking more about how to get at least some of them voted out. I’m thinking of how to peel off enough of the people who voted them in or stayed home or voted 3rd party to go D next time.
Maybe the Rs in office will do that all by themselves by overreaching and screwing enough people over that they get tossed in 2 or 4 years. My fear is that the damage they’ll do won’t be apparent soon enough for that to happen.
Either way, there has to be a Democratic plan for electoral success.
Meanwhile, just going back to fake news for a moment, a tiny smidgen of possible improvement:
Sheryl Sandberg on Facebook/fake news:
Meanwhile, just going back to fake news for a moment, a tiny smidgen of possible improvement:
Sheryl Sandberg on Facebook/fake news:
Meanwhile, just going back to fake news for a moment, a tiny smidgen of possible improvement:
Sheryl Sandberg on Facebook/fake news:
sapient: Comments are being eaten?
One of yours had fallen into the spam bucket. It should be back on stream now.
sapient: Comments are being eaten?
One of yours had fallen into the spam bucket. It should be back on stream now.
sapient: Comments are being eaten?
One of yours had fallen into the spam bucket. It should be back on stream now.
My fear is that the damage they’ll do won’t be apparent soon enough for that to happen.
They will do their best to make sure it’s not.
See also: repeal Obamacare, but defer the effective date until after the mid-terms.
Either way, there has to be a Democratic plan for electoral success.
I agree, and I agree that just yelling at Trump supporters is not that plan.
but we take that responsibility really seriously
Good. They should.
My fear is that the damage they’ll do won’t be apparent soon enough for that to happen.
They will do their best to make sure it’s not.
See also: repeal Obamacare, but defer the effective date until after the mid-terms.
Either way, there has to be a Democratic plan for electoral success.
I agree, and I agree that just yelling at Trump supporters is not that plan.
but we take that responsibility really seriously
Good. They should.
My fear is that the damage they’ll do won’t be apparent soon enough for that to happen.
They will do their best to make sure it’s not.
See also: repeal Obamacare, but defer the effective date until after the mid-terms.
Either way, there has to be a Democratic plan for electoral success.
I agree, and I agree that just yelling at Trump supporters is not that plan.
but we take that responsibility really seriously
Good. They should.
The conversation about jobs sounds like this.
h/t Balloon Juice.
The conversation about jobs sounds like this.
h/t Balloon Juice.
The conversation about jobs sounds like this.
h/t Balloon Juice.
There are guys like Bannon, who is a freaking self-described Leninist bomb-thrower, and who just wants to burn everything down so he can do… what, exactly? What is the upside he is offering?
When I was in college in the late 1960s (in Berkeley!), there were times when we had riots in the area. Mostly starting out as demonstrations, but full blown riots nonetheless.
One evening, I saw a kid in my dorm heading out to one. He was pretty much totally a-political, so I asked him why he was going. His answer: “Because it’s exciting!” He didn’t care in the least about whatever cause had theoretically sparked the riot. He was just going for the excitement. (In other days, he would have gone to a football rally or something.)
That’s what Bannon puts me in mind of. I don’t think he cares at all about what comes next. I’m not even sure he cares that much about the various alt-right causes. I think he’s just in it for the sheer joyous hell of it.
Which, to my mind, actually makes him more disgusting than the noxious people who actually believe in those causes he publicizes.
There are guys like Bannon, who is a freaking self-described Leninist bomb-thrower, and who just wants to burn everything down so he can do… what, exactly? What is the upside he is offering?
When I was in college in the late 1960s (in Berkeley!), there were times when we had riots in the area. Mostly starting out as demonstrations, but full blown riots nonetheless.
One evening, I saw a kid in my dorm heading out to one. He was pretty much totally a-political, so I asked him why he was going. His answer: “Because it’s exciting!” He didn’t care in the least about whatever cause had theoretically sparked the riot. He was just going for the excitement. (In other days, he would have gone to a football rally or something.)
That’s what Bannon puts me in mind of. I don’t think he cares at all about what comes next. I’m not even sure he cares that much about the various alt-right causes. I think he’s just in it for the sheer joyous hell of it.
Which, to my mind, actually makes him more disgusting than the noxious people who actually believe in those causes he publicizes.
There are guys like Bannon, who is a freaking self-described Leninist bomb-thrower, and who just wants to burn everything down so he can do… what, exactly? What is the upside he is offering?
When I was in college in the late 1960s (in Berkeley!), there were times when we had riots in the area. Mostly starting out as demonstrations, but full blown riots nonetheless.
One evening, I saw a kid in my dorm heading out to one. He was pretty much totally a-political, so I asked him why he was going. His answer: “Because it’s exciting!” He didn’t care in the least about whatever cause had theoretically sparked the riot. He was just going for the excitement. (In other days, he would have gone to a football rally or something.)
That’s what Bannon puts me in mind of. I don’t think he cares at all about what comes next. I’m not even sure he cares that much about the various alt-right causes. I think he’s just in it for the sheer joyous hell of it.
Which, to my mind, actually makes him more disgusting than the noxious people who actually believe in those causes he publicizes.
@lj
there are voters who have the right to vote (that I do not suggest of depriving them of) who pretend to be in that convincible middle, but actually would rather be skinned alive than vote for someone who seemed to lean the least little bit to the left.
…there’s a fair number of these people who have “-D” after their names.
@sapient
Again, I’m shocked, just shocked that the target of this rudeness would utter a sentence during the campaign expressing displeasure with people who exhibited that behavior.
…because this was totally an isolated incident of one-off behavior coming from and meant to be understood by her and her alone. Right.
@russell
in any case, here we go once again down the weary path of ‘national dialogue’ to ‘heal our divisions’. I think it might make more sense to just accept our ‘divisions’ as a given and carry on down the weary and well trodden path of negotiating the terms under which we’re gonna put up with each other.
If that works, that’s good. That’s not likely to work when both parties respond to (external or internal) criticism by circling the wagons tighter and putting on their commissar caps. Large swathes of Dems and Reps both have it in their heads that it’s a successful and moreso reasonable strategy to avoid negotiation or any sort of dialogue in favor of demonizing everyone who’s outside their camps to raise morale and discourage defection, while policing internal dissent with murderous fervor, and if they can just do this more zealously than the other party (possibly while sabotaging that group’s efforts to enforce orthodoxy), then they’ll be able to run roughshod over everyone who disagrees with them without having to acknowledge their existence, let alone concerns or even humanity.
We certainly saw plenty of that mindset and those behaviors from Democrats this cycle, to include a tiresome amount of it here.
@lj
there are voters who have the right to vote (that I do not suggest of depriving them of) who pretend to be in that convincible middle, but actually would rather be skinned alive than vote for someone who seemed to lean the least little bit to the left.
…there’s a fair number of these people who have “-D” after their names.
@sapient
Again, I’m shocked, just shocked that the target of this rudeness would utter a sentence during the campaign expressing displeasure with people who exhibited that behavior.
…because this was totally an isolated incident of one-off behavior coming from and meant to be understood by her and her alone. Right.
@russell
in any case, here we go once again down the weary path of ‘national dialogue’ to ‘heal our divisions’. I think it might make more sense to just accept our ‘divisions’ as a given and carry on down the weary and well trodden path of negotiating the terms under which we’re gonna put up with each other.
If that works, that’s good. That’s not likely to work when both parties respond to (external or internal) criticism by circling the wagons tighter and putting on their commissar caps. Large swathes of Dems and Reps both have it in their heads that it’s a successful and moreso reasonable strategy to avoid negotiation or any sort of dialogue in favor of demonizing everyone who’s outside their camps to raise morale and discourage defection, while policing internal dissent with murderous fervor, and if they can just do this more zealously than the other party (possibly while sabotaging that group’s efforts to enforce orthodoxy), then they’ll be able to run roughshod over everyone who disagrees with them without having to acknowledge their existence, let alone concerns or even humanity.
We certainly saw plenty of that mindset and those behaviors from Democrats this cycle, to include a tiresome amount of it here.
@lj
there are voters who have the right to vote (that I do not suggest of depriving them of) who pretend to be in that convincible middle, but actually would rather be skinned alive than vote for someone who seemed to lean the least little bit to the left.
…there’s a fair number of these people who have “-D” after their names.
@sapient
Again, I’m shocked, just shocked that the target of this rudeness would utter a sentence during the campaign expressing displeasure with people who exhibited that behavior.
…because this was totally an isolated incident of one-off behavior coming from and meant to be understood by her and her alone. Right.
@russell
in any case, here we go once again down the weary path of ‘national dialogue’ to ‘heal our divisions’. I think it might make more sense to just accept our ‘divisions’ as a given and carry on down the weary and well trodden path of negotiating the terms under which we’re gonna put up with each other.
If that works, that’s good. That’s not likely to work when both parties respond to (external or internal) criticism by circling the wagons tighter and putting on their commissar caps. Large swathes of Dems and Reps both have it in their heads that it’s a successful and moreso reasonable strategy to avoid negotiation or any sort of dialogue in favor of demonizing everyone who’s outside their camps to raise morale and discourage defection, while policing internal dissent with murderous fervor, and if they can just do this more zealously than the other party (possibly while sabotaging that group’s efforts to enforce orthodoxy), then they’ll be able to run roughshod over everyone who disagrees with them without having to acknowledge their existence, let alone concerns or even humanity.
We certainly saw plenty of that mindset and those behaviors from Democrats this cycle, to include a tiresome amount of it here.
I’m not even sure he cares that much about the various alt-right causes. I think he’s just in it for the sheer joyous hell of it.
This actually seems to describe a moderate chunk of alt-right adherents and sycophants that I see on social media sites. They want to feel like their actions have consequences, they don’t want anyone to tell them what they can’t do, they want to piss off and tell off people who disagree with them, and they want to be on the “winning” team w/o a lot of regard for what exactly is won. Ofc, the longer they spend in the echo-chamber of those communities, the more it’s likely they’ll soak up and internalize the actual ideology, so for most this is a transitional stage before they burst forth from their cocoon in full fascist splendor…
I’m not even sure he cares that much about the various alt-right causes. I think he’s just in it for the sheer joyous hell of it.
This actually seems to describe a moderate chunk of alt-right adherents and sycophants that I see on social media sites. They want to feel like their actions have consequences, they don’t want anyone to tell them what they can’t do, they want to piss off and tell off people who disagree with them, and they want to be on the “winning” team w/o a lot of regard for what exactly is won. Ofc, the longer they spend in the echo-chamber of those communities, the more it’s likely they’ll soak up and internalize the actual ideology, so for most this is a transitional stage before they burst forth from their cocoon in full fascist splendor…
I’m not even sure he cares that much about the various alt-right causes. I think he’s just in it for the sheer joyous hell of it.
This actually seems to describe a moderate chunk of alt-right adherents and sycophants that I see on social media sites. They want to feel like their actions have consequences, they don’t want anyone to tell them what they can’t do, they want to piss off and tell off people who disagree with them, and they want to be on the “winning” team w/o a lot of regard for what exactly is won. Ofc, the longer they spend in the echo-chamber of those communities, the more it’s likely they’ll soak up and internalize the actual ideology, so for most this is a transitional stage before they burst forth from their cocoon in full fascist splendor…
The conversation about jobs sounds like this.
Thank you, russell.
The conversation about jobs sounds like this.
Thank you, russell.
The conversation about jobs sounds like this.
Thank you, russell.
It should be back on stream now.
Thanks, wj.
It should be back on stream now.
Thanks, wj.
It should be back on stream now.
Thanks, wj.
Thank you, russell.
Seconded.
Thank you, russell.
Seconded.
Thank you, russell.
Seconded.
the thanks go to driftglass, who actually did the homework.
the thanks go to driftglass, who actually did the homework.
the thanks go to driftglass, who actually did the homework.
But you made sure the dog didn’t eat it.
But you made sure the dog didn’t eat it.
But you made sure the dog didn’t eat it.
Changing the subject a bit, is Trump trying to break some kind of record for regulatory capture? I remember that we used to discuss that kind of a lot in years past. Maybe it will become a hot topic again, now that it appears to be on steroids.
Changing the subject a bit, is Trump trying to break some kind of record for regulatory capture? I remember that we used to discuss that kind of a lot in years past. Maybe it will become a hot topic again, now that it appears to be on steroids.
Changing the subject a bit, is Trump trying to break some kind of record for regulatory capture? I remember that we used to discuss that kind of a lot in years past. Maybe it will become a hot topic again, now that it appears to be on steroids.
is Trump trying to break some kind of record for regulatory capture?
It’s like it’s morning in America again!
I’m guessing that’s a feature, not a bug.
is Trump trying to break some kind of record for regulatory capture?
It’s like it’s morning in America again!
I’m guessing that’s a feature, not a bug.
is Trump trying to break some kind of record for regulatory capture?
It’s like it’s morning in America again!
I’m guessing that’s a feature, not a bug.
The (R) response in the conversation about jobs and working folks sounds like this.
h/t Cholly Pierce.
How many times does the American worker have to get the jolly roger from (R)s before they get the message?
It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
The (R) response in the conversation about jobs and working folks sounds like this.
h/t Cholly Pierce.
How many times does the American worker have to get the jolly roger from (R)s before they get the message?
It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
The (R) response in the conversation about jobs and working folks sounds like this.
h/t Cholly Pierce.
How many times does the American worker have to get the jolly roger from (R)s before they get the message?
It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
The coming Trump BAGA might finally do it, russell.
–TP
The coming Trump BAGA might finally do it, russell.
–TP
The coming Trump BAGA might finally do it, russell.
–TP
“It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.”
Yes because its fiction. It gives no quotes as to why it was taken out of this particular bill, whether the leadership supports it in general or any thing except it isn’t a rider on this bill. In one case it isn’t in this bill and, oh yeah, its already in place for the next year but we needed it passed now.
“It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.”
Yes because its fiction. It gives no quotes as to why it was taken out of this particular bill, whether the leadership supports it in general or any thing except it isn’t a rider on this bill. In one case it isn’t in this bill and, oh yeah, its already in place for the next year but we needed it passed now.
“It’s like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.”
Yes because its fiction. It gives no quotes as to why it was taken out of this particular bill, whether the leadership supports it in general or any thing except it isn’t a rider on this bill. In one case it isn’t in this bill and, oh yeah, its already in place for the next year but we needed it passed now.
Yes because its fiction.
background on the Miners Protection Act.
Manchin put up a good fight.
Manchin’s letter to the Senate leadership, from November of this year.
More.
Yes because its fiction.
background on the Miners Protection Act.
Manchin put up a good fight.
Manchin’s letter to the Senate leadership, from November of this year.
More.
Yes because its fiction.
background on the Miners Protection Act.
Manchin put up a good fight.
Manchin’s letter to the Senate leadership, from November of this year.
More.
More on the WRDA “Buy American” requirement.
And a little more.
The requirement to buy American steel was in the bill, Ryan took it out of the House version.
You tell me why.
More on the WRDA “Buy American” requirement.
And a little more.
The requirement to buy American steel was in the bill, Ryan took it out of the House version.
You tell me why.
More on the WRDA “Buy American” requirement.
And a little more.
The requirement to buy American steel was in the bill, Ryan took it out of the House version.
You tell me why.
Yes because its fiction.
That’s what you want in good fiction, verisimilitude!
Yes because its fiction.
That’s what you want in good fiction, verisimilitude!
Yes because its fiction.
That’s what you want in good fiction, verisimilitude!
Not all the fascist tendencies in America come from Trump–
http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and
Not all the fascist tendencies in America come from Trump–
http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and
Not all the fascist tendencies in America come from Trump–
http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and
More on the same story, without the speculation about Ukrainians–
http://www.cjr.org/criticism/washington_post_fake_news_russian_propaganda.php
More on the same story, without the speculation about Ukrainians–
http://www.cjr.org/criticism/washington_post_fake_news_russian_propaganda.php
More on the same story, without the speculation about Ukrainians–
http://www.cjr.org/criticism/washington_post_fake_news_russian_propaganda.php
On the main topic of discussion, it should be possible to win some of the Trump supporters back. Not the ones motivated by Republican tribalism or worse motives, but Trump is likely to be a disaster for most people and they will know it. If we make it solely about culture wars and who is a good person based on who they vote for, then he has a chance at winning a second term.
I read a couple of rightwing blogs and comment sections and associated links these days and there is some triumphalist blindness there. Dreher, for instance, just can’t stop writing about the arrogance and self righteousness of Democrats. I agreed with this to some degree– it was worth writing about for a few columns– but it is as if the ugly bigotry and torture advocacy in the Trump campaign never occurred or is secondary compared to the sheer horror of liberals on college campuses saying silly things.
Dreher also cites Jonathan Haidt claiming that according to his research, conservatives understand liberals more than the other way around. In my personal experience offline and on, this seems unlikely. But who am I to argue with (social) science? IMO people on all parts of the spectrum tend to demonize others.
On the main topic of discussion, it should be possible to win some of the Trump supporters back. Not the ones motivated by Republican tribalism or worse motives, but Trump is likely to be a disaster for most people and they will know it. If we make it solely about culture wars and who is a good person based on who they vote for, then he has a chance at winning a second term.
I read a couple of rightwing blogs and comment sections and associated links these days and there is some triumphalist blindness there. Dreher, for instance, just can’t stop writing about the arrogance and self righteousness of Democrats. I agreed with this to some degree– it was worth writing about for a few columns– but it is as if the ugly bigotry and torture advocacy in the Trump campaign never occurred or is secondary compared to the sheer horror of liberals on college campuses saying silly things.
Dreher also cites Jonathan Haidt claiming that according to his research, conservatives understand liberals more than the other way around. In my personal experience offline and on, this seems unlikely. But who am I to argue with (social) science? IMO people on all parts of the spectrum tend to demonize others.
On the main topic of discussion, it should be possible to win some of the Trump supporters back. Not the ones motivated by Republican tribalism or worse motives, but Trump is likely to be a disaster for most people and they will know it. If we make it solely about culture wars and who is a good person based on who they vote for, then he has a chance at winning a second term.
I read a couple of rightwing blogs and comment sections and associated links these days and there is some triumphalist blindness there. Dreher, for instance, just can’t stop writing about the arrogance and self righteousness of Democrats. I agreed with this to some degree– it was worth writing about for a few columns– but it is as if the ugly bigotry and torture advocacy in the Trump campaign never occurred or is secondary compared to the sheer horror of liberals on college campuses saying silly things.
Dreher also cites Jonathan Haidt claiming that according to his research, conservatives understand liberals more than the other way around. In my personal experience offline and on, this seems unlikely. But who am I to argue with (social) science? IMO people on all parts of the spectrum tend to demonize others.
two things.
first: smugness, triumphalism, political correctness, etc are not the elusive province of (D)’s, or liberals generally. they are common human attitudes and behaviors. they are the way we all tell ourselves we are better than “those people”. they are as plainly and abundantly in evidence among trump supporters, or simply among conservatives, as among any other group.
there is a difference between self-awareness on one hand, and shame-faced wearing of whatever badge someone else wants to pin on you. one is healthy and worthwhile, the other is not.
second: both the NYT and the Post have really good writers, and some very good investigative journalusts, but IMO both are deeply compromised by their reliance on “being in the club” as a way of gaining access to people and information.
two things.
first: smugness, triumphalism, political correctness, etc are not the elusive province of (D)’s, or liberals generally. they are common human attitudes and behaviors. they are the way we all tell ourselves we are better than “those people”. they are as plainly and abundantly in evidence among trump supporters, or simply among conservatives, as among any other group.
there is a difference between self-awareness on one hand, and shame-faced wearing of whatever badge someone else wants to pin on you. one is healthy and worthwhile, the other is not.
second: both the NYT and the Post have really good writers, and some very good investigative journalusts, but IMO both are deeply compromised by their reliance on “being in the club” as a way of gaining access to people and information.
two things.
first: smugness, triumphalism, political correctness, etc are not the elusive province of (D)’s, or liberals generally. they are common human attitudes and behaviors. they are the way we all tell ourselves we are better than “those people”. they are as plainly and abundantly in evidence among trump supporters, or simply among conservatives, as among any other group.
there is a difference between self-awareness on one hand, and shame-faced wearing of whatever badge someone else wants to pin on you. one is healthy and worthwhile, the other is not.
second: both the NYT and the Post have really good writers, and some very good investigative journalusts, but IMO both are deeply compromised by their reliance on “being in the club” as a way of gaining access to people and information.
Donald, before you post articles deriding people such as Andrea Chalupa, you might want to read a bit more about the Ukraine, and Paul Manafort’s friend Yanukovich. Here’s a good place to start.
Donald, before you post articles deriding people such as Andrea Chalupa, you might want to read a bit more about the Ukraine, and Paul Manafort’s friend Yanukovich. Here’s a good place to start.
Donald, before you post articles deriding people such as Andrea Chalupa, you might want to read a bit more about the Ukraine, and Paul Manafort’s friend Yanukovich. Here’s a good place to start.
Donald, before you post articles deriding people such as Andrea Chalupa…
I hear she has some sinister associations with Taco Bell.
(Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.)
Donald, before you post articles deriding people such as Andrea Chalupa…
I hear she has some sinister associations with Taco Bell.
(Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.)
Donald, before you post articles deriding people such as Andrea Chalupa…
I hear she has some sinister associations with Taco Bell.
(Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.)
This sentence from sapient’s link jumped out at me:
In other words, the Ukrainian government is telling itself that its opponents are Jews and us that its opponents are Nazis.
It’s a crazy world. Someone ought to sell tickets.
This sentence from sapient’s link jumped out at me:
In other words, the Ukrainian government is telling itself that its opponents are Jews and us that its opponents are Nazis.
It’s a crazy world. Someone ought to sell tickets.
This sentence from sapient’s link jumped out at me:
In other words, the Ukrainian government is telling itself that its opponents are Jews and us that its opponents are Nazis.
It’s a crazy world. Someone ought to sell tickets.
…so we are to take a single 2.5yo backgrounder as proof that there is nothing to fault on the Ukrainian side? Well, that, and of course the sure and certain knowledge that Clinton is too good to work with someone bad. Obviously.
As novel of a concept as this might seem, there can be – and indeed, often are – bad actors at work on both sides of a conflict, so showing that the Ukrainians opposed someone bad and had idealists in their ranks shows nothing at all about the character of Ukrainian nationalism at large, let alone as a whole.
…so we are to take a single 2.5yo backgrounder as proof that there is nothing to fault on the Ukrainian side? Well, that, and of course the sure and certain knowledge that Clinton is too good to work with someone bad. Obviously.
As novel of a concept as this might seem, there can be – and indeed, often are – bad actors at work on both sides of a conflict, so showing that the Ukrainians opposed someone bad and had idealists in their ranks shows nothing at all about the character of Ukrainian nationalism at large, let alone as a whole.
…so we are to take a single 2.5yo backgrounder as proof that there is nothing to fault on the Ukrainian side? Well, that, and of course the sure and certain knowledge that Clinton is too good to work with someone bad. Obviously.
As novel of a concept as this might seem, there can be – and indeed, often are – bad actors at work on both sides of a conflict, so showing that the Ukrainians opposed someone bad and had idealists in their ranks shows nothing at all about the character of Ukrainian nationalism at large, let alone as a whole.
Why is President Trump Inc. given the option of being opaque with his businesses? To be constitutional Trump must be transparent and the Republicans Congress should endorse Trump’s exploitation of public office for private gain and officially authorize his emoluments as the Constitution allows.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/maybe-the-answer-is-that-he-can-t-divest
Why is President Trump Inc. given the option of being opaque with his businesses? To be constitutional Trump must be transparent and the Republicans Congress should endorse Trump’s exploitation of public office for private gain and officially authorize his emoluments as the Constitution allows.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/maybe-the-answer-is-that-he-can-t-divest
Why is President Trump Inc. given the option of being opaque with his businesses? To be constitutional Trump must be transparent and the Republicans Congress should endorse Trump’s exploitation of public office for private gain and officially authorize his emoluments as the Constitution allows.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/maybe-the-answer-is-that-he-can-t-divest
I didn’t see how the Snyder piece refuted the Ames piece. On the Ukraine, I gather we are supposed to see it in the standard way Americans approach foreign policy– we identify one side as Pure Good and the other as Pure Evil and go from there. I haven’t actually followed the Ukraine closely, except to see the usual lines drawn with some lefties opposed. No doubt some lefties go too far the other way. It usually works like that.
I didn’t see how the Snyder piece refuted the Ames piece. On the Ukraine, I gather we are supposed to see it in the standard way Americans approach foreign policy– we identify one side as Pure Good and the other as Pure Evil and go from there. I haven’t actually followed the Ukraine closely, except to see the usual lines drawn with some lefties opposed. No doubt some lefties go too far the other way. It usually works like that.
I didn’t see how the Snyder piece refuted the Ames piece. On the Ukraine, I gather we are supposed to see it in the standard way Americans approach foreign policy– we identify one side as Pure Good and the other as Pure Evil and go from there. I haven’t actually followed the Ukraine closely, except to see the usual lines drawn with some lefties opposed. No doubt some lefties go too far the other way. It usually works like that.
I haven’t actually followed the Ukraine closely
No such thing as pure good and pure evil, but maybe you should follow what’s happened there more closely, because it kind of looks like what’s happening here now, including many of the same cast of characters. This is why I suggested that you read Sarah Kendzior (but you googled her, and decided that you’d already read stuff that was similar), because there are also shades of Uzbekistan. And European countries are being affected.
The little posse of Putin puppets is ugly, and we fell right into their trap. No matter who’s good or evil in our politics, Donald Trump’s regime is looking like its opening up the worst of our Pandora’s box. You might want to stop searching for whatever false equivocations you can dig up on the Internet, and take an actual firm stand against what’s really quite obvious.
I haven’t actually followed the Ukraine closely
No such thing as pure good and pure evil, but maybe you should follow what’s happened there more closely, because it kind of looks like what’s happening here now, including many of the same cast of characters. This is why I suggested that you read Sarah Kendzior (but you googled her, and decided that you’d already read stuff that was similar), because there are also shades of Uzbekistan. And European countries are being affected.
The little posse of Putin puppets is ugly, and we fell right into their trap. No matter who’s good or evil in our politics, Donald Trump’s regime is looking like its opening up the worst of our Pandora’s box. You might want to stop searching for whatever false equivocations you can dig up on the Internet, and take an actual firm stand against what’s really quite obvious.
I haven’t actually followed the Ukraine closely
No such thing as pure good and pure evil, but maybe you should follow what’s happened there more closely, because it kind of looks like what’s happening here now, including many of the same cast of characters. This is why I suggested that you read Sarah Kendzior (but you googled her, and decided that you’d already read stuff that was similar), because there are also shades of Uzbekistan. And European countries are being affected.
The little posse of Putin puppets is ugly, and we fell right into their trap. No matter who’s good or evil in our politics, Donald Trump’s regime is looking like its opening up the worst of our Pandora’s box. You might want to stop searching for whatever false equivocations you can dig up on the Internet, and take an actual firm stand against what’s really quite obvious.
So Donald shouldn’t post stuff about the Washington Post getting something badly wrong and that threatens legitimate news outlets? Would that mean he wasn’t properly directing world affairs with his blog comments?
So Donald shouldn’t post stuff about the Washington Post getting something badly wrong and that threatens legitimate news outlets? Would that mean he wasn’t properly directing world affairs with his blog comments?
So Donald shouldn’t post stuff about the Washington Post getting something badly wrong and that threatens legitimate news outlets? Would that mean he wasn’t properly directing world affairs with his blog comments?
Well, he’s definitely abusing his awesome power when he derides the likes of Andrea Chalupa. That much is obvious.
Well, he’s definitely abusing his awesome power when he derides the likes of Andrea Chalupa. That much is obvious.
Well, he’s definitely abusing his awesome power when he derides the likes of Andrea Chalupa. That much is obvious.
Why is President Trump Inc. given the option of being opaque with his businesses?
I think a more accurate description would be that Trump has asserted the privilege of being opaque, and no-one has required him to be otherwise.
So, “given”, perhaps, but “taken” might be closer to the truth.
He should divest himself of his business interests, not by handing them over to his kids to run, but by liquidating them and placing them in a blind trust. As every other POTUS has done, at least in any of our lifetimes.
As a practical matter, and perhaps (as noted in the TPM piece) as a financial matter, it will likely be impossible to do that.
So we will all have to deal with a POTUS who has business interests that present obvious and tangible conflicts of interest, both in domestic and foreign policy.
It’s going to be a freaking mess.
Why is President Trump Inc. given the option of being opaque with his businesses?
I think a more accurate description would be that Trump has asserted the privilege of being opaque, and no-one has required him to be otherwise.
So, “given”, perhaps, but “taken” might be closer to the truth.
He should divest himself of his business interests, not by handing them over to his kids to run, but by liquidating them and placing them in a blind trust. As every other POTUS has done, at least in any of our lifetimes.
As a practical matter, and perhaps (as noted in the TPM piece) as a financial matter, it will likely be impossible to do that.
So we will all have to deal with a POTUS who has business interests that present obvious and tangible conflicts of interest, both in domestic and foreign policy.
It’s going to be a freaking mess.
Why is President Trump Inc. given the option of being opaque with his businesses?
I think a more accurate description would be that Trump has asserted the privilege of being opaque, and no-one has required him to be otherwise.
So, “given”, perhaps, but “taken” might be closer to the truth.
He should divest himself of his business interests, not by handing them over to his kids to run, but by liquidating them and placing them in a blind trust. As every other POTUS has done, at least in any of our lifetimes.
As a practical matter, and perhaps (as noted in the TPM piece) as a financial matter, it will likely be impossible to do that.
So we will all have to deal with a POTUS who has business interests that present obvious and tangible conflicts of interest, both in domestic and foreign policy.
It’s going to be a freaking mess.
I read Kendzior. There are a lot of people writing damning articles about the embryonic Trump Administration, including those dreaded folks at the Intercept. Kendzior is in the camp that seems to think we are about to become a dictatorship. I think it is more likely we are going to have an extremely bad far right Republican Administration with a man child at its head. We might stumble into a war, as Russell said, rather than go into one deliberately, or Trump might be manipulated into going into one. The fact is that if he is a Putin mole he is a confused one. He is surrounding himself with people who hate Iran, yet Iran is the ally of Assad and Putin to some degree. There are a lot of really worrisome things about Trump that one can learn without reading Kendzior, but I read a little bit of her stuff too.
As for equivocations, one problem is that not all the bad stuff floating around comes from Trump. He is th main threat since he won, but the Democrats pandered to bigots in their ranks on the IP conflict, which is where part of the attacks on Ellison come from. And on fake news and the press, I don’t trust the mainstream very much either. Do we need the government or large corporations telling us who the trustworthy websites are? The most damaging conspiracy theory to hit the US in the past 15 years was the one linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and claiming he had WMDs and that was pushed by some of the most respectable news organizations, including liberal ones, and politicians in both parties. Jeffrey Goldberg, who pushed the Al Qaeda connection in the New Yorker, failed upwards and is now the head editor at the Atlantic. There was some Democrat who echoed all of Bush’s claims but I have forgotten her name. Lives in Chappaqua. But her feeble powers for good or ill are no match for mine.
I read Kendzior. There are a lot of people writing damning articles about the embryonic Trump Administration, including those dreaded folks at the Intercept. Kendzior is in the camp that seems to think we are about to become a dictatorship. I think it is more likely we are going to have an extremely bad far right Republican Administration with a man child at its head. We might stumble into a war, as Russell said, rather than go into one deliberately, or Trump might be manipulated into going into one. The fact is that if he is a Putin mole he is a confused one. He is surrounding himself with people who hate Iran, yet Iran is the ally of Assad and Putin to some degree. There are a lot of really worrisome things about Trump that one can learn without reading Kendzior, but I read a little bit of her stuff too.
As for equivocations, one problem is that not all the bad stuff floating around comes from Trump. He is th main threat since he won, but the Democrats pandered to bigots in their ranks on the IP conflict, which is where part of the attacks on Ellison come from. And on fake news and the press, I don’t trust the mainstream very much either. Do we need the government or large corporations telling us who the trustworthy websites are? The most damaging conspiracy theory to hit the US in the past 15 years was the one linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and claiming he had WMDs and that was pushed by some of the most respectable news organizations, including liberal ones, and politicians in both parties. Jeffrey Goldberg, who pushed the Al Qaeda connection in the New Yorker, failed upwards and is now the head editor at the Atlantic. There was some Democrat who echoed all of Bush’s claims but I have forgotten her name. Lives in Chappaqua. But her feeble powers for good or ill are no match for mine.
I read Kendzior. There are a lot of people writing damning articles about the embryonic Trump Administration, including those dreaded folks at the Intercept. Kendzior is in the camp that seems to think we are about to become a dictatorship. I think it is more likely we are going to have an extremely bad far right Republican Administration with a man child at its head. We might stumble into a war, as Russell said, rather than go into one deliberately, or Trump might be manipulated into going into one. The fact is that if he is a Putin mole he is a confused one. He is surrounding himself with people who hate Iran, yet Iran is the ally of Assad and Putin to some degree. There are a lot of really worrisome things about Trump that one can learn without reading Kendzior, but I read a little bit of her stuff too.
As for equivocations, one problem is that not all the bad stuff floating around comes from Trump. He is th main threat since he won, but the Democrats pandered to bigots in their ranks on the IP conflict, which is where part of the attacks on Ellison come from. And on fake news and the press, I don’t trust the mainstream very much either. Do we need the government or large corporations telling us who the trustworthy websites are? The most damaging conspiracy theory to hit the US in the past 15 years was the one linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and claiming he had WMDs and that was pushed by some of the most respectable news organizations, including liberal ones, and politicians in both parties. Jeffrey Goldberg, who pushed the Al Qaeda connection in the New Yorker, failed upwards and is now the head editor at the Atlantic. There was some Democrat who echoed all of Bush’s claims but I have forgotten her name. Lives in Chappaqua. But her feeble powers for good or ill are no match for mine.
Imagine what Trump will do with the IRS…
Imagine what Trump will do with the IRS…
Imagine what Trump will do with the IRS…
One addendum to the TPM piece. It’s well to remember that a big piece of Trump’s business empire (whatever it’s overall financial condition actually is) is licensing the use of his name to other people to slap on their properties. It isn’t clear (at least to me) how that can be divested, even with the best will in the world.
Does he just let anyone who has it keep using it? With or without whatever on-going payments are already contracted for.
Or does he somehow get them to remove his name — and with what penalties for breach of contract? (Not that merely getting sued for breach of contract has ever fazed him before. But there could be further conflicts/inconveniences in fight that sort of thing while under a microscope as President.)
One addendum to the TPM piece. It’s well to remember that a big piece of Trump’s business empire (whatever it’s overall financial condition actually is) is licensing the use of his name to other people to slap on their properties. It isn’t clear (at least to me) how that can be divested, even with the best will in the world.
Does he just let anyone who has it keep using it? With or without whatever on-going payments are already contracted for.
Or does he somehow get them to remove his name — and with what penalties for breach of contract? (Not that merely getting sued for breach of contract has ever fazed him before. But there could be further conflicts/inconveniences in fight that sort of thing while under a microscope as President.)
One addendum to the TPM piece. It’s well to remember that a big piece of Trump’s business empire (whatever it’s overall financial condition actually is) is licensing the use of his name to other people to slap on their properties. It isn’t clear (at least to me) how that can be divested, even with the best will in the world.
Does he just let anyone who has it keep using it? With or without whatever on-going payments are already contracted for.
Or does he somehow get them to remove his name — and with what penalties for breach of contract? (Not that merely getting sued for breach of contract has ever fazed him before. But there could be further conflicts/inconveniences in fight that sort of thing while under a microscope as President.)
Here is a piece about who is helping form the Trump version of the EPA.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/david-schnare-trump/
It is someone who has been going after climate scientists.
Here is a piece about who is helping form the Trump version of the EPA.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/david-schnare-trump/
It is someone who has been going after climate scientists.
Here is a piece about who is helping form the Trump version of the EPA.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/david-schnare-trump/
It is someone who has been going after climate scientists.
Larison on Trump and Iran
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-iran-obsession-matters/
Larison on Trump and Iran
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-iran-obsession-matters/
Larison on Trump and Iran
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-iran-obsession-matters/
And just for the sake of equivocation, here is a piece on our ongoing disgusting policy in Yemen–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/famine-continues-to-stalk-yemen/
Given Trump’s anti -Iranian feelings, I assume he will be continuing this policy or making it worse, unless he gets into a spat with the Saudis.
And just for the sake of equivocation, here is a piece on our ongoing disgusting policy in Yemen–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/famine-continues-to-stalk-yemen/
Given Trump’s anti -Iranian feelings, I assume he will be continuing this policy or making it worse, unless he gets into a spat with the Saudis.
And just for the sake of equivocation, here is a piece on our ongoing disgusting policy in Yemen–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/famine-continues-to-stalk-yemen/
Given Trump’s anti -Iranian feelings, I assume he will be continuing this policy or making it worse, unless he gets into a spat with the Saudis.
All the Yemeni rebels have to do is rename the area they control “New Trumplandia”, and they’ll have a staunch ally.
All the Yemeni rebels have to do is rename the area they control “New Trumplandia”, and they’ll have a staunch ally.
All the Yemeni rebels have to do is rename the area they control “New Trumplandia”, and they’ll have a staunch ally.
One last link. This one is a bit too long, but I thought it was nuanced and you can skim it fairly quickly. It’s about fake news.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/the-necessity-of-credibility
One last link. This one is a bit too long, but I thought it was nuanced and you can skim it fairly quickly. It’s about fake news.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/the-necessity-of-credibility
One last link. This one is a bit too long, but I thought it was nuanced and you can skim it fairly quickly. It’s about fake news.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/the-necessity-of-credibility
Trump is going to be a disaster, but before we get all teary eyed about the good old days under Obama and the Democrats, I suggest people google e.g.:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+yemen
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+libya
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+drones
Trump is going to be a disaster, but before we get all teary eyed about the good old days under Obama and the Democrats, I suggest people google e.g.:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+yemen
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+libya
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+drones
Trump is going to be a disaster, but before we get all teary eyed about the good old days under Obama and the Democrats, I suggest people google e.g.:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+yemen
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+libya
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+drones
Snarki– the sad thing is that’s probably true.
Snarki– the sad thing is that’s probably true.
Snarki– the sad thing is that’s probably true.
Snarki, but won’t he insist that the pay to license the use of his name?
Snarki, but won’t he insist that the pay to license the use of his name?
Snarki, but won’t he insist that the pay to license the use of his name?
It isn’t clear (at least to me) how that can be divested, even with the best will in the world.
I would imagine that selling the brand, which is to say the IP associated with the name and the right to license it, is certainly feasible.
Existing contracts are transferred to the new owner, or are re-negotiated.
Enterprises acquire brands in that fashion pretty much all the time, either in and of themselves or (more commonly) as part of a broader purchase.
Ain’t no more Hiltons running the Hiltons, as far as I can tell.
It ain’t gonna happen in Trump’s case. He’ll either be impeached, or carry on with business as usual.
The idea that “letting the kids run it” is going to eliminate conflicts of interest is pretty much a farce.
In either case, it’s going to be a big stupid mess.
It isn’t clear (at least to me) how that can be divested, even with the best will in the world.
I would imagine that selling the brand, which is to say the IP associated with the name and the right to license it, is certainly feasible.
Existing contracts are transferred to the new owner, or are re-negotiated.
Enterprises acquire brands in that fashion pretty much all the time, either in and of themselves or (more commonly) as part of a broader purchase.
Ain’t no more Hiltons running the Hiltons, as far as I can tell.
It ain’t gonna happen in Trump’s case. He’ll either be impeached, or carry on with business as usual.
The idea that “letting the kids run it” is going to eliminate conflicts of interest is pretty much a farce.
In either case, it’s going to be a big stupid mess.
It isn’t clear (at least to me) how that can be divested, even with the best will in the world.
I would imagine that selling the brand, which is to say the IP associated with the name and the right to license it, is certainly feasible.
Existing contracts are transferred to the new owner, or are re-negotiated.
Enterprises acquire brands in that fashion pretty much all the time, either in and of themselves or (more commonly) as part of a broader purchase.
Ain’t no more Hiltons running the Hiltons, as far as I can tell.
It ain’t gonna happen in Trump’s case. He’ll either be impeached, or carry on with business as usual.
The idea that “letting the kids run it” is going to eliminate conflicts of interest is pretty much a farce.
In either case, it’s going to be a big stupid mess.
OT: Our national political situation might be bad, but during my outdoor lunchtime exercise routine in a nearby park, I was told by a passerby that I looked like the actor (wait for it!) … James Woods.
I’ve been told over the years that I looked like various people, depending on how old I was, who was famous at the time, how much hair I had. It’s a fairly varied group:
Ron Darling
Pete Sampras
Jerry Seinfeld
David Justice
Alex Rodriguez
Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson
How you go from Jerry Seinfeld to Dwayne Johnson is questionable, but there still seems to be some sort of continuum there, even if they’re on opposite ends of it.
But James fncking Woods??? Not only isn’t he someone I would particularly want to look like, he’s a pretty big a$$hole from what I understand. And he doesn’t fit into the established continuum by any stretch.
I’m going to consider this one to be spurious data to be discarded.
OT: Our national political situation might be bad, but during my outdoor lunchtime exercise routine in a nearby park, I was told by a passerby that I looked like the actor (wait for it!) … James Woods.
I’ve been told over the years that I looked like various people, depending on how old I was, who was famous at the time, how much hair I had. It’s a fairly varied group:
Ron Darling
Pete Sampras
Jerry Seinfeld
David Justice
Alex Rodriguez
Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson
How you go from Jerry Seinfeld to Dwayne Johnson is questionable, but there still seems to be some sort of continuum there, even if they’re on opposite ends of it.
But James fncking Woods??? Not only isn’t he someone I would particularly want to look like, he’s a pretty big a$$hole from what I understand. And he doesn’t fit into the established continuum by any stretch.
I’m going to consider this one to be spurious data to be discarded.
OT: Our national political situation might be bad, but during my outdoor lunchtime exercise routine in a nearby park, I was told by a passerby that I looked like the actor (wait for it!) … James Woods.
I’ve been told over the years that I looked like various people, depending on how old I was, who was famous at the time, how much hair I had. It’s a fairly varied group:
Ron Darling
Pete Sampras
Jerry Seinfeld
David Justice
Alex Rodriguez
Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson
How you go from Jerry Seinfeld to Dwayne Johnson is questionable, but there still seems to be some sort of continuum there, even if they’re on opposite ends of it.
But James fncking Woods??? Not only isn’t he someone I would particularly want to look like, he’s a pretty big a$$hole from what I understand. And he doesn’t fit into the established continuum by any stretch.
I’m going to consider this one to be spurious data to be discarded.
I left out poor Ralph Macchio. How could I forget him? I was pretty much him for 2 years of high school. (…James Woods!!!)
I left out poor Ralph Macchio. How could I forget him? I was pretty much him for 2 years of high school. (…James Woods!!!)
I left out poor Ralph Macchio. How could I forget him? I was pretty much him for 2 years of high school. (…James Woods!!!)
You are taking this very hard, hsh. Someone once compared me to a minor celebrity once ( not my actor namesake). I forgot who it was ( it was a very minor celebrity), but it was not flattering at all.
You are taking this very hard, hsh. Someone once compared me to a minor celebrity once ( not my actor namesake). I forgot who it was ( it was a very minor celebrity), but it was not flattering at all.
You are taking this very hard, hsh. Someone once compared me to a minor celebrity once ( not my actor namesake). I forgot who it was ( it was a very minor celebrity), but it was not flattering at all.
I am. I think it’s a form of sublimation. My political anxieties are manifesting in touchiness about other subjects.
I am. I think it’s a form of sublimation. My political anxieties are manifesting in touchiness about other subjects.
I am. I think it’s a form of sublimation. My political anxieties are manifesting in touchiness about other subjects.
I got (Boston Globe columnist) Mike Barnicle once.
That’s when I knew my chick magnet days were over.
I got (Boston Globe columnist) Mike Barnicle once.
That’s when I knew my chick magnet days were over.
I got (Boston Globe columnist) Mike Barnicle once.
That’s when I knew my chick magnet days were over.
I’m going to make peace with this by assuming the guy was actually thinking of someone else when he mentioned James Woods. He probably meant a somewhat younger George Clooney or something far more reasonable like that.
I’m going to make peace with this by assuming the guy was actually thinking of someone else when he mentioned James Woods. He probably meant a somewhat younger George Clooney or something far more reasonable like that.
I’m going to make peace with this by assuming the guy was actually thinking of someone else when he mentioned James Woods. He probably meant a somewhat younger George Clooney or something far more reasonable like that.
I mostly look a lot like Bill Gates, not so much now. I always had a mental picture of hsh as the really tall kid in hackers. His comments look like that. Now he’s telling me he’s the kid that gets arrested. So wrong.
I mostly look a lot like Bill Gates, not so much now. I always had a mental picture of hsh as the really tall kid in hackers. His comments look like that. Now he’s telling me he’s the kid that gets arrested. So wrong.
I mostly look a lot like Bill Gates, not so much now. I always had a mental picture of hsh as the really tall kid in hackers. His comments look like that. Now he’s telling me he’s the kid that gets arrested. So wrong.
Fwiw, I’m a big James Woods fan (OK stop laughing), I have “Cop” on DVD just because of him and of course “Videodrome” and “Once upon …”. I loved it when on the extras of “Salvador” he told the story of how Ollie Stone almost got him shot dead on the set, indicative of their relationship – great film BTW, the casting alone is worth it. He seems a lot nicer than Stone, bit that’s not a very tall order.
Fwiw, I’m a big James Woods fan (OK stop laughing), I have “Cop” on DVD just because of him and of course “Videodrome” and “Once upon …”. I loved it when on the extras of “Salvador” he told the story of how Ollie Stone almost got him shot dead on the set, indicative of their relationship – great film BTW, the casting alone is worth it. He seems a lot nicer than Stone, bit that’s not a very tall order.
Fwiw, I’m a big James Woods fan (OK stop laughing), I have “Cop” on DVD just because of him and of course “Videodrome” and “Once upon …”. I loved it when on the extras of “Salvador” he told the story of how Ollie Stone almost got him shot dead on the set, indicative of their relationship – great film BTW, the casting alone is worth it. He seems a lot nicer than Stone, bit that’s not a very tall order.
Videodrome was pretty sick. I liked that one.
Videodrome was pretty sick. I liked that one.
Videodrome was pretty sick. I liked that one.
Now I’m going to have to watch Hackers to understand how my comments look to Marty.
Now I’m going to have to watch Hackers to understand how my comments look to Marty.
Now I’m going to have to watch Hackers to understand how my comments look to Marty.
So Donald shouldn’t post stuff about the Washington Post getting something badly wrong and that threatens legitimate news outlets? Would that mean he wasn’t properly directing world affairs with his blog comments?
I think whether the Washington Post got it “badly wrong” is subject to some dispute. They cited an organization (ProporNot) that may have gotten a paper slightly wrong, but that also is subject to dispute. Adrian Chen, of The New Yorker also had a critique of ProporNot, which is worth reading, but also worth questioning. For example, Chen mentions the value of transparency, but people are punished.
This is a cyberwar. Donald Trump wasn’t expected to win. Brexit wasn’t expected to win. Pro-Putin people are winning in a lot of places. I don’t think “economic anxiety” explains it all. Manafort, Flynn, and Page aren’t a coincidence. Wikileaks isn’t a coincidence. Snowden isn’t.
So Donald shouldn’t post stuff about the Washington Post getting something badly wrong and that threatens legitimate news outlets? Would that mean he wasn’t properly directing world affairs with his blog comments?
I think whether the Washington Post got it “badly wrong” is subject to some dispute. They cited an organization (ProporNot) that may have gotten a paper slightly wrong, but that also is subject to dispute. Adrian Chen, of The New Yorker also had a critique of ProporNot, which is worth reading, but also worth questioning. For example, Chen mentions the value of transparency, but people are punished.
This is a cyberwar. Donald Trump wasn’t expected to win. Brexit wasn’t expected to win. Pro-Putin people are winning in a lot of places. I don’t think “economic anxiety” explains it all. Manafort, Flynn, and Page aren’t a coincidence. Wikileaks isn’t a coincidence. Snowden isn’t.
So Donald shouldn’t post stuff about the Washington Post getting something badly wrong and that threatens legitimate news outlets? Would that mean he wasn’t properly directing world affairs with his blog comments?
I think whether the Washington Post got it “badly wrong” is subject to some dispute. They cited an organization (ProporNot) that may have gotten a paper slightly wrong, but that also is subject to dispute. Adrian Chen, of The New Yorker also had a critique of ProporNot, which is worth reading, but also worth questioning. For example, Chen mentions the value of transparency, but people are punished.
This is a cyberwar. Donald Trump wasn’t expected to win. Brexit wasn’t expected to win. Pro-Putin people are winning in a lot of places. I don’t think “economic anxiety” explains it all. Manafort, Flynn, and Page aren’t a coincidence. Wikileaks isn’t a coincidence. Snowden isn’t.
So Donald should only post things that aren’t in dispute (according to you)?
So Donald should only post things that aren’t in dispute (according to you)?
So Donald should only post things that aren’t in dispute (according to you)?
So Donald should only post things that aren’t in dispute (according to you)?
Did I say that Donald should never post things? Donald usually posts all kinds of whatever he wants, without comment from me. I sometimes comment,
So Donald should only post things that aren’t in dispute (according to you)?
Did I say that Donald should never post things? Donald usually posts all kinds of whatever he wants, without comment from me. I sometimes comment,
So Donald should only post things that aren’t in dispute (according to you)?
Did I say that Donald should never post things? Donald usually posts all kinds of whatever he wants, without comment from me. I sometimes comment,
I don’t think “economic anxiety” explains it all.
It doesn’t.
Economic issues are the place where people can be persuaded not to vote for guys like Trump.
The folks who voted for him for any of 100 other reasons are probably not open to anything that people like you or I have to say.
Folks who really just want some kind of viable future for themselves and their kids, probably are.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
I don’t think “economic anxiety” explains it all.
It doesn’t.
Economic issues are the place where people can be persuaded not to vote for guys like Trump.
The folks who voted for him for any of 100 other reasons are probably not open to anything that people like you or I have to say.
Folks who really just want some kind of viable future for themselves and their kids, probably are.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
I don’t think “economic anxiety” explains it all.
It doesn’t.
Economic issues are the place where people can be persuaded not to vote for guys like Trump.
The folks who voted for him for any of 100 other reasons are probably not open to anything that people like you or I have to say.
Folks who really just want some kind of viable future for themselves and their kids, probably are.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
I sometimes comment,
Should I not comment on what Donald posts?
I sometimes comment,
Should I not comment on what Donald posts?
I sometimes comment,
Should I not comment on what Donald posts?
To put another point on it:
Economic issues are the ingredient that will yield a (D) majority in the House and the Senate.
Trump is assembling a Cabinet that is a textbook example of cronyism and regulatory capture. The (R)’s are going to come after Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. At the very top of the agenda are going to be tax cuts for the very wealthiest people.
The (D)’s should start hitting all of that today, and should hit it every single day from now until the midterms.
Then, they should hit it from then until 2020.
Trump is going to suck for working people. He’s going to suck for lots of other people too, butn mostly people who won’t be inclined to vote for him anyway.
The folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and then for Trump in 2016, are the folks who are most likely to be turned away from the (R)’s in the midterms and from Trump in 2020.
Clinton won the popular vote, the swing states were all very close. It’s not out of reach.
Economic issues are what can tip it. And Trump is going to hand that to the (D)’s on a plate.
To put another point on it:
Economic issues are the ingredient that will yield a (D) majority in the House and the Senate.
Trump is assembling a Cabinet that is a textbook example of cronyism and regulatory capture. The (R)’s are going to come after Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. At the very top of the agenda are going to be tax cuts for the very wealthiest people.
The (D)’s should start hitting all of that today, and should hit it every single day from now until the midterms.
Then, they should hit it from then until 2020.
Trump is going to suck for working people. He’s going to suck for lots of other people too, butn mostly people who won’t be inclined to vote for him anyway.
The folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and then for Trump in 2016, are the folks who are most likely to be turned away from the (R)’s in the midterms and from Trump in 2020.
Clinton won the popular vote, the swing states were all very close. It’s not out of reach.
Economic issues are what can tip it. And Trump is going to hand that to the (D)’s on a plate.
To put another point on it:
Economic issues are the ingredient that will yield a (D) majority in the House and the Senate.
Trump is assembling a Cabinet that is a textbook example of cronyism and regulatory capture. The (R)’s are going to come after Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. At the very top of the agenda are going to be tax cuts for the very wealthiest people.
The (D)’s should start hitting all of that today, and should hit it every single day from now until the midterms.
Then, they should hit it from then until 2020.
Trump is going to suck for working people. He’s going to suck for lots of other people too, butn mostly people who won’t be inclined to vote for him anyway.
The folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and then for Trump in 2016, are the folks who are most likely to be turned away from the (R)’s in the midterms and from Trump in 2020.
Clinton won the popular vote, the swing states were all very close. It’s not out of reach.
Economic issues are what can tip it. And Trump is going to hand that to the (D)’s on a plate.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
Which is why we have to GOTV based on what we actually believe, assuming that voters can really vote. Because we (I as a Democrat) support economic growth, safety nets, solving wealth inequality, dignified old age, medical care for all, etc. This isn’t hard, and without very crazy outlying factors, it confuses the hell out of me why people voted for Trump.
There was a lot of voter suppression. There are people like NV, who performance art voted, and Donald, who supposedly voted for Hillary while “campaigning” that she was an immoral loser. There were truly ignorant Trump voters, there are malicious Trump voters, there are stick my middle finger in my ass Trump voters (Marty?), and I’ve got mine, and I hate Mooslim voters (McKinney?). All very interesting, but even when you add all of those latter people together, it really shouldn’t have added up to enough.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
Which is why we have to GOTV based on what we actually believe, assuming that voters can really vote. Because we (I as a Democrat) support economic growth, safety nets, solving wealth inequality, dignified old age, medical care for all, etc. This isn’t hard, and without very crazy outlying factors, it confuses the hell out of me why people voted for Trump.
There was a lot of voter suppression. There are people like NV, who performance art voted, and Donald, who supposedly voted for Hillary while “campaigning” that she was an immoral loser. There were truly ignorant Trump voters, there are malicious Trump voters, there are stick my middle finger in my ass Trump voters (Marty?), and I’ve got mine, and I hate Mooslim voters (McKinney?). All very interesting, but even when you add all of those latter people together, it really shouldn’t have added up to enough.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
Which is why we have to GOTV based on what we actually believe, assuming that voters can really vote. Because we (I as a Democrat) support economic growth, safety nets, solving wealth inequality, dignified old age, medical care for all, etc. This isn’t hard, and without very crazy outlying factors, it confuses the hell out of me why people voted for Trump.
There was a lot of voter suppression. There are people like NV, who performance art voted, and Donald, who supposedly voted for Hillary while “campaigning” that she was an immoral loser. There were truly ignorant Trump voters, there are malicious Trump voters, there are stick my middle finger in my ass Trump voters (Marty?), and I’ve got mine, and I hate Mooslim voters (McKinney?). All very interesting, but even when you add all of those latter people together, it really shouldn’t have added up to enough.
“there are stick my middle finger in my ass Trump voters (Marty?),”
Really? That’s way too hard with the middle finger. Get real.
“there are stick my middle finger in my ass Trump voters (Marty?),”
Really? That’s way too hard with the middle finger. Get real.
“there are stick my middle finger in my ass Trump voters (Marty?),”
Really? That’s way too hard with the middle finger. Get real.
Really? That’s way too hard with the middle finger. Get real.
Right. You claimed to have stuck it somewhere else.
Really? That’s way too hard with the middle finger. Get real.
Right. You claimed to have stuck it somewhere else.
Really? That’s way too hard with the middle finger. Get real.
Right. You claimed to have stuck it somewhere else.
Marty and McKinney made it clear, again and again, that there was no way in hell that they would ever vote for Trump. They were definite they wouldn’t vote for HRC either, alas, but Trump was out of the question for both of them. Or do you mean something subtle and American that I have missed?
Marty and McKinney made it clear, again and again, that there was no way in hell that they would ever vote for Trump. They were definite they wouldn’t vote for HRC either, alas, but Trump was out of the question for both of them. Or do you mean something subtle and American that I have missed?
Marty and McKinney made it clear, again and again, that there was no way in hell that they would ever vote for Trump. They were definite they wouldn’t vote for HRC either, alas, but Trump was out of the question for both of them. Or do you mean something subtle and American that I have missed?
Or do you mean something subtle and American that I have missed?
Secret ballot. But even taking them at their word, they didn’t help. Because they post comments here, and you love to love, you can excuse them. I don’t.
Or do you mean something subtle and American that I have missed?
Secret ballot. But even taking them at their word, they didn’t help. Because they post comments here, and you love to love, you can excuse them. I don’t.
Or do you mean something subtle and American that I have missed?
Secret ballot. But even taking them at their word, they didn’t help. Because they post comments here, and you love to love, you can excuse them. I don’t.
Oh for God’s sake, enough of this “you love to love” and “you’re too nice” stuff. They’d be pretty weird types if they were secret Trumpies who enjoyed posting here – we would have sussed them by now. They are consistent in their views (and have been for years) and it should be fucking obvious by now that we need to talk to people very different from ourselves if we want to change anything, particularly the outcome of the the next elections, 2018 and 2020.
Oh for God’s sake, enough of this “you love to love” and “you’re too nice” stuff. They’d be pretty weird types if they were secret Trumpies who enjoyed posting here – we would have sussed them by now. They are consistent in their views (and have been for years) and it should be fucking obvious by now that we need to talk to people very different from ourselves if we want to change anything, particularly the outcome of the the next elections, 2018 and 2020.
Oh for God’s sake, enough of this “you love to love” and “you’re too nice” stuff. They’d be pretty weird types if they were secret Trumpies who enjoyed posting here – we would have sussed them by now. They are consistent in their views (and have been for years) and it should be fucking obvious by now that we need to talk to people very different from ourselves if we want to change anything, particularly the outcome of the the next elections, 2018 and 2020.
They are consistent in their views (and have been for years) and it should be fucking obvious by now that we need to talk to people very different from ourselves if we want to change anything,
I assume you recognize the logical flaw in that sentence.
They are consistent in their views (and have been for years) and it should be fucking obvious by now that we need to talk to people very different from ourselves if we want to change anything,
I assume you recognize the logical flaw in that sentence.
They are consistent in their views (and have been for years) and it should be fucking obvious by now that we need to talk to people very different from ourselves if we want to change anything,
I assume you recognize the logical flaw in that sentence.
People consistent in their views can still be influenced as circumstances change. I’d call a Trump presidency a pretty damned big change of circumstances. If the Dems had a candidate like e.g. John Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them would have considered voting for him over Trump.
People consistent in their views can still be influenced as circumstances change. I’d call a Trump presidency a pretty damned big change of circumstances. If the Dems had a candidate like e.g. John Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them would have considered voting for him over Trump.
People consistent in their views can still be influenced as circumstances change. I’d call a Trump presidency a pretty damned big change of circumstances. If the Dems had a candidate like e.g. John Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them would have considered voting for him over Trump.
If the Dems had a candidate like e.g. John Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them would have considered voting for him over Trump.
Because they had the chance to vote for him, and didn’t? Dream on. Oh, yeah – Kerry is male, so there’s that.
I have no patience for them.
If the Dems had a candidate like e.g. John Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them would have considered voting for him over Trump.
Because they had the chance to vote for him, and didn’t? Dream on. Oh, yeah – Kerry is male, so there’s that.
I have no patience for them.
If the Dems had a candidate like e.g. John Kerry, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them would have considered voting for him over Trump.
Because they had the chance to vote for him, and didn’t? Dream on. Oh, yeah – Kerry is male, so there’s that.
I have no patience for them.
My guess is that Marty was right there with the bandaids when Kerry ran.
My guess is that Marty was right there with the bandaids when Kerry ran.
My guess is that Marty was right there with the bandaids when Kerry ran.
I have no patience for them.
That much is patently obvious. Good night sapient.
I have no patience for them.
That much is patently obvious. Good night sapient.
I have no patience for them.
That much is patently obvious. Good night sapient.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
Ha, no. You mean MI, WI, PA. The margin in OH was 8%.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
Ha, no. You mean MI, WI, PA. The margin in OH was 8%.
80K votes would have turned MI, OH, and PA, and we would not be talking about POTUS Trump.
Ha, no. You mean MI, WI, PA. The margin in OH was 8%.
Good night little GftNC.
Good night little GftNC.
Good night little GftNC.
There are people like NV, who performance art voted
sapient, your refusal to vote-swap was just as much performance art. Think! You could have eliminated a whole one Trump vote! But instead you let Trump get another vote and a more impressive tally in your selfish quest to make your beloved Hillary look more popular instead of undermining Trump’s mandate.
Which is to say: ha, very funny. In my case, vote-swapping would have given Clinton ~2,394,163 to Trump’s ~2,841,004 versus my sib and I both holding our noses, voting Dem/GOP, and having Clinton lose ~2,394,164 to ~2,841,005 instead. Quelle difference! The marginal effect of my vote is identical; it’s just one way the mainstream parties are rewarded for fielding awful candidates and the other they’re not. If you want to criticize my voting choice, you need to at least lump me into the same boat as Donald, as a vote swapping arrangement cancels out just as many Trump votes as your uncritical Clinton vote. Or am I getting special contempt because I’m advocating a way for leftists to free themselves from the centerists’ “perfect trap”?
There are people like NV, who performance art voted
sapient, your refusal to vote-swap was just as much performance art. Think! You could have eliminated a whole one Trump vote! But instead you let Trump get another vote and a more impressive tally in your selfish quest to make your beloved Hillary look more popular instead of undermining Trump’s mandate.
Which is to say: ha, very funny. In my case, vote-swapping would have given Clinton ~2,394,163 to Trump’s ~2,841,004 versus my sib and I both holding our noses, voting Dem/GOP, and having Clinton lose ~2,394,164 to ~2,841,005 instead. Quelle difference! The marginal effect of my vote is identical; it’s just one way the mainstream parties are rewarded for fielding awful candidates and the other they’re not. If you want to criticize my voting choice, you need to at least lump me into the same boat as Donald, as a vote swapping arrangement cancels out just as many Trump votes as your uncritical Clinton vote. Or am I getting special contempt because I’m advocating a way for leftists to free themselves from the centerists’ “perfect trap”?
There are people like NV, who performance art voted
sapient, your refusal to vote-swap was just as much performance art. Think! You could have eliminated a whole one Trump vote! But instead you let Trump get another vote and a more impressive tally in your selfish quest to make your beloved Hillary look more popular instead of undermining Trump’s mandate.
Which is to say: ha, very funny. In my case, vote-swapping would have given Clinton ~2,394,163 to Trump’s ~2,841,004 versus my sib and I both holding our noses, voting Dem/GOP, and having Clinton lose ~2,394,164 to ~2,841,005 instead. Quelle difference! The marginal effect of my vote is identical; it’s just one way the mainstream parties are rewarded for fielding awful candidates and the other they’re not. If you want to criticize my voting choice, you need to at least lump me into the same boat as Donald, as a vote swapping arrangement cancels out just as many Trump votes as your uncritical Clinton vote. Or am I getting special contempt because I’m advocating a way for leftists to free themselves from the centerists’ “perfect trap”?
Also, might I recommend you take a step back from the computer and go do anything else? You’re normally caustic, but you’re just straight-up being a condescending @$$ at the moment.
Also, might I recommend you take a step back from the computer and go do anything else? You’re normally caustic, but you’re just straight-up being a condescending @$$ at the moment.
Also, might I recommend you take a step back from the computer and go do anything else? You’re normally caustic, but you’re just straight-up being a condescending @$$ at the moment.
Little gftnc?
As for the rest, that’s classic authoritarian thinking. People are either for you or against you. Three of us are probably lying about who we voted for. It’s all a plot. yeah, this is certainly the kind of attitude Democrats should adopt to win voters back.
Little gftnc?
As for the rest, that’s classic authoritarian thinking. People are either for you or against you. Three of us are probably lying about who we voted for. It’s all a plot. yeah, this is certainly the kind of attitude Democrats should adopt to win voters back.
Little gftnc?
As for the rest, that’s classic authoritarian thinking. People are either for you or against you. Three of us are probably lying about who we voted for. It’s all a plot. yeah, this is certainly the kind of attitude Democrats should adopt to win voters back.
NV: You worked hard agains fascism this election, I see, NV.
Donald: Authoritarian thinking? How about beating the fascist. So glad my father, and not you, were around in WWII. But you’re here now. Ick.
Little? Does anyone know what “girl” means? I like GftNC. Girl means immature woman. She chose the handle.
NV: You worked hard agains fascism this election, I see, NV.
Donald: Authoritarian thinking? How about beating the fascist. So glad my father, and not you, were around in WWII. But you’re here now. Ick.
Little? Does anyone know what “girl” means? I like GftNC. Girl means immature woman. She chose the handle.
NV: You worked hard agains fascism this election, I see, NV.
Donald: Authoritarian thinking? How about beating the fascist. So glad my father, and not you, were around in WWII. But you’re here now. Ick.
Little? Does anyone know what “girl” means? I like GftNC. Girl means immature woman. She chose the handle.
Should I not comment on what Donald posts?
Comment on whatever you like, and expect to be questioned or challenged or even have someone agree with you. When you suggest that Donald should concentrate on topics that accord with whatever you find most important rather than what he finds important, I might ask what your rationale is.
I found Donald’s link on Ukraine to be enlightening – as I did yours – even if I didn’t really understand how yours was, as you seemed to be presenting it, a rebuttal in any way to his.
Should I not comment on what Donald posts?
Comment on whatever you like, and expect to be questioned or challenged or even have someone agree with you. When you suggest that Donald should concentrate on topics that accord with whatever you find most important rather than what he finds important, I might ask what your rationale is.
I found Donald’s link on Ukraine to be enlightening – as I did yours – even if I didn’t really understand how yours was, as you seemed to be presenting it, a rebuttal in any way to his.
Should I not comment on what Donald posts?
Comment on whatever you like, and expect to be questioned or challenged or even have someone agree with you. When you suggest that Donald should concentrate on topics that accord with whatever you find most important rather than what he finds important, I might ask what your rationale is.
I found Donald’s link on Ukraine to be enlightening – as I did yours – even if I didn’t really understand how yours was, as you seemed to be presenting it, a rebuttal in any way to his.
Happy all is good, hairshirt.
Happy all is good, hairshirt.
Happy all is good, hairshirt.
“Ha, no. You mean MI, WI, PA. The margin in OH was 8%.”
yes, you are correct. my mistake.
“Ha, no. You mean MI, WI, PA. The margin in OH was 8%.”
yes, you are correct. my mistake.
“Ha, no. You mean MI, WI, PA. The margin in OH was 8%.”
yes, you are correct. my mistake.
My favorite foreign policy guru Larison recommended this–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/assessing-the-president-elects-foreign-policy-advisors/
Flynn is a horrible choice, but Mattis is the unknown quantity.. I’ve read he is also paranoid about Iran, but this article seems a bit more optimistic. He is at least opposed to torture.
My favorite foreign policy guru Larison recommended this–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/assessing-the-president-elects-foreign-policy-advisors/
Flynn is a horrible choice, but Mattis is the unknown quantity.. I’ve read he is also paranoid about Iran, but this article seems a bit more optimistic. He is at least opposed to torture.
My favorite foreign policy guru Larison recommended this–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/assessing-the-president-elects-foreign-policy-advisors/
Flynn is a horrible choice, but Mattis is the unknown quantity.. I’ve read he is also paranoid about Iran, but this article seems a bit more optimistic. He is at least opposed to torture.
Here’s for you, Donald and NV: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/12/from-russia-with-love
MAGA, folks. Cuz you know, both sides do it.
Here’s for you, Donald and NV: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/12/from-russia-with-love
MAGA, folks. Cuz you know, both sides do it.
Here’s for you, Donald and NV: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/12/from-russia-with-love
MAGA, folks. Cuz you know, both sides do it.
The NYT story seems a bit confused–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
So the intelligence agencies say the Russians gave wikileaks the emails. Well, someone did. Maybe it was the Russians. I assume they prefer Trump to Clinton.
My earlier post was about Democratic McCarthyism, as manifested in the Washington Post story slandering numerous websites as Russian agents, a story which was eagerly passed on by various Democratic hacks. Back in the McCarthy era there were both real Russian spies and real witch hunters. It is probably the same now.
My earlier
The NYT story seems a bit confused–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
So the intelligence agencies say the Russians gave wikileaks the emails. Well, someone did. Maybe it was the Russians. I assume they prefer Trump to Clinton.
My earlier post was about Democratic McCarthyism, as manifested in the Washington Post story slandering numerous websites as Russian agents, a story which was eagerly passed on by various Democratic hacks. Back in the McCarthy era there were both real Russian spies and real witch hunters. It is probably the same now.
My earlier
The NYT story seems a bit confused–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
So the intelligence agencies say the Russians gave wikileaks the emails. Well, someone did. Maybe it was the Russians. I assume they prefer Trump to Clinton.
My earlier post was about Democratic McCarthyism, as manifested in the Washington Post story slandering numerous websites as Russian agents, a story which was eagerly passed on by various Democratic hacks. Back in the McCarthy era there were both real Russian spies and real witch hunters. It is probably the same now.
My earlier
You are a collaborator, Donald. If I see your name it’s a trigger warning.
You are a collaborator, Donald. If I see your name it’s a trigger warning.
You are a collaborator, Donald. If I see your name it’s a trigger warning.
I think some moderation might be required here, no?
I mean, I get the anger, I’m still angry at Brexit, but I don’t go around praising David Cameron or insulting people in public.
I think some moderation might be required here, no?
I mean, I get the anger, I’m still angry at Brexit, but I don’t go around praising David Cameron or insulting people in public.
I think some moderation might be required here, no?
I mean, I get the anger, I’m still angry at Brexit, but I don’t go around praising David Cameron or insulting people in public.
yes.
everyone please turn your computers off and take a nice walk. read a book. not a book by Timothy snyder. go to a park and watch some little kids play for a while.
thanks!
yes.
everyone please turn your computers off and take a nice walk. read a book. not a book by Timothy snyder. go to a park and watch some little kids play for a while.
thanks!
yes.
everyone please turn your computers off and take a nice walk. read a book. not a book by Timothy snyder. go to a park and watch some little kids play for a while.
thanks!
I went to the park and saw some guy who looked like James Woods.
I went to the park and saw some guy who looked like James Woods.
I went to the park and saw some guy who looked like James Woods.
lol
lol
lol
I think it’s useful. Sapient is illustrating is exactly what is wrong with some segments of the Democratic Party.
And speaking of collaborators–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/the-torture-report-must-be-saved.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=
Someone, very very late in his term has one last chance not to be a collaborator.
We apparently have intelligence agencies which are out of control and accountable to no one, whether it is the FBI or the CIA. Soon Trump will be in charge.
I think it’s useful. Sapient is illustrating is exactly what is wrong with some segments of the Democratic Party.
And speaking of collaborators–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/the-torture-report-must-be-saved.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=
Someone, very very late in his term has one last chance not to be a collaborator.
We apparently have intelligence agencies which are out of control and accountable to no one, whether it is the FBI or the CIA. Soon Trump will be in charge.
I think it’s useful. Sapient is illustrating is exactly what is wrong with some segments of the Democratic Party.
And speaking of collaborators–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/the-torture-report-must-be-saved.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=
Someone, very very late in his term has one last chance not to be a collaborator.
We apparently have intelligence agencies which are out of control and accountable to no one, whether it is the FBI or the CIA. Soon Trump will be in charge.
And if it isn’t released, someone should steal it and give it to the Intercept or wikileaks. Lots of talk about resistance. Maybe it should have started already. What right does a government which committed war crimes have to conceal the evidence of its guilt?
And if it isn’t released, someone should steal it and give it to the Intercept or wikileaks. Lots of talk about resistance. Maybe it should have started already. What right does a government which committed war crimes have to conceal the evidence of its guilt?
And if it isn’t released, someone should steal it and give it to the Intercept or wikileaks. Lots of talk about resistance. Maybe it should have started already. What right does a government which committed war crimes have to conceal the evidence of its guilt?
Actually, of course it has started already, but the whistleblowers who exposed evidence of government wrongdoing were hounded by the government and some of our faithful liberals sided with the government. Chelsea Manning rots in jail. Michael Morrell the acting CIA head who defended the torture program endorsed Hillary Clinton in the NYT We had a chance to show that liberals believe in accountability and we threw it away. Trump is going to be worse. Now all of a sudden morality matters again. A little late now.
Actually, of course it has started already, but the whistleblowers who exposed evidence of government wrongdoing were hounded by the government and some of our faithful liberals sided with the government. Chelsea Manning rots in jail. Michael Morrell the acting CIA head who defended the torture program endorsed Hillary Clinton in the NYT We had a chance to show that liberals believe in accountability and we threw it away. Trump is going to be worse. Now all of a sudden morality matters again. A little late now.
Actually, of course it has started already, but the whistleblowers who exposed evidence of government wrongdoing were hounded by the government and some of our faithful liberals sided with the government. Chelsea Manning rots in jail. Michael Morrell the acting CIA head who defended the torture program endorsed Hillary Clinton in the NYT We had a chance to show that liberals believe in accountability and we threw it away. Trump is going to be worse. Now all of a sudden morality matters again. A little late now.
It’s OK Donald, Trump pays no attention to the CIA or FBI, he says so. He’d rather rely on the Russians for intelligence.
novakant and russell, I think you’re right. I think we are dealing with a kind of PTSD here, and time and rest are indicated.
It’s OK Donald, Trump pays no attention to the CIA or FBI, he says so. He’d rather rely on the Russians for intelligence.
novakant and russell, I think you’re right. I think we are dealing with a kind of PTSD here, and time and rest are indicated.
It’s OK Donald, Trump pays no attention to the CIA or FBI, he says so. He’d rather rely on the Russians for intelligence.
novakant and russell, I think you’re right. I think we are dealing with a kind of PTSD here, and time and rest are indicated.
hsh, in the mirror? Is the pond frozen? Is it a young or old James Woods?
hsh, in the mirror? Is the pond frozen? Is it a young or old James Woods?
hsh, in the mirror? Is the pond frozen? Is it a young or old James Woods?
I’m pretty sure Trump,will pay attention to the CIA… once they learn to tell him what he wants to hear.
I’m pretty sure Trump,will pay attention to the CIA… once they learn to tell him what he wants to hear.
I’m pretty sure Trump,will pay attention to the CIA… once they learn to tell him what he wants to hear.
Re, James Woods, I kind of wondered why we never see HSH and Rudy G at the same time.
Re, James Woods, I kind of wondered why we never see HSH and Rudy G at the same time.
Re, James Woods, I kind of wondered why we never see HSH and Rudy G at the same time.
Flynn is a horrible choice, but Mattis is the unknown quantity.. I’ve read he is also paranoid about Iran, but this article seems a bit more optimistic. He is at least opposed to torture.
I can’t speak about how he’ll be for the office, but Mattis is a very canny political choice. That won the Trump administration A LOT of brownie points with large swathes of military personnel and veterans. He’s, ah, popular in those quarters. Some of that is mindless fanboyism (Chuck Norris/Bruce Schneier jokes get repurposed for him at times), but that includes an admiration of a perceived gloves-off attitude.
Flynn is a horrible choice, but Mattis is the unknown quantity.. I’ve read he is also paranoid about Iran, but this article seems a bit more optimistic. He is at least opposed to torture.
I can’t speak about how he’ll be for the office, but Mattis is a very canny political choice. That won the Trump administration A LOT of brownie points with large swathes of military personnel and veterans. He’s, ah, popular in those quarters. Some of that is mindless fanboyism (Chuck Norris/Bruce Schneier jokes get repurposed for him at times), but that includes an admiration of a perceived gloves-off attitude.
Flynn is a horrible choice, but Mattis is the unknown quantity.. I’ve read he is also paranoid about Iran, but this article seems a bit more optimistic. He is at least opposed to torture.
I can’t speak about how he’ll be for the office, but Mattis is a very canny political choice. That won the Trump administration A LOT of brownie points with large swathes of military personnel and veterans. He’s, ah, popular in those quarters. Some of that is mindless fanboyism (Chuck Norris/Bruce Schneier jokes get repurposed for him at times), but that includes an admiration of a perceived gloves-off attitude.
The personality conflicts and melodramas at this blog are no doubt boring and/ or upsetting or both, but the McCarthyite attitude is much more widespread. That Washington Post article and the initial cheering for it in some liberal sectors didn’t occur in a vacuum. There is a logical distinction between saying that the Russians intervened in the election and accusing a wide range of websites and people of being Russian dupes. The former might be true. The latter is McCarthyism.
NV–Yeah, I have read some of the gung ho descriptions of Mattis. He lead the assault on Fallujah in 2004. I don’t know what to make of him. On the IP conflict he has been critical of the Israelis. Given Trump’s other choices, he looks good in comparison.
And on a different subject, a long piece on Syria and how it is treated in the West. Given Trump’s incoherence, it is hard to say what our future policy will be. Trump seems to want to side with Russia in crushing the rebels. He might not know this puts him on the side of Hezbollah and Iran.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25628/the-left-and-the-syria-debate
The personality conflicts and melodramas at this blog are no doubt boring and/ or upsetting or both, but the McCarthyite attitude is much more widespread. That Washington Post article and the initial cheering for it in some liberal sectors didn’t occur in a vacuum. There is a logical distinction between saying that the Russians intervened in the election and accusing a wide range of websites and people of being Russian dupes. The former might be true. The latter is McCarthyism.
NV–Yeah, I have read some of the gung ho descriptions of Mattis. He lead the assault on Fallujah in 2004. I don’t know what to make of him. On the IP conflict he has been critical of the Israelis. Given Trump’s other choices, he looks good in comparison.
And on a different subject, a long piece on Syria and how it is treated in the West. Given Trump’s incoherence, it is hard to say what our future policy will be. Trump seems to want to side with Russia in crushing the rebels. He might not know this puts him on the side of Hezbollah and Iran.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25628/the-left-and-the-syria-debate
The personality conflicts and melodramas at this blog are no doubt boring and/ or upsetting or both, but the McCarthyite attitude is much more widespread. That Washington Post article and the initial cheering for it in some liberal sectors didn’t occur in a vacuum. There is a logical distinction between saying that the Russians intervened in the election and accusing a wide range of websites and people of being Russian dupes. The former might be true. The latter is McCarthyism.
NV–Yeah, I have read some of the gung ho descriptions of Mattis. He lead the assault on Fallujah in 2004. I don’t know what to make of him. On the IP conflict he has been critical of the Israelis. Given Trump’s other choices, he looks good in comparison.
And on a different subject, a long piece on Syria and how it is treated in the West. Given Trump’s incoherence, it is hard to say what our future policy will be. Trump seems to want to side with Russia in crushing the rebels. He might not know this puts him on the side of Hezbollah and Iran.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25628/the-left-and-the-syria-debate
On Trump, what has become the conventional wisdom on him is that he listens to the last person who speaks to him. And it helps to flatter the hell out of him while you do it. So I guess there will be an even more intense battle than usual for access to the Tsar.
Trying to think who could play the Rasputin figure. Bannon, maybe.
On Trump, what has become the conventional wisdom on him is that he listens to the last person who speaks to him. And it helps to flatter the hell out of him while you do it. So I guess there will be an even more intense battle than usual for access to the Tsar.
Trying to think who could play the Rasputin figure. Bannon, maybe.
On Trump, what has become the conventional wisdom on him is that he listens to the last person who speaks to him. And it helps to flatter the hell out of him while you do it. So I guess there will be an even more intense battle than usual for access to the Tsar.
Trying to think who could play the Rasputin figure. Bannon, maybe.
“There is a logical distinction between saying that the Russians intervened in the election and accusing a wide range of websites and people of being Russian dupes. The former might be true. The latter might also be true, but if not, is McCarthyism.”
There’s a long history of Americans accusing other Americans of being “dupes”, “catspaws”, “in the bag” for a foreign power. But in 1800, it was the UK or France that was the sinister foreign influence, today it’s Russia.
Yet, somehow, never Israel.
“There is a logical distinction between saying that the Russians intervened in the election and accusing a wide range of websites and people of being Russian dupes. The former might be true. The latter might also be true, but if not, is McCarthyism.”
There’s a long history of Americans accusing other Americans of being “dupes”, “catspaws”, “in the bag” for a foreign power. But in 1800, it was the UK or France that was the sinister foreign influence, today it’s Russia.
Yet, somehow, never Israel.
“There is a logical distinction between saying that the Russians intervened in the election and accusing a wide range of websites and people of being Russian dupes. The former might be true. The latter might also be true, but if not, is McCarthyism.”
There’s a long history of Americans accusing other Americans of being “dupes”, “catspaws”, “in the bag” for a foreign power. But in 1800, it was the UK or France that was the sinister foreign influence, today it’s Russia.
Yet, somehow, never Israel.
Yet, somehow, never Israel.
The history of Israel, our participation in its creation, and its home for victims of the Holocaust, escapes you? I despite Netanyahu, and the policies of the right-wing in Israel. But there’s a reason why people in the United States have a special relationship with Israel. “Reason” is doesn’t mean “excuse”, but these are two very different phenomena. Israel, I’m sure, will be the least of your worries very soon.
Yet, somehow, never Israel.
The history of Israel, our participation in its creation, and its home for victims of the Holocaust, escapes you? I despite Netanyahu, and the policies of the right-wing in Israel. But there’s a reason why people in the United States have a special relationship with Israel. “Reason” is doesn’t mean “excuse”, but these are two very different phenomena. Israel, I’m sure, will be the least of your worries very soon.
Yet, somehow, never Israel.
The history of Israel, our participation in its creation, and its home for victims of the Holocaust, escapes you? I despite Netanyahu, and the policies of the right-wing in Israel. But there’s a reason why people in the United States have a special relationship with Israel. “Reason” is doesn’t mean “excuse”, but these are two very different phenomena. Israel, I’m sure, will be the least of your worries very soon.
I meant despise, but my spite is making itself manifest.
I meant despise, but my spite is making itself manifest.
I meant despise, but my spite is making itself manifest.
Israel, despite our “special relationship”, spies on us more than any other ally, and more than a lot of hostile nations. It’s not for nothing that, “special relationship” or no, we still require them to get visas to come here. And that doesn’t even touch on the relevant point, which is the degree to which they exert influence over elected officials and influence our national elections. Or shall we discuss Bibi’s lovely speech to Congress last spring?
So yeah, yet somehow never Israel.
Israel, despite our “special relationship”, spies on us more than any other ally, and more than a lot of hostile nations. It’s not for nothing that, “special relationship” or no, we still require them to get visas to come here. And that doesn’t even touch on the relevant point, which is the degree to which they exert influence over elected officials and influence our national elections. Or shall we discuss Bibi’s lovely speech to Congress last spring?
So yeah, yet somehow never Israel.
Israel, despite our “special relationship”, spies on us more than any other ally, and more than a lot of hostile nations. It’s not for nothing that, “special relationship” or no, we still require them to get visas to come here. And that doesn’t even touch on the relevant point, which is the degree to which they exert influence over elected officials and influence our national elections. Or shall we discuss Bibi’s lovely speech to Congress last spring?
So yeah, yet somehow never Israel.
Oh, I’m completely aware of the history of Israel, and its rather outsized influence on US politics. I was just contrasting what is considered to be “okay influence” with “unacceptable influence”.
There are plenty of countries that Americans have cultural/historical/emotional connections to (Italy, UK, Ireland, France, Mexico, etc) that don’t try so hard to interfere in US politics. But then, those countries aren’t trying to push themselves into a larger role in the world, or feel vulnerable without US protection.
Oh, I’m completely aware of the history of Israel, and its rather outsized influence on US politics. I was just contrasting what is considered to be “okay influence” with “unacceptable influence”.
There are plenty of countries that Americans have cultural/historical/emotional connections to (Italy, UK, Ireland, France, Mexico, etc) that don’t try so hard to interfere in US politics. But then, those countries aren’t trying to push themselves into a larger role in the world, or feel vulnerable without US protection.
Oh, I’m completely aware of the history of Israel, and its rather outsized influence on US politics. I was just contrasting what is considered to be “okay influence” with “unacceptable influence”.
There are plenty of countries that Americans have cultural/historical/emotional connections to (Italy, UK, Ireland, France, Mexico, etc) that don’t try so hard to interfere in US politics. But then, those countries aren’t trying to push themselves into a larger role in the world, or feel vulnerable without US protection.
There are plenty of countries that Americans have cultural/historical/emotional connections to (Italy, UK, Ireland, France, Mexico, etc) that don’t try so hard to interfere in US politics.
Very different connections. They made us; we didn’t make them.
There are plenty of countries that Americans have cultural/historical/emotional connections to (Italy, UK, Ireland, France, Mexico, etc) that don’t try so hard to interfere in US politics.
Very different connections. They made us; we didn’t make them.
There are plenty of countries that Americans have cultural/historical/emotional connections to (Italy, UK, Ireland, France, Mexico, etc) that don’t try so hard to interfere in US politics.
Very different connections. They made us; we didn’t make them.
One problem with Mattis: the law currently requires that members of the military be out of the service (i.e. not on active duty) for seven years before they get to head the Defense Department. And he hasn’t been — more like 3.
Probably Trump could get Congress to grant a waiver. If he asked. Of course, he might just refuse to pay attention to the law, and let Congress go jump….
One problem with Mattis: the law currently requires that members of the military be out of the service (i.e. not on active duty) for seven years before they get to head the Defense Department. And he hasn’t been — more like 3.
Probably Trump could get Congress to grant a waiver. If he asked. Of course, he might just refuse to pay attention to the law, and let Congress go jump….
One problem with Mattis: the law currently requires that members of the military be out of the service (i.e. not on active duty) for seven years before they get to head the Defense Department. And he hasn’t been — more like 3.
Probably Trump could get Congress to grant a waiver. If he asked. Of course, he might just refuse to pay attention to the law, and let Congress go jump….
He already said he was asking for a waiver
He already said he was asking for a waiver
He already said he was asking for a waiver
No problem. It’s been 21 in Mad Dog years.
No problem. It’s been 21 in Mad Dog years.
No problem. It’s been 21 in Mad Dog years.
he could refuse but I think mattis would still have to get past the senate. but they are already requesting a waiver.
out of all of trumps nominees, mattis probably bothers me the least.
he could refuse but I think mattis would still have to get past the senate. but they are already requesting a waiver.
out of all of trumps nominees, mattis probably bothers me the least.
he could refuse but I think mattis would still have to get past the senate. but they are already requesting a waiver.
out of all of trumps nominees, mattis probably bothers me the least.
well, he seems to be a psychopath
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis
but apparently that’s not such a big deal these days
Also, his position on Iran is very, very dangerous, but hey, so was Clinton’s.
well, he seems to be a psychopath
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis
but apparently that’s not such a big deal these days
Also, his position on Iran is very, very dangerous, but hey, so was Clinton’s.
well, he seems to be a psychopath
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis
but apparently that’s not such a big deal these days
Also, his position on Iran is very, very dangerous, but hey, so was Clinton’s.
I take your point about iran. and yes, Mattis sees the world from the point of view of a happy warrior. he seems to really enjoy the fighting part.
but there is also this:
“None of the widely touted new technologies and weapons systems “would have helped me in the last three years [in Iraq and Afghanistan]. But I could have used cultural training [and] language training. I could have used more products from American universities [who] understood the world does not revolve around America and [who] embrace coalitions and allies for all of the strengths that they bring us.”
the comment about PowerPoint is also apt.
I’d prefer someone who doesn’t seem to take the same delight in hands-on warfare. and, someone who doesn’t require a legal exemption to serve.
that said Mattis doesn’t seem to be in bed with whole technology-obsessed, contractor-friendly Rumsfeldian “4th gen warfare” bullshit. he seems to be someone who has a realistic understanding of the costs and limits of what can be achieved by arms.
he’s also not one of trumps rich cronies, or a proxy for the energy industry, or openly hostile to the organization he’s supposed to oversee. which makes him, among trumps nominees, a standout.
I take your point about iran. and yes, Mattis sees the world from the point of view of a happy warrior. he seems to really enjoy the fighting part.
but there is also this:
“None of the widely touted new technologies and weapons systems “would have helped me in the last three years [in Iraq and Afghanistan]. But I could have used cultural training [and] language training. I could have used more products from American universities [who] understood the world does not revolve around America and [who] embrace coalitions and allies for all of the strengths that they bring us.”
the comment about PowerPoint is also apt.
I’d prefer someone who doesn’t seem to take the same delight in hands-on warfare. and, someone who doesn’t require a legal exemption to serve.
that said Mattis doesn’t seem to be in bed with whole technology-obsessed, contractor-friendly Rumsfeldian “4th gen warfare” bullshit. he seems to be someone who has a realistic understanding of the costs and limits of what can be achieved by arms.
he’s also not one of trumps rich cronies, or a proxy for the energy industry, or openly hostile to the organization he’s supposed to oversee. which makes him, among trumps nominees, a standout.
I take your point about iran. and yes, Mattis sees the world from the point of view of a happy warrior. he seems to really enjoy the fighting part.
but there is also this:
“None of the widely touted new technologies and weapons systems “would have helped me in the last three years [in Iraq and Afghanistan]. But I could have used cultural training [and] language training. I could have used more products from American universities [who] understood the world does not revolve around America and [who] embrace coalitions and allies for all of the strengths that they bring us.”
the comment about PowerPoint is also apt.
I’d prefer someone who doesn’t seem to take the same delight in hands-on warfare. and, someone who doesn’t require a legal exemption to serve.
that said Mattis doesn’t seem to be in bed with whole technology-obsessed, contractor-friendly Rumsfeldian “4th gen warfare” bullshit. he seems to be someone who has a realistic understanding of the costs and limits of what can be achieved by arms.
he’s also not one of trumps rich cronies, or a proxy for the energy industry, or openly hostile to the organization he’s supposed to oversee. which makes him, among trumps nominees, a standout.
Mattis opposes torture, and you need his type of personality to have any chance at getting through to Trump.
But on torture, I wasn’t just angry at sapient when I called Obama a collaborator with the CIA. This is the inconsistency one sees in many American liberals. They hate the FBI because it acted anti Clinton in the election, but they love the ” intelligence community” when it starts leaking anonymous claims that Russia intervened, when Obama had just given an order for a full review on that subject. It looked like people were trying to spin the results, why anyone would trust the claims of the “intelligence community” anyway is another mystery. Maybe it is true, maybe not.
Liberals were happy that people like Michael Morrell came out in favor of Clinton, though he seems to be a maniac, telling Charlie Rose a few days after his endorsement that we should be covertly killing Russsians in Syria. We have been covertly aiding people who fight alongside Al Qaeda. Morrell and other CIA types opposed releasing the torture report. The CIA spied on the Senate during that investigation and iirc, Clapper lied. Also, as I recall, the FBI agents were the good guys during the torture era.
So again, if people mean this stuff about resistance then they aren’t acting like it. If people are worried about torture starting again we have a little over a month to urge Obama to release the full text of the torture report. Expose what happened before and when was involved. Make it really difficult for this to happen again. As it stands maybe the CIA would refuse to do it if ordered, worried that they might not escape consequences next time, but so far the actual policy is precisely the opposite, you can torture people so long as your superiors tell you to do it and nobody is to blame. We look forward, not back. Unless you release classified documents and you aren’t an anonymous government official trying to spin a story, but a whistleblower. Then it is jail time, solitary confinement. Psychological torture.
Obama has spent his terms in office acting like he is in the CIA’s pocket.
As for who has too damn much influence on the US, there are the Saudis and the Israelis. Not that we aren’t perfectly capable of being aholes all by ourselves.
Mattis opposes torture, and you need his type of personality to have any chance at getting through to Trump.
But on torture, I wasn’t just angry at sapient when I called Obama a collaborator with the CIA. This is the inconsistency one sees in many American liberals. They hate the FBI because it acted anti Clinton in the election, but they love the ” intelligence community” when it starts leaking anonymous claims that Russia intervened, when Obama had just given an order for a full review on that subject. It looked like people were trying to spin the results, why anyone would trust the claims of the “intelligence community” anyway is another mystery. Maybe it is true, maybe not.
Liberals were happy that people like Michael Morrell came out in favor of Clinton, though he seems to be a maniac, telling Charlie Rose a few days after his endorsement that we should be covertly killing Russsians in Syria. We have been covertly aiding people who fight alongside Al Qaeda. Morrell and other CIA types opposed releasing the torture report. The CIA spied on the Senate during that investigation and iirc, Clapper lied. Also, as I recall, the FBI agents were the good guys during the torture era.
So again, if people mean this stuff about resistance then they aren’t acting like it. If people are worried about torture starting again we have a little over a month to urge Obama to release the full text of the torture report. Expose what happened before and when was involved. Make it really difficult for this to happen again. As it stands maybe the CIA would refuse to do it if ordered, worried that they might not escape consequences next time, but so far the actual policy is precisely the opposite, you can torture people so long as your superiors tell you to do it and nobody is to blame. We look forward, not back. Unless you release classified documents and you aren’t an anonymous government official trying to spin a story, but a whistleblower. Then it is jail time, solitary confinement. Psychological torture.
Obama has spent his terms in office acting like he is in the CIA’s pocket.
As for who has too damn much influence on the US, there are the Saudis and the Israelis. Not that we aren’t perfectly capable of being aholes all by ourselves.
Mattis opposes torture, and you need his type of personality to have any chance at getting through to Trump.
But on torture, I wasn’t just angry at sapient when I called Obama a collaborator with the CIA. This is the inconsistency one sees in many American liberals. They hate the FBI because it acted anti Clinton in the election, but they love the ” intelligence community” when it starts leaking anonymous claims that Russia intervened, when Obama had just given an order for a full review on that subject. It looked like people were trying to spin the results, why anyone would trust the claims of the “intelligence community” anyway is another mystery. Maybe it is true, maybe not.
Liberals were happy that people like Michael Morrell came out in favor of Clinton, though he seems to be a maniac, telling Charlie Rose a few days after his endorsement that we should be covertly killing Russsians in Syria. We have been covertly aiding people who fight alongside Al Qaeda. Morrell and other CIA types opposed releasing the torture report. The CIA spied on the Senate during that investigation and iirc, Clapper lied. Also, as I recall, the FBI agents were the good guys during the torture era.
So again, if people mean this stuff about resistance then they aren’t acting like it. If people are worried about torture starting again we have a little over a month to urge Obama to release the full text of the torture report. Expose what happened before and when was involved. Make it really difficult for this to happen again. As it stands maybe the CIA would refuse to do it if ordered, worried that they might not escape consequences next time, but so far the actual policy is precisely the opposite, you can torture people so long as your superiors tell you to do it and nobody is to blame. We look forward, not back. Unless you release classified documents and you aren’t an anonymous government official trying to spin a story, but a whistleblower. Then it is jail time, solitary confinement. Psychological torture.
Obama has spent his terms in office acting like he is in the CIA’s pocket.
As for who has too damn much influence on the US, there are the Saudis and the Israelis. Not that we aren’t perfectly capable of being aholes all by ourselves.
Who was involved. Not when. Lots of helpful random IPad editing above.
Who was involved. Not when. Lots of helpful random IPad editing above.
Who was involved. Not when. Lots of helpful random IPad editing above.
“This is the inconsistency one sees in many American liberals.”
IMO consistency is a pretty big ask. Let alone moral purity.
None of us are in the position of being able to demand perfect representatives. few if any of us are all that perfect, ourselves. we take what we can get. we work with what’s in front of us.
all of that said:
I’d like to know WTF is going on with both the FBI and the CIA. people are fucking with the electoral process, and we deserve to know what the hell is going on.
at a minimum we deserve to be able to have confidence in the basic mechanics of the process.
this crap is FUBAR
“This is the inconsistency one sees in many American liberals.”
IMO consistency is a pretty big ask. Let alone moral purity.
None of us are in the position of being able to demand perfect representatives. few if any of us are all that perfect, ourselves. we take what we can get. we work with what’s in front of us.
all of that said:
I’d like to know WTF is going on with both the FBI and the CIA. people are fucking with the electoral process, and we deserve to know what the hell is going on.
at a minimum we deserve to be able to have confidence in the basic mechanics of the process.
this crap is FUBAR
“This is the inconsistency one sees in many American liberals.”
IMO consistency is a pretty big ask. Let alone moral purity.
None of us are in the position of being able to demand perfect representatives. few if any of us are all that perfect, ourselves. we take what we can get. we work with what’s in front of us.
all of that said:
I’d like to know WTF is going on with both the FBI and the CIA. people are fucking with the electoral process, and we deserve to know what the hell is going on.
at a minimum we deserve to be able to have confidence in the basic mechanics of the process.
this crap is FUBAR
I see the inconsistency a lot in the comment sections of the NYT– people utterly sure that they are free from the irrationality that plagues everyone else. The controversy over the Senate torture report has gone down the memory hole. That phrase “reality based community” has passed its sell by date.
I want to backtrack on one point in my previous rant. It is likely that the Russians did the hacking of the DNC and gave it to wikileaks, but it is grating to have to rely on the word of politicians and anonymoius government officials. If they spoke in unison on the color of the sky on a clear sunny day, people should still look out the window to confirm that it is blue.
I see the inconsistency a lot in the comment sections of the NYT– people utterly sure that they are free from the irrationality that plagues everyone else. The controversy over the Senate torture report has gone down the memory hole. That phrase “reality based community” has passed its sell by date.
I want to backtrack on one point in my previous rant. It is likely that the Russians did the hacking of the DNC and gave it to wikileaks, but it is grating to have to rely on the word of politicians and anonymoius government officials. If they spoke in unison on the color of the sky on a clear sunny day, people should still look out the window to confirm that it is blue.
I see the inconsistency a lot in the comment sections of the NYT– people utterly sure that they are free from the irrationality that plagues everyone else. The controversy over the Senate torture report has gone down the memory hole. That phrase “reality based community” has passed its sell by date.
I want to backtrack on one point in my previous rant. It is likely that the Russians did the hacking of the DNC and gave it to wikileaks, but it is grating to have to rely on the word of politicians and anonymoius government officials. If they spoke in unison on the color of the sky on a clear sunny day, people should still look out the window to confirm that it is blue.
I hope that Obama does indeed release the Torture report, but it seems that the FBI/CIA always gets their hooks into every President to make sure they know who is REALLY the boss.
Now, if Obama does something like issue a blanket pardon for the torturers, that might have some interesting fallout, since one of the cases that can trigger involvement of the ICC with non-signatories is “crimes against humanity that the country has shown that they WILL NOT prosecute”.
Personally, I think the pardon should be for “Torture and Goat-Fncking”, if they want the one, they have to accept both, and wear it proudly.
I hope that Obama does indeed release the Torture report, but it seems that the FBI/CIA always gets their hooks into every President to make sure they know who is REALLY the boss.
Now, if Obama does something like issue a blanket pardon for the torturers, that might have some interesting fallout, since one of the cases that can trigger involvement of the ICC with non-signatories is “crimes against humanity that the country has shown that they WILL NOT prosecute”.
Personally, I think the pardon should be for “Torture and Goat-Fncking”, if they want the one, they have to accept both, and wear it proudly.
I hope that Obama does indeed release the Torture report, but it seems that the FBI/CIA always gets their hooks into every President to make sure they know who is REALLY the boss.
Now, if Obama does something like issue a blanket pardon for the torturers, that might have some interesting fallout, since one of the cases that can trigger involvement of the ICC with non-signatories is “crimes against humanity that the country has shown that they WILL NOT prosecute”.
Personally, I think the pardon should be for “Torture and Goat-Fncking”, if they want the one, they have to accept both, and wear it proudly.
I don’t think the goat fornicating pardon will fly. Nobody wants PETA on their ass, so to speak. Too many competing acronyms jockeying for power in DC as it is.
The FBI disagrees with the CIA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.160c9359bb3e
I don’t think the goat fornicating pardon will fly. Nobody wants PETA on their ass, so to speak. Too many competing acronyms jockeying for power in DC as it is.
The FBI disagrees with the CIA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.160c9359bb3e
I don’t think the goat fornicating pardon will fly. Nobody wants PETA on their ass, so to speak. Too many competing acronyms jockeying for power in DC as it is.
The FBI disagrees with the CIA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.160c9359bb3e
Peter Beinart and Boteach agree Bannon is not an antisemite. Beinart says he is a lot of other bad things, like Islamophobic and misogynistic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zz_SoOSmUo&ebc=ANyPxKpztaADAghMtyIVB_Vq9wgxnFiVk_fRCO7aZU8redIS8Ai0P_34l4NkjA4xYDfgLmj-WDXF
I tend to agree with Beinart. One has to distinguish between the far right and the far far right. The far far types still have their old hatreds–the merely far right has learned to embrace Israel as another excuse for hating Muslims.
Peter Beinart and Boteach agree Bannon is not an antisemite. Beinart says he is a lot of other bad things, like Islamophobic and misogynistic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zz_SoOSmUo&ebc=ANyPxKpztaADAghMtyIVB_Vq9wgxnFiVk_fRCO7aZU8redIS8Ai0P_34l4NkjA4xYDfgLmj-WDXF
I tend to agree with Beinart. One has to distinguish between the far right and the far far right. The far far types still have their old hatreds–the merely far right has learned to embrace Israel as another excuse for hating Muslims.
Peter Beinart and Boteach agree Bannon is not an antisemite. Beinart says he is a lot of other bad things, like Islamophobic and misogynistic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zz_SoOSmUo&ebc=ANyPxKpztaADAghMtyIVB_Vq9wgxnFiVk_fRCO7aZU8redIS8Ai0P_34l4NkjA4xYDfgLmj-WDXF
I tend to agree with Beinart. One has to distinguish between the far right and the far far right. The far far types still have their old hatreds–the merely far right has learned to embrace Israel as another excuse for hating Muslims.
Marcy Wheeler on all things relating to Russia and the election
The title is a bit misleading. Some things are strongly supported and some aren’t, as she explains.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian-hack/
Marcy Wheeler on all things relating to Russia and the election
The title is a bit misleading. Some things are strongly supported and some aren’t, as she explains.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian-hack/
Marcy Wheeler on all things relating to Russia and the election
The title is a bit misleading. Some things are strongly supported and some aren’t, as she explains.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian-hack/
Perhaps my memory is playing me false. But what I think I remember is the CIA briefing the candidates. And then leaks from the campaigns (including from Trump personally). Whereas the FBI was giving public announcements.
We can argue about which approach caused the most impact. But it seems like (assuming my memory of events is close to accurate) the FBI was more directly trying to influence the results.
Perhaps my memory is playing me false. But what I think I remember is the CIA briefing the candidates. And then leaks from the campaigns (including from Trump personally). Whereas the FBI was giving public announcements.
We can argue about which approach caused the most impact. But it seems like (assuming my memory of events is close to accurate) the FBI was more directly trying to influence the results.
Perhaps my memory is playing me false. But what I think I remember is the CIA briefing the candidates. And then leaks from the campaigns (including from Trump personally). Whereas the FBI was giving public announcements.
We can argue about which approach caused the most impact. But it seems like (assuming my memory of events is close to accurate) the FBI was more directly trying to influence the results.
he’s also not one of trumps rich cronies, or a proxy for the energy industry, or openly hostile to the organization he’s supposed to oversee. which makes him, among trumps nominees, a standout.
Don’t worry, he’s not without questionable behaviors when it comes to regulatory processes:
he’s also not one of trumps rich cronies, or a proxy for the energy industry, or openly hostile to the organization he’s supposed to oversee. which makes him, among trumps nominees, a standout.
Don’t worry, he’s not without questionable behaviors when it comes to regulatory processes:
he’s also not one of trumps rich cronies, or a proxy for the energy industry, or openly hostile to the organization he’s supposed to oversee. which makes him, among trumps nominees, a standout.
Don’t worry, he’s not without questionable behaviors when it comes to regulatory processes:
For those interested, this is an update of the Observer piece last weekend about Google being gamed by the right:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/google-frames-shapes-and-distorts-how-we-see-world
Extracts:
It’s a much shorter piece, but containing interesting stuff about how for example Google has dealt with this writer’s criticism in the past:
I still actually, naively, believe that Google would rather not be evil, as per their famous mission statement. Hopefully, in response to these findings, and pieces like this, they will rethink their responsibilities. Time will tell…
For those interested, this is an update of the Observer piece last weekend about Google being gamed by the right:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/google-frames-shapes-and-distorts-how-we-see-world
Extracts:
It’s a much shorter piece, but containing interesting stuff about how for example Google has dealt with this writer’s criticism in the past:
I still actually, naively, believe that Google would rather not be evil, as per their famous mission statement. Hopefully, in response to these findings, and pieces like this, they will rethink their responsibilities. Time will tell…
For those interested, this is an update of the Observer piece last weekend about Google being gamed by the right:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/google-frames-shapes-and-distorts-how-we-see-world
Extracts:
It’s a much shorter piece, but containing interesting stuff about how for example Google has dealt with this writer’s criticism in the past:
I still actually, naively, believe that Google would rather not be evil, as per their famous mission statement. Hopefully, in response to these findings, and pieces like this, they will rethink their responsibilities. Time will tell…
Wj–not sure if our were responding to me or someone else, but I think the CIA is rotten in other ways, not in interfering or no use own election.
On that subject, this very short post is a bit ironic–
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-cant-russia-be-like-us-us-never.html
Wj–not sure if our were responding to me or someone else, but I think the CIA is rotten in other ways, not in interfering or no use own election.
On that subject, this very short post is a bit ironic–
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-cant-russia-be-like-us-us-never.html
Wj–not sure if our were responding to me or someone else, but I think the CIA is rotten in other ways, not in interfering or no use own election.
On that subject, this very short post is a bit ironic–
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-cant-russia-be-like-us-us-never.html
Donald, I was looking very narrowly at the influence, or (possible) attempted influence, of US elections. Good or bad acts in other arenas, by either the CIA or FBI, would be a different discussion.
Donald, I was looking very narrowly at the influence, or (possible) attempted influence, of US elections. Good or bad acts in other arenas, by either the CIA or FBI, would be a different discussion.
Donald, I was looking very narrowly at the influence, or (possible) attempted influence, of US elections. Good or bad acts in other arenas, by either the CIA or FBI, would be a different discussion.
From GftNC’s google second excerpt: This is how power works too: the last time I wrote a story that Google didn’t like, I got a call from Peter Barron, Google’s UK head of press, who was at pains to point out the positive and beneficial relationship that Google has with the Guardian Media Group, our owners.
Well, I have been calling media when I think a story is biased. For example, I called CBS News when I saw that they had a headline parroting the words of Donald Trump. Unless the press wants never to be challenged, getting a phone call from the subject of an article responding to a story really shouldn’t be seen as intimidation, should it? I have been suggesting that everyone, as a way to act, contact a press organization if you see something that is being reported in a way that is unfair.
I’m not sure what to do other than let the exchange of ideas go on, including calling out Google, and calling out the press. To me, it doesn’t seem like telephone calls are nefarious harassment without a lot more that what is said here.
From GftNC’s google second excerpt: This is how power works too: the last time I wrote a story that Google didn’t like, I got a call from Peter Barron, Google’s UK head of press, who was at pains to point out the positive and beneficial relationship that Google has with the Guardian Media Group, our owners.
Well, I have been calling media when I think a story is biased. For example, I called CBS News when I saw that they had a headline parroting the words of Donald Trump. Unless the press wants never to be challenged, getting a phone call from the subject of an article responding to a story really shouldn’t be seen as intimidation, should it? I have been suggesting that everyone, as a way to act, contact a press organization if you see something that is being reported in a way that is unfair.
I’m not sure what to do other than let the exchange of ideas go on, including calling out Google, and calling out the press. To me, it doesn’t seem like telephone calls are nefarious harassment without a lot more that what is said here.
From GftNC’s google second excerpt: This is how power works too: the last time I wrote a story that Google didn’t like, I got a call from Peter Barron, Google’s UK head of press, who was at pains to point out the positive and beneficial relationship that Google has with the Guardian Media Group, our owners.
Well, I have been calling media when I think a story is biased. For example, I called CBS News when I saw that they had a headline parroting the words of Donald Trump. Unless the press wants never to be challenged, getting a phone call from the subject of an article responding to a story really shouldn’t be seen as intimidation, should it? I have been suggesting that everyone, as a way to act, contact a press organization if you see something that is being reported in a way that is unfair.
I’m not sure what to do other than let the exchange of ideas go on, including calling out Google, and calling out the press. To me, it doesn’t seem like telephone calls are nefarious harassment without a lot more that what is said here.
Good advice sapient. Google obviously haven’t intimidated Carole Cadwalladr, the author of the two pieces, but it is still depressing to read of this kind of implicit “threat” (if that is not too strong a word) by them.
Good advice sapient. Google obviously haven’t intimidated Carole Cadwalladr, the author of the two pieces, but it is still depressing to read of this kind of implicit “threat” (if that is not too strong a word) by them.
Good advice sapient. Google obviously haven’t intimidated Carole Cadwalladr, the author of the two pieces, but it is still depressing to read of this kind of implicit “threat” (if that is not too strong a word) by them.
but it is still depressing to read of this kind of implicit “threat” (if that is not too strong a word) by them.
I guess I just disagree that their actions with regard to this reporter is “intimidation.” Maybe I’m just used to corporations having PR departments, but this doesn’t seem like anything other than that.
Google is a large and powerful corporation, obviously, and should receive a healthy dose of scrutiny. I guess it’s not first on the list of things that are worrying me right now.
but it is still depressing to read of this kind of implicit “threat” (if that is not too strong a word) by them.
I guess I just disagree that their actions with regard to this reporter is “intimidation.” Maybe I’m just used to corporations having PR departments, but this doesn’t seem like anything other than that.
Google is a large and powerful corporation, obviously, and should receive a healthy dose of scrutiny. I guess it’s not first on the list of things that are worrying me right now.
but it is still depressing to read of this kind of implicit “threat” (if that is not too strong a word) by them.
I guess I just disagree that their actions with regard to this reporter is “intimidation.” Maybe I’m just used to corporations having PR departments, but this doesn’t seem like anything other than that.
Google is a large and powerful corporation, obviously, and should receive a healthy dose of scrutiny. I guess it’s not first on the list of things that are worrying me right now.
It seems to me the worrying thing about Google right now is how they are being/have been used by the huge (and growing) network of rightwing sites which are gaming their search, both predicted questions, and then results, on an enormous scale. Carol Cadwalladr’s reporting (last week and this) on the recent research which has revealed this, will hopefully hamper the spreading of this fake, pernicious propaganda which produces all the top search results showing, for example, that jews and women are evil, and that the holocaust never happened.
It seems to me the worrying thing about Google right now is how they are being/have been used by the huge (and growing) network of rightwing sites which are gaming their search, both predicted questions, and then results, on an enormous scale. Carol Cadwalladr’s reporting (last week and this) on the recent research which has revealed this, will hopefully hamper the spreading of this fake, pernicious propaganda which produces all the top search results showing, for example, that jews and women are evil, and that the holocaust never happened.
It seems to me the worrying thing about Google right now is how they are being/have been used by the huge (and growing) network of rightwing sites which are gaming their search, both predicted questions, and then results, on an enormous scale. Carol Cadwalladr’s reporting (last week and this) on the recent research which has revealed this, will hopefully hamper the spreading of this fake, pernicious propaganda which produces all the top search results showing, for example, that jews and women are evil, and that the holocaust never happened.
GrtNC, I have mixed feelings about that article’s premise. On one hand, they’re right that it’s a serious problem, but on the other they’re entirely mischaracterizing it. The author claims to be complaining about Google not being neutral, but that’s the opposite of what’s happening, and the opposite of what the author actually wants. If Google were neutral, they would not go in and perform manual edits at the behest of individuals. The author is calling for benevolent censorship while claiming they’re advocating neutrality.
This is not a new problem, of course, nor even an unfamiliar one. The author is peddling the notion that their interpretation of reality is “fact” and that of people they disagree with is “opinion”. Thus, Google can’t be seen as a service to provide access to data, it must be seen as a media service consciously providing access to information on one hand and opinions on the other. But that’s absolutely not being neutral. That’s favoring one group’s understanding of facts/history/etc. It may be to a laudable end, but it’s still deeming the gov’t – or worse, a private corporation – to be the appropriate arbitrator of what we can and cannot say.
Some of this comes from a deeply-rooted fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is – it’s not a repository of facts as derived from objective reality, but rather of information created by biased individuals. The author isn’t willing to combat that pernicious misunderstanding – they want people to be able to uncritically accept whatever they read – but that can only work if unorthodox opinions are suppressed. It’s a very problematic path to set out on, and frankly it’s not a particularly noble goal.
If Google is to be neutral, they should not be able to be pressured into changing results because someone does not like them; they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate. That’s not easy, because the algorithm needs to be generalized, but people seeking to defeat it and control its output need only focus on very narrow subsets of inputs to achieve specific outputs. And if that’s not feasible in the short or long term, we should have a discussion of whether we want to impose censorship to exclude ideas we generally agree are toxic. But we absolutely should not be clamoring for censorship under the disingenuous guise of “restoring neutrality”.
(And yes, a lot of that is essentially pedantic, but Cadwalladr is misrepresenting her position so drastically that the obvious needs stated to address what she’s claiming.)
GrtNC, I have mixed feelings about that article’s premise. On one hand, they’re right that it’s a serious problem, but on the other they’re entirely mischaracterizing it. The author claims to be complaining about Google not being neutral, but that’s the opposite of what’s happening, and the opposite of what the author actually wants. If Google were neutral, they would not go in and perform manual edits at the behest of individuals. The author is calling for benevolent censorship while claiming they’re advocating neutrality.
This is not a new problem, of course, nor even an unfamiliar one. The author is peddling the notion that their interpretation of reality is “fact” and that of people they disagree with is “opinion”. Thus, Google can’t be seen as a service to provide access to data, it must be seen as a media service consciously providing access to information on one hand and opinions on the other. But that’s absolutely not being neutral. That’s favoring one group’s understanding of facts/history/etc. It may be to a laudable end, but it’s still deeming the gov’t – or worse, a private corporation – to be the appropriate arbitrator of what we can and cannot say.
Some of this comes from a deeply-rooted fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is – it’s not a repository of facts as derived from objective reality, but rather of information created by biased individuals. The author isn’t willing to combat that pernicious misunderstanding – they want people to be able to uncritically accept whatever they read – but that can only work if unorthodox opinions are suppressed. It’s a very problematic path to set out on, and frankly it’s not a particularly noble goal.
If Google is to be neutral, they should not be able to be pressured into changing results because someone does not like them; they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate. That’s not easy, because the algorithm needs to be generalized, but people seeking to defeat it and control its output need only focus on very narrow subsets of inputs to achieve specific outputs. And if that’s not feasible in the short or long term, we should have a discussion of whether we want to impose censorship to exclude ideas we generally agree are toxic. But we absolutely should not be clamoring for censorship under the disingenuous guise of “restoring neutrality”.
(And yes, a lot of that is essentially pedantic, but Cadwalladr is misrepresenting her position so drastically that the obvious needs stated to address what she’s claiming.)
GrtNC, I have mixed feelings about that article’s premise. On one hand, they’re right that it’s a serious problem, but on the other they’re entirely mischaracterizing it. The author claims to be complaining about Google not being neutral, but that’s the opposite of what’s happening, and the opposite of what the author actually wants. If Google were neutral, they would not go in and perform manual edits at the behest of individuals. The author is calling for benevolent censorship while claiming they’re advocating neutrality.
This is not a new problem, of course, nor even an unfamiliar one. The author is peddling the notion that their interpretation of reality is “fact” and that of people they disagree with is “opinion”. Thus, Google can’t be seen as a service to provide access to data, it must be seen as a media service consciously providing access to information on one hand and opinions on the other. But that’s absolutely not being neutral. That’s favoring one group’s understanding of facts/history/etc. It may be to a laudable end, but it’s still deeming the gov’t – or worse, a private corporation – to be the appropriate arbitrator of what we can and cannot say.
Some of this comes from a deeply-rooted fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is – it’s not a repository of facts as derived from objective reality, but rather of information created by biased individuals. The author isn’t willing to combat that pernicious misunderstanding – they want people to be able to uncritically accept whatever they read – but that can only work if unorthodox opinions are suppressed. It’s a very problematic path to set out on, and frankly it’s not a particularly noble goal.
If Google is to be neutral, they should not be able to be pressured into changing results because someone does not like them; they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate. That’s not easy, because the algorithm needs to be generalized, but people seeking to defeat it and control its output need only focus on very narrow subsets of inputs to achieve specific outputs. And if that’s not feasible in the short or long term, we should have a discussion of whether we want to impose censorship to exclude ideas we generally agree are toxic. But we absolutely should not be clamoring for censorship under the disingenuous guise of “restoring neutrality”.
(And yes, a lot of that is essentially pedantic, but Cadwalladr is misrepresenting her position so drastically that the obvious needs stated to address what she’s claiming.)
OMG, we agree, NV. Thoughtful comment.
OMG, we agree, NV. Thoughtful comment.
OMG, we agree, NV. Thoughtful comment.
NV, she is not complaining that Google is not neutral, she is complaining that they are pretending to be neutral (which of course makes it more likely that people will believe what they find there) when they are not, and she uses their manual edits as proof that they are not. And she has said before (maybe in last week’s piece but she implies it in this piece) that in order to start dealing with this situation they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate, as you suggest. As for “facts” v “opinions”, her example this week of “did the holocaust happen” being supplied, and then answered several times with a negative, is not a question of “opinions”, it is an example of lies and manipulation, in the service of racist ideology, being presented as reliable information.
Your comment:
Some of this comes from a deeply-rooted fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is – it’s not a repository of facts as derived from objective reality, but rather of information created by biased individuals.
is a profound and important truth, but you follow it with a misrepresentation of her intention when you say: The author isn’t willing to combat that pernicious misunderstanding – they want people to be able to uncritically accept whatever they read – but that can only work if unorthodox opinions are suppressed.
I don’t believe that this is what she is saying at all, in neither piece does she suggest that any of this stuff should be suppressed. She is objecting to the fact that Google have allowed themselves to be gamed into providing suggested questions which explicitly favour a far-right agenda, and then providing all the top answers, on the front page, in line with that same far-right agenda. It certainly used to be the case that the extremist, nuts stuff showed up on the 5th, or 10th page – I don’t think anybody is objecting to that, or wanting it suppressed.
NV, she is not complaining that Google is not neutral, she is complaining that they are pretending to be neutral (which of course makes it more likely that people will believe what they find there) when they are not, and she uses their manual edits as proof that they are not. And she has said before (maybe in last week’s piece but she implies it in this piece) that in order to start dealing with this situation they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate, as you suggest. As for “facts” v “opinions”, her example this week of “did the holocaust happen” being supplied, and then answered several times with a negative, is not a question of “opinions”, it is an example of lies and manipulation, in the service of racist ideology, being presented as reliable information.
Your comment:
Some of this comes from a deeply-rooted fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is – it’s not a repository of facts as derived from objective reality, but rather of information created by biased individuals.
is a profound and important truth, but you follow it with a misrepresentation of her intention when you say: The author isn’t willing to combat that pernicious misunderstanding – they want people to be able to uncritically accept whatever they read – but that can only work if unorthodox opinions are suppressed.
I don’t believe that this is what she is saying at all, in neither piece does she suggest that any of this stuff should be suppressed. She is objecting to the fact that Google have allowed themselves to be gamed into providing suggested questions which explicitly favour a far-right agenda, and then providing all the top answers, on the front page, in line with that same far-right agenda. It certainly used to be the case that the extremist, nuts stuff showed up on the 5th, or 10th page – I don’t think anybody is objecting to that, or wanting it suppressed.
NV, she is not complaining that Google is not neutral, she is complaining that they are pretending to be neutral (which of course makes it more likely that people will believe what they find there) when they are not, and she uses their manual edits as proof that they are not. And she has said before (maybe in last week’s piece but she implies it in this piece) that in order to start dealing with this situation they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate, as you suggest. As for “facts” v “opinions”, her example this week of “did the holocaust happen” being supplied, and then answered several times with a negative, is not a question of “opinions”, it is an example of lies and manipulation, in the service of racist ideology, being presented as reliable information.
Your comment:
Some of this comes from a deeply-rooted fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is – it’s not a repository of facts as derived from objective reality, but rather of information created by biased individuals.
is a profound and important truth, but you follow it with a misrepresentation of her intention when you say: The author isn’t willing to combat that pernicious misunderstanding – they want people to be able to uncritically accept whatever they read – but that can only work if unorthodox opinions are suppressed.
I don’t believe that this is what she is saying at all, in neither piece does she suggest that any of this stuff should be suppressed. She is objecting to the fact that Google have allowed themselves to be gamed into providing suggested questions which explicitly favour a far-right agenda, and then providing all the top answers, on the front page, in line with that same far-right agenda. It certainly used to be the case that the extremist, nuts stuff showed up on the 5th, or 10th page – I don’t think anybody is objecting to that, or wanting it suppressed.
it’s not clear to me what the author is claiming that Google did. when she says they ‘edited the results’ does she mean they manually tweaked the set of results returned from her search? or that they changed the content of the pages that the links in the result set point to?
both of these things are not likely. the second, specifically, goes well beyond unlikely.
Google is by far the predominant search engine, at least in Europe and the americas. as such there is a significant industry devoted to (a) figuring out how their page rank algorithm works and (b) gaming it so your stuff pops up to the top of page 1.
for business and other reasons, Google continually monitors this to detect and counter attempts to game page rank.
to my knowledge, Google does not intervene in the search stuff based on the content of the pages they index. they intervene when they suspect that people are trying to artificially boost the ranking of their pages by gaming page rank.
if noxious pages are bubbling to the top of the search because of gaming, Google may and probably will address that.
if they are bubbling to the top because lots and lots of people read and link to them, that is a problem, but not one that can be blamed on google.
it’s not clear to me what the author is claiming that Google did. when she says they ‘edited the results’ does she mean they manually tweaked the set of results returned from her search? or that they changed the content of the pages that the links in the result set point to?
both of these things are not likely. the second, specifically, goes well beyond unlikely.
Google is by far the predominant search engine, at least in Europe and the americas. as such there is a significant industry devoted to (a) figuring out how their page rank algorithm works and (b) gaming it so your stuff pops up to the top of page 1.
for business and other reasons, Google continually monitors this to detect and counter attempts to game page rank.
to my knowledge, Google does not intervene in the search stuff based on the content of the pages they index. they intervene when they suspect that people are trying to artificially boost the ranking of their pages by gaming page rank.
if noxious pages are bubbling to the top of the search because of gaming, Google may and probably will address that.
if they are bubbling to the top because lots and lots of people read and link to them, that is a problem, but not one that can be blamed on google.
it’s not clear to me what the author is claiming that Google did. when she says they ‘edited the results’ does she mean they manually tweaked the set of results returned from her search? or that they changed the content of the pages that the links in the result set point to?
both of these things are not likely. the second, specifically, goes well beyond unlikely.
Google is by far the predominant search engine, at least in Europe and the americas. as such there is a significant industry devoted to (a) figuring out how their page rank algorithm works and (b) gaming it so your stuff pops up to the top of page 1.
for business and other reasons, Google continually monitors this to detect and counter attempts to game page rank.
to my knowledge, Google does not intervene in the search stuff based on the content of the pages they index. they intervene when they suspect that people are trying to artificially boost the ranking of their pages by gaming page rank.
if noxious pages are bubbling to the top of the search because of gaming, Google may and probably will address that.
if they are bubbling to the top because lots and lots of people read and link to them, that is a problem, but not one that can be blamed on google.
If something I posted got sapient and NV to agree, that’s good enough for me. I’m going to bed.
If something I posted got sapient and NV to agree, that’s good enough for me. I’m going to bed.
If something I posted got sapient and NV to agree, that’s good enough for me. I’m going to bed.
“in order to start dealing with this situation they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate”
not to put too fine a point on it, but nazis aside, the resources Google invests in ‘making their algorithm harder to manipulate’ may be larger than the gdp of some small countries.
likewise, the resources that the rest of the planet invests in new ways to game it all.
I’m sort of making a joke, but then again maybe not.
it is, literally, an industry unto itself.
“in order to start dealing with this situation they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate”
not to put too fine a point on it, but nazis aside, the resources Google invests in ‘making their algorithm harder to manipulate’ may be larger than the gdp of some small countries.
likewise, the resources that the rest of the planet invests in new ways to game it all.
I’m sort of making a joke, but then again maybe not.
it is, literally, an industry unto itself.
“in order to start dealing with this situation they should be making their algorithms harder to manipulate”
not to put too fine a point on it, but nazis aside, the resources Google invests in ‘making their algorithm harder to manipulate’ may be larger than the gdp of some small countries.
likewise, the resources that the rest of the planet invests in new ways to game it all.
I’m sort of making a joke, but then again maybe not.
it is, literally, an industry unto itself.
FWIW russell, by “editing” I assumed Carole Cadwalladr meant they changed the suggested autocomplete questions when you type in the first few letters.
FWIW russell, by “editing” I assumed Carole Cadwalladr meant they changed the suggested autocomplete questions when you type in the first few letters.
FWIW russell, by “editing” I assumed Carole Cadwalladr meant they changed the suggested autocomplete questions when you type in the first few letters.
She is objecting to the fact that Google have allowed themselves to be gamed into providing suggested questions which explicitly favour a far-right agenda, and then providing all the top answers, on the front page, in line with that same far-right agenda.
Yes, and my criticism of the piece is the part about “allowed themselves”. They are, as russell noted, probably constantly adjusting their algorithms so that they aren’t being “played.” I have worked on a web project (nonpolitical) where we very much wanted to be prominent on Google’s search engine. (This was in the old days.) There were certain tricks available then to help one rise to the top. Google has made it much more difficult to do that, and they’re constantly trying to do that. They charge money for promoted web sites, but those are identified as such.
All in all, russell explains it best.
My problem with the Carol Cadwalladr’s article (interestingly, my same problem with some critics of government behavior) is that she doesn’t really spell out what Google is supposed to be doing about this problem, considering its complexity. Instead she asserts that evil big corporation Google is too close to the government, and Google is “allowing” stuff to happen, while making insufficient (in her view) fixes. The article doesn’t really hang together.
Her first article had some excellent reporting regarding the problem that Google faces, and I appreciate that very much.
Also, I can’t imagine a Googleless world.
She is objecting to the fact that Google have allowed themselves to be gamed into providing suggested questions which explicitly favour a far-right agenda, and then providing all the top answers, on the front page, in line with that same far-right agenda.
Yes, and my criticism of the piece is the part about “allowed themselves”. They are, as russell noted, probably constantly adjusting their algorithms so that they aren’t being “played.” I have worked on a web project (nonpolitical) where we very much wanted to be prominent on Google’s search engine. (This was in the old days.) There were certain tricks available then to help one rise to the top. Google has made it much more difficult to do that, and they’re constantly trying to do that. They charge money for promoted web sites, but those are identified as such.
All in all, russell explains it best.
My problem with the Carol Cadwalladr’s article (interestingly, my same problem with some critics of government behavior) is that she doesn’t really spell out what Google is supposed to be doing about this problem, considering its complexity. Instead she asserts that evil big corporation Google is too close to the government, and Google is “allowing” stuff to happen, while making insufficient (in her view) fixes. The article doesn’t really hang together.
Her first article had some excellent reporting regarding the problem that Google faces, and I appreciate that very much.
Also, I can’t imagine a Googleless world.
She is objecting to the fact that Google have allowed themselves to be gamed into providing suggested questions which explicitly favour a far-right agenda, and then providing all the top answers, on the front page, in line with that same far-right agenda.
Yes, and my criticism of the piece is the part about “allowed themselves”. They are, as russell noted, probably constantly adjusting their algorithms so that they aren’t being “played.” I have worked on a web project (nonpolitical) where we very much wanted to be prominent on Google’s search engine. (This was in the old days.) There were certain tricks available then to help one rise to the top. Google has made it much more difficult to do that, and they’re constantly trying to do that. They charge money for promoted web sites, but those are identified as such.
All in all, russell explains it best.
My problem with the Carol Cadwalladr’s article (interestingly, my same problem with some critics of government behavior) is that she doesn’t really spell out what Google is supposed to be doing about this problem, considering its complexity. Instead she asserts that evil big corporation Google is too close to the government, and Google is “allowing” stuff to happen, while making insufficient (in her view) fixes. The article doesn’t really hang together.
Her first article had some excellent reporting regarding the problem that Google faces, and I appreciate that very much.
Also, I can’t imagine a Googleless world.
I remember the first time I used google.
I brought up the main page and said two things:
“wow, that loaded fast!”
“where are the ads?”
it’s a great tool, and for the average user it’s free.
they can’t do everything.
I remember the first time I used google.
I brought up the main page and said two things:
“wow, that loaded fast!”
“where are the ads?”
it’s a great tool, and for the average user it’s free.
they can’t do everything.
I remember the first time I used google.
I brought up the main page and said two things:
“wow, that loaded fast!”
“where are the ads?”
it’s a great tool, and for the average user it’s free.
they can’t do everything.
NV, she is not complaining that Google is not neutral, she is complaining that they are pretending to be neutral (which of course makes it more likely that people will believe what they find there) when they are not, and she uses their manual edits as proof that they are not.
Actually, I’d say she’s doing something rather pernicious – she’s seeking to influence or pressure Google into behaving in a non-neutral manner IOT reduce the prominence of right-wingers, and then she’s using any success she might have as evidence that they’re not neutral and should give up all pretense of being neutral. She’s arguing that Google isn’t neutral because they’re not manually eliminating all according-to-her problematic autocomplete results, as well as any again-per-her hate-speech disseminating results to potentially-problematic queries, and she’s using her prior pressuring of them into manually changing autocompletions (but not search results) as evidence that they are willing to do this as a matter of course. It’s… slimy. Mind you, it’s sliminess deployed in the interest of suppressing something else that’s slimy. But that doesn’t change what she’s advocating, or how. She’s compelled Google to act in a non-neutral fashion, and because she succeeded, she apparently feels empowered to argue that anything less than complete capitulation to her demands is a sign of non-neutrality in favor of those she opposes.
As russell points out, a lot of work goes into search and question answering on both sides of the search bar. Those are fields that never much interested me, but I had classmates and peers who studied them (some of whom now work at Google) and I picked up enough to have a sloppy idea of general technical principles. If Google manually adjusted autocomplete results (which is related to search and QA, but not exactly the same thing) as Cadwalladr suggests by the changed results, they’re doing what she claims, though her logic about what they must do as a result of that remains questionable. However, if they adjusted the autocomplete algorithm indirectly so it does not autocomplete to that, her argument is a harder sell. HOWEVER. If you accept her argument in the general case, you probably still should accept it even if the changes were indirect. Search and QA rely on statistical and machine learning – which is to say, big data driven – techniques. The tech sector loves to portray these as objective. They are not. The targets you aim for determine what a “good” outcome looks like*, and if the autocomplete algorithm was altered to no longer complete to the particular troublesome phrases she reported, the effect is still the same as if they were manually edited as she claims (and they may well have been).
There’s a tension here, and a lot of it comes from her conflating of two criticisms into a single idea. She’s objecting to the autocomplete results, which is very possibly based on blacklists of keywords or keyword clusters. That doesn’t appear to be neutral. She’s also objecting to the question answering results, however, and those are mechanically separate. And in one process, Google appears to be willing to be swayed to censor its algorithms – and I’m actually broadly okay with this unless it can be shown that autocomplete is likely to change what many people search for. I’m not pleased, but I’m not outraged. In the other process, Google doesn’t appear to be willing to alter its results, and I’m actually happy with that no matter what. If Google gets into the business of censoring content based on it containing non-criminal speech or data, that’s… a problem. So long as its QA algorithms are not based on the content of the results in reference to anything but other results, I’m perfectly fine with them turning up factually incorrect articles so long as they do so according to a consistently applied methodology. Ideally, there are no political considerations involved and it’s basing its results on structural or network features. It may be subject to gaming, and Google will and should continue to make it more difficult to game, but I don’t want Google to decide what information should be made available based on external political vetting. That’s, um, bad.
*And this is even more true when you’re dealing with censorship, which is definitely a factor with autocomplete; e.g., “I want to fuc” does not autocomplete to anything because Google doesn’t want it to.
NV, she is not complaining that Google is not neutral, she is complaining that they are pretending to be neutral (which of course makes it more likely that people will believe what they find there) when they are not, and she uses their manual edits as proof that they are not.
Actually, I’d say she’s doing something rather pernicious – she’s seeking to influence or pressure Google into behaving in a non-neutral manner IOT reduce the prominence of right-wingers, and then she’s using any success she might have as evidence that they’re not neutral and should give up all pretense of being neutral. She’s arguing that Google isn’t neutral because they’re not manually eliminating all according-to-her problematic autocomplete results, as well as any again-per-her hate-speech disseminating results to potentially-problematic queries, and she’s using her prior pressuring of them into manually changing autocompletions (but not search results) as evidence that they are willing to do this as a matter of course. It’s… slimy. Mind you, it’s sliminess deployed in the interest of suppressing something else that’s slimy. But that doesn’t change what she’s advocating, or how. She’s compelled Google to act in a non-neutral fashion, and because she succeeded, she apparently feels empowered to argue that anything less than complete capitulation to her demands is a sign of non-neutrality in favor of those she opposes.
As russell points out, a lot of work goes into search and question answering on both sides of the search bar. Those are fields that never much interested me, but I had classmates and peers who studied them (some of whom now work at Google) and I picked up enough to have a sloppy idea of general technical principles. If Google manually adjusted autocomplete results (which is related to search and QA, but not exactly the same thing) as Cadwalladr suggests by the changed results, they’re doing what she claims, though her logic about what they must do as a result of that remains questionable. However, if they adjusted the autocomplete algorithm indirectly so it does not autocomplete to that, her argument is a harder sell. HOWEVER. If you accept her argument in the general case, you probably still should accept it even if the changes were indirect. Search and QA rely on statistical and machine learning – which is to say, big data driven – techniques. The tech sector loves to portray these as objective. They are not. The targets you aim for determine what a “good” outcome looks like*, and if the autocomplete algorithm was altered to no longer complete to the particular troublesome phrases she reported, the effect is still the same as if they were manually edited as she claims (and they may well have been).
There’s a tension here, and a lot of it comes from her conflating of two criticisms into a single idea. She’s objecting to the autocomplete results, which is very possibly based on blacklists of keywords or keyword clusters. That doesn’t appear to be neutral. She’s also objecting to the question answering results, however, and those are mechanically separate. And in one process, Google appears to be willing to be swayed to censor its algorithms – and I’m actually broadly okay with this unless it can be shown that autocomplete is likely to change what many people search for. I’m not pleased, but I’m not outraged. In the other process, Google doesn’t appear to be willing to alter its results, and I’m actually happy with that no matter what. If Google gets into the business of censoring content based on it containing non-criminal speech or data, that’s… a problem. So long as its QA algorithms are not based on the content of the results in reference to anything but other results, I’m perfectly fine with them turning up factually incorrect articles so long as they do so according to a consistently applied methodology. Ideally, there are no political considerations involved and it’s basing its results on structural or network features. It may be subject to gaming, and Google will and should continue to make it more difficult to game, but I don’t want Google to decide what information should be made available based on external political vetting. That’s, um, bad.
*And this is even more true when you’re dealing with censorship, which is definitely a factor with autocomplete; e.g., “I want to fuc” does not autocomplete to anything because Google doesn’t want it to.
NV, she is not complaining that Google is not neutral, she is complaining that they are pretending to be neutral (which of course makes it more likely that people will believe what they find there) when they are not, and she uses their manual edits as proof that they are not.
Actually, I’d say she’s doing something rather pernicious – she’s seeking to influence or pressure Google into behaving in a non-neutral manner IOT reduce the prominence of right-wingers, and then she’s using any success she might have as evidence that they’re not neutral and should give up all pretense of being neutral. She’s arguing that Google isn’t neutral because they’re not manually eliminating all according-to-her problematic autocomplete results, as well as any again-per-her hate-speech disseminating results to potentially-problematic queries, and she’s using her prior pressuring of them into manually changing autocompletions (but not search results) as evidence that they are willing to do this as a matter of course. It’s… slimy. Mind you, it’s sliminess deployed in the interest of suppressing something else that’s slimy. But that doesn’t change what she’s advocating, or how. She’s compelled Google to act in a non-neutral fashion, and because she succeeded, she apparently feels empowered to argue that anything less than complete capitulation to her demands is a sign of non-neutrality in favor of those she opposes.
As russell points out, a lot of work goes into search and question answering on both sides of the search bar. Those are fields that never much interested me, but I had classmates and peers who studied them (some of whom now work at Google) and I picked up enough to have a sloppy idea of general technical principles. If Google manually adjusted autocomplete results (which is related to search and QA, but not exactly the same thing) as Cadwalladr suggests by the changed results, they’re doing what she claims, though her logic about what they must do as a result of that remains questionable. However, if they adjusted the autocomplete algorithm indirectly so it does not autocomplete to that, her argument is a harder sell. HOWEVER. If you accept her argument in the general case, you probably still should accept it even if the changes were indirect. Search and QA rely on statistical and machine learning – which is to say, big data driven – techniques. The tech sector loves to portray these as objective. They are not. The targets you aim for determine what a “good” outcome looks like*, and if the autocomplete algorithm was altered to no longer complete to the particular troublesome phrases she reported, the effect is still the same as if they were manually edited as she claims (and they may well have been).
There’s a tension here, and a lot of it comes from her conflating of two criticisms into a single idea. She’s objecting to the autocomplete results, which is very possibly based on blacklists of keywords or keyword clusters. That doesn’t appear to be neutral. She’s also objecting to the question answering results, however, and those are mechanically separate. And in one process, Google appears to be willing to be swayed to censor its algorithms – and I’m actually broadly okay with this unless it can be shown that autocomplete is likely to change what many people search for. I’m not pleased, but I’m not outraged. In the other process, Google doesn’t appear to be willing to alter its results, and I’m actually happy with that no matter what. If Google gets into the business of censoring content based on it containing non-criminal speech or data, that’s… a problem. So long as its QA algorithms are not based on the content of the results in reference to anything but other results, I’m perfectly fine with them turning up factually incorrect articles so long as they do so according to a consistently applied methodology. Ideally, there are no political considerations involved and it’s basing its results on structural or network features. It may be subject to gaming, and Google will and should continue to make it more difficult to game, but I don’t want Google to decide what information should be made available based on external political vetting. That’s, um, bad.
*And this is even more true when you’re dealing with censorship, which is definitely a factor with autocomplete; e.g., “I want to fuc” does not autocomplete to anything because Google doesn’t want it to.
the autocomplete feature is a place where Google imposes editorial control as a matter of policy.
to be honest I think claims that that constitutes censorship in a meaningful way are a little thin. you are not being denied access to content, nor is Google making any value judgements about results returned to you.
if you want to search for things that may be considered offensive by a lot of people, you have to type the whole word or phrase for yourself. that is the extent of the “censorship”.
I’m not seeing the limitation on speech there.
the autocomplete feature is a place where Google imposes editorial control as a matter of policy.
to be honest I think claims that that constitutes censorship in a meaningful way are a little thin. you are not being denied access to content, nor is Google making any value judgements about results returned to you.
if you want to search for things that may be considered offensive by a lot of people, you have to type the whole word or phrase for yourself. that is the extent of the “censorship”.
I’m not seeing the limitation on speech there.
the autocomplete feature is a place where Google imposes editorial control as a matter of policy.
to be honest I think claims that that constitutes censorship in a meaningful way are a little thin. you are not being denied access to content, nor is Google making any value judgements about results returned to you.
if you want to search for things that may be considered offensive by a lot of people, you have to type the whole word or phrase for yourself. that is the extent of the “censorship”.
I’m not seeing the limitation on speech there.
it’s also worth noting that Cadwalladr is not objecting to politically right wing speech. she’s not complaining about autocomplete turning ‘bre’ into ‘brexit’, for example, or ‘amer’ into ‘America first’.
she’s complaining about hate speech. speech that attacks specific groups of people based on their religion, skin color, ethnicity, gender.
the fact that those things are common on the right wing is the right wing’s problem, not googles. I don’t see that they are required to accommodate it out of some weird sense of fairness.
if Google autocomplete turned ‘rur’ into ‘rural Americans are ignorant backward morons’, I don’t think we’d be having the same conversation.
it’s also worth noting that Cadwalladr is not objecting to politically right wing speech. she’s not complaining about autocomplete turning ‘bre’ into ‘brexit’, for example, or ‘amer’ into ‘America first’.
she’s complaining about hate speech. speech that attacks specific groups of people based on their religion, skin color, ethnicity, gender.
the fact that those things are common on the right wing is the right wing’s problem, not googles. I don’t see that they are required to accommodate it out of some weird sense of fairness.
if Google autocomplete turned ‘rur’ into ‘rural Americans are ignorant backward morons’, I don’t think we’d be having the same conversation.
it’s also worth noting that Cadwalladr is not objecting to politically right wing speech. she’s not complaining about autocomplete turning ‘bre’ into ‘brexit’, for example, or ‘amer’ into ‘America first’.
she’s complaining about hate speech. speech that attacks specific groups of people based on their religion, skin color, ethnicity, gender.
the fact that those things are common on the right wing is the right wing’s problem, not googles. I don’t see that they are required to accommodate it out of some weird sense of fairness.
if Google autocomplete turned ‘rur’ into ‘rural Americans are ignorant backward morons’, I don’t think we’d be having the same conversation.
“if Google autocomplete turned ‘rur’ into ‘rural Americans are ignorant backward morons’, I don’t think we’d be having the same conversation.”
We would be having no conversation. No one would be demanding it not say that, the people at Google would not see anything wrong with it. No conversation.
“if Google autocomplete turned ‘rur’ into ‘rural Americans are ignorant backward morons’, I don’t think we’d be having the same conversation.”
We would be having no conversation. No one would be demanding it not say that, the people at Google would not see anything wrong with it. No conversation.
“if Google autocomplete turned ‘rur’ into ‘rural Americans are ignorant backward morons’, I don’t think we’d be having the same conversation.”
We would be having no conversation. No one would be demanding it not say that, the people at Google would not see anything wrong with it. No conversation.
Wj– I think the CIA does have political motives– they are invested in the covert war against Assad and Morell, their former acting head, not only endorsed Clinton, but said we should be killing Russians in Syria. Now the Ciaagrees with Trump on torture, but then the Obama Administration so far has helped with the coverup, so that issue is a wash. I think part of what is happening in Washington is that various people are pushing very hard against Trump’s apparent willingness to be pals with Putin. Some of them want a covert war with Russia. McCain the defender of Saudi Arabia’s Yemen War calls Putin a murderer. Pot kettle.
And the CIA complaining that a foreign intelligence service installed a rightwing government is Onion level talk. Is the election tainted because Russia alllegedly stole and released material embarrassing to one side? Would it be legit if it turned out not to be Putin?
If election machines were hacked that would be fixing the elections.
Clinton, btw, is on tape, not wikileaks, saying we should have fixed the Palestinian elections.
Wj– I think the CIA does have political motives– they are invested in the covert war against Assad and Morell, their former acting head, not only endorsed Clinton, but said we should be killing Russians in Syria. Now the Ciaagrees with Trump on torture, but then the Obama Administration so far has helped with the coverup, so that issue is a wash. I think part of what is happening in Washington is that various people are pushing very hard against Trump’s apparent willingness to be pals with Putin. Some of them want a covert war with Russia. McCain the defender of Saudi Arabia’s Yemen War calls Putin a murderer. Pot kettle.
And the CIA complaining that a foreign intelligence service installed a rightwing government is Onion level talk. Is the election tainted because Russia alllegedly stole and released material embarrassing to one side? Would it be legit if it turned out not to be Putin?
If election machines were hacked that would be fixing the elections.
Clinton, btw, is on tape, not wikileaks, saying we should have fixed the Palestinian elections.
Wj– I think the CIA does have political motives– they are invested in the covert war against Assad and Morell, their former acting head, not only endorsed Clinton, but said we should be killing Russians in Syria. Now the Ciaagrees with Trump on torture, but then the Obama Administration so far has helped with the coverup, so that issue is a wash. I think part of what is happening in Washington is that various people are pushing very hard against Trump’s apparent willingness to be pals with Putin. Some of them want a covert war with Russia. McCain the defender of Saudi Arabia’s Yemen War calls Putin a murderer. Pot kettle.
And the CIA complaining that a foreign intelligence service installed a rightwing government is Onion level talk. Is the election tainted because Russia alllegedly stole and released material embarrassing to one side? Would it be legit if it turned out not to be Putin?
If election machines were hacked that would be fixing the elections.
Clinton, btw, is on tape, not wikileaks, saying we should have fixed the Palestinian elections.
http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
That came out late October.
http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
That came out late October.
http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
That came out late October.
So I open an “private” browser window. It displays a Google searchbar.
I type in “r”, to begin the “rural Americans…” test, and the autocomplete suggests: “rfc1050”, “revolutions podcast” and “rpmbuild tarball version”. Yeah, I’m just a rural hatin’ liebral, y’all can tell, right?
At the same time, I’m running Wireshark to capture all network traffic, and then I searched through the packets to find those autocomplete results, and didn’t find any of them.
For EXTRA fun, I disconnected the network and tried typing “h” in the Google search box; lo and behold, it has autocomplete suggestions: “hbo schedule”, “html trademark” and “h beam piper space viking”.
So, I’m back to where I was at the beginning of this: autocomplete is coming from your browser, and your browser cache, not Google. And now you know far more about my browsing history than you probably wanted to know.
So I open an “private” browser window. It displays a Google searchbar.
I type in “r”, to begin the “rural Americans…” test, and the autocomplete suggests: “rfc1050”, “revolutions podcast” and “rpmbuild tarball version”. Yeah, I’m just a rural hatin’ liebral, y’all can tell, right?
At the same time, I’m running Wireshark to capture all network traffic, and then I searched through the packets to find those autocomplete results, and didn’t find any of them.
For EXTRA fun, I disconnected the network and tried typing “h” in the Google search box; lo and behold, it has autocomplete suggestions: “hbo schedule”, “html trademark” and “h beam piper space viking”.
So, I’m back to where I was at the beginning of this: autocomplete is coming from your browser, and your browser cache, not Google. And now you know far more about my browsing history than you probably wanted to know.
So I open an “private” browser window. It displays a Google searchbar.
I type in “r”, to begin the “rural Americans…” test, and the autocomplete suggests: “rfc1050”, “revolutions podcast” and “rpmbuild tarball version”. Yeah, I’m just a rural hatin’ liebral, y’all can tell, right?
At the same time, I’m running Wireshark to capture all network traffic, and then I searched through the packets to find those autocomplete results, and didn’t find any of them.
For EXTRA fun, I disconnected the network and tried typing “h” in the Google search box; lo and behold, it has autocomplete suggestions: “hbo schedule”, “html trademark” and “h beam piper space viking”.
So, I’m back to where I was at the beginning of this: autocomplete is coming from your browser, and your browser cache, not Google. And now you know far more about my browsing history than you probably wanted to know.
No conversation.
Correct.
No conversation, because there is no army of ten million assholes trying to game that scenario into existence.
So rural America can rest easy.
No conversation.
Correct.
No conversation, because there is no army of ten million assholes trying to game that scenario into existence.
So rural America can rest easy.
No conversation.
Correct.
No conversation, because there is no army of ten million assholes trying to game that scenario into existence.
So rural America can rest easy.
autocomplete is coming from your browser, and your browser cache, not Google.
browser caches don’t populate themselves.
autocomplete is coming from your browser, and your browser cache, not Google.
browser caches don’t populate themselves.
autocomplete is coming from your browser, and your browser cache, not Google.
browser caches don’t populate themselves.
Google auto complete.
Google auto complete.
Google auto complete.
“browser caches don’t populate themselves.”
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
It’s a technical question, and is amenable to answer by technical means, which I at least made a tiny effort to do. I could be wrong, so please post that definitive packet trace that proves it.
You too, Marty, if there is shenanigans in autocomplete, I’d like to see it.
“browser caches don’t populate themselves.”
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
It’s a technical question, and is amenable to answer by technical means, which I at least made a tiny effort to do. I could be wrong, so please post that definitive packet trace that proves it.
You too, Marty, if there is shenanigans in autocomplete, I’d like to see it.
“browser caches don’t populate themselves.”
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
It’s a technical question, and is amenable to answer by technical means, which I at least made a tiny effort to do. I could be wrong, so please post that definitive packet trace that proves it.
You too, Marty, if there is shenanigans in autocomplete, I’d like to see it.
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
No problem, but I’m also not that invested in the question, and I have other things I need to do.
If you don’t think Google is involved in the implementation of their own auto-complete feature, I will not attempt to convince you otherwise.
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
No problem, but I’m also not that invested in the question, and I have other things I need to do.
If you don’t think Google is involved in the implementation of their own auto-complete feature, I will not attempt to convince you otherwise.
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
No problem, but I’m also not that invested in the question, and I have other things I need to do.
If you don’t think Google is involved in the implementation of their own auto-complete feature, I will not attempt to convince you otherwise.
to follow up somewhat less sarcastically – I can’t tell you what the relationship between Google auto-complete and your browser cache is. I could probably sort-of figure it out, but I don’t have the time.
If your point is that Google is not using the browser cache to implement auto-complete, I am happy to defer to you. You have done more research than I have, you could well be correct.
If your point is that Google has no hand in the auto-complete behavior that is one of the features of their search engine, I guess I have to say that I find that unlikely. Not based on personal hands-on technical research, just based on common sense.
Common sense isn’t always correct, but I’m betting it is in this case.
Thanks Snarki
to follow up somewhat less sarcastically – I can’t tell you what the relationship between Google auto-complete and your browser cache is. I could probably sort-of figure it out, but I don’t have the time.
If your point is that Google is not using the browser cache to implement auto-complete, I am happy to defer to you. You have done more research than I have, you could well be correct.
If your point is that Google has no hand in the auto-complete behavior that is one of the features of their search engine, I guess I have to say that I find that unlikely. Not based on personal hands-on technical research, just based on common sense.
Common sense isn’t always correct, but I’m betting it is in this case.
Thanks Snarki
to follow up somewhat less sarcastically – I can’t tell you what the relationship between Google auto-complete and your browser cache is. I could probably sort-of figure it out, but I don’t have the time.
If your point is that Google is not using the browser cache to implement auto-complete, I am happy to defer to you. You have done more research than I have, you could well be correct.
If your point is that Google has no hand in the auto-complete behavior that is one of the features of their search engine, I guess I have to say that I find that unlikely. Not based on personal hands-on technical research, just based on common sense.
Common sense isn’t always correct, but I’m betting it is in this case.
Thanks Snarki
I’m no guru, but it seems snarki’s test demonstrated that autocomplete can work solely from your browser cache, not that it always does.
I’m no guru, but it seems snarki’s test demonstrated that autocomplete can work solely from your browser cache, not that it always does.
I’m no guru, but it seems snarki’s test demonstrated that autocomplete can work solely from your browser cache, not that it always does.
Snarki,
I think the answer is both. I did a little user testing, as opposed to network packet testing, and found that any place(by first or first few letters) I had done searches my history drove the autocomplete.
In those cases where I hadn’t, quite a few first letters where I hadn’t done a google search since my default is Bing, there seemed to be a default list populated. I assume the default list came from google somehow.
Not a real answer I am sure.
Snarki,
I think the answer is both. I did a little user testing, as opposed to network packet testing, and found that any place(by first or first few letters) I had done searches my history drove the autocomplete.
In those cases where I hadn’t, quite a few first letters where I hadn’t done a google search since my default is Bing, there seemed to be a default list populated. I assume the default list came from google somehow.
Not a real answer I am sure.
Snarki,
I think the answer is both. I did a little user testing, as opposed to network packet testing, and found that any place(by first or first few letters) I had done searches my history drove the autocomplete.
In those cases where I hadn’t, quite a few first letters where I hadn’t done a google search since my default is Bing, there seemed to be a default list populated. I assume the default list came from google somehow.
Not a real answer I am sure.
I haven’t even read the origin of this debate, but clearly I’m in a work-procrastinating mood this morning….
There are settings in both Firefox and Chrome (probably IE too but I don’t use it or have time to look at it) letting the user turn on and off the autocomplete.
In Firefox it’s “Provide search suggestions.”
In Chrome it’s “Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar” (quite coy of Google’s browser to call it a prediction service, I’d say).
Adding in Snarki’s experiment of turning off the network, I’d say that the results of my own experiments fit with my intuition, which is that the autocomplete uses *both* the user’s browsing history *and* some kind of wider information source to offer suggestions.
If you turn off the network and empty the cache, you get nothing, i.e. no autocomplete suggestions in the search box. If you keep the network off but start searching for stuff, you can watch the autocomplete list accumulate the stuff you’ve just asked for.
Conversely, with the network on and the settings selected to use search suggestions, but no search history in the browser (cleared cache), you get a gazillion results – which are *not* coming from browser history.
I haven’t even read the origin of this debate, but clearly I’m in a work-procrastinating mood this morning….
There are settings in both Firefox and Chrome (probably IE too but I don’t use it or have time to look at it) letting the user turn on and off the autocomplete.
In Firefox it’s “Provide search suggestions.”
In Chrome it’s “Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar” (quite coy of Google’s browser to call it a prediction service, I’d say).
Adding in Snarki’s experiment of turning off the network, I’d say that the results of my own experiments fit with my intuition, which is that the autocomplete uses *both* the user’s browsing history *and* some kind of wider information source to offer suggestions.
If you turn off the network and empty the cache, you get nothing, i.e. no autocomplete suggestions in the search box. If you keep the network off but start searching for stuff, you can watch the autocomplete list accumulate the stuff you’ve just asked for.
Conversely, with the network on and the settings selected to use search suggestions, but no search history in the browser (cleared cache), you get a gazillion results – which are *not* coming from browser history.
I haven’t even read the origin of this debate, but clearly I’m in a work-procrastinating mood this morning….
There are settings in both Firefox and Chrome (probably IE too but I don’t use it or have time to look at it) letting the user turn on and off the autocomplete.
In Firefox it’s “Provide search suggestions.”
In Chrome it’s “Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar” (quite coy of Google’s browser to call it a prediction service, I’d say).
Adding in Snarki’s experiment of turning off the network, I’d say that the results of my own experiments fit with my intuition, which is that the autocomplete uses *both* the user’s browsing history *and* some kind of wider information source to offer suggestions.
If you turn off the network and empty the cache, you get nothing, i.e. no autocomplete suggestions in the search box. If you keep the network off but start searching for stuff, you can watch the autocomplete list accumulate the stuff you’ve just asked for.
Conversely, with the network on and the settings selected to use search suggestions, but no search history in the browser (cleared cache), you get a gazillion results – which are *not* coming from browser history.
I can’t imagine a world without Google either, and generally speaking, I do not suspect them or accuse them of malfeasance. russell’s link on Google Autocomplete above makes it clear they are happy to routinely censor their autocomplete suggestions, so whether Carole Cadwalladr knew it or not their “editing” was nothing new. As must be clear, I know nothing about tech matters, but russell’s link was from searchengineland.com, and Carole Cadwalladr says:
so I am assuming that people who do understand it, feel that Google is now being gamed in a way they have not yet found a way to counter, despite their previous successes in blocking various kinds of gaming attempts.
Of course it is the “hate speech” aspect I am concerned with, not rightwing ideology in general. We do not have anything like the First Amendment in the UK, in fact we have legislation against the dissemination of “hate speech”, and despite my general antipathy to censorship, I am ambivalent about this particular variety. However, I realise that may make me unusual here; the older I get the more inclined I am to at least contemplate the possibility of exceptions to “principled” positions which I decided in my youth and have held to ever since, although for the record on the subject of torture I admit no exceptions.
I can’t imagine a world without Google either, and generally speaking, I do not suspect them or accuse them of malfeasance. russell’s link on Google Autocomplete above makes it clear they are happy to routinely censor their autocomplete suggestions, so whether Carole Cadwalladr knew it or not their “editing” was nothing new. As must be clear, I know nothing about tech matters, but russell’s link was from searchengineland.com, and Carole Cadwalladr says:
so I am assuming that people who do understand it, feel that Google is now being gamed in a way they have not yet found a way to counter, despite their previous successes in blocking various kinds of gaming attempts.
Of course it is the “hate speech” aspect I am concerned with, not rightwing ideology in general. We do not have anything like the First Amendment in the UK, in fact we have legislation against the dissemination of “hate speech”, and despite my general antipathy to censorship, I am ambivalent about this particular variety. However, I realise that may make me unusual here; the older I get the more inclined I am to at least contemplate the possibility of exceptions to “principled” positions which I decided in my youth and have held to ever since, although for the record on the subject of torture I admit no exceptions.
I can’t imagine a world without Google either, and generally speaking, I do not suspect them or accuse them of malfeasance. russell’s link on Google Autocomplete above makes it clear they are happy to routinely censor their autocomplete suggestions, so whether Carole Cadwalladr knew it or not their “editing” was nothing new. As must be clear, I know nothing about tech matters, but russell’s link was from searchengineland.com, and Carole Cadwalladr says:
so I am assuming that people who do understand it, feel that Google is now being gamed in a way they have not yet found a way to counter, despite their previous successes in blocking various kinds of gaming attempts.
Of course it is the “hate speech” aspect I am concerned with, not rightwing ideology in general. We do not have anything like the First Amendment in the UK, in fact we have legislation against the dissemination of “hate speech”, and despite my general antipathy to censorship, I am ambivalent about this particular variety. However, I realise that may make me unusual here; the older I get the more inclined I am to at least contemplate the possibility of exceptions to “principled” positions which I decided in my youth and have held to ever since, although for the record on the subject of torture I admit no exceptions.
the autocomplete feature is a place where Google imposes editorial control as a matter of policy.
GDI, russell, why must you be so much better at saying what I’m trying to say than I am?
the autocomplete feature is a place where Google imposes editorial control as a matter of policy.
GDI, russell, why must you be so much better at saying what I’m trying to say than I am?
the autocomplete feature is a place where Google imposes editorial control as a matter of policy.
GDI, russell, why must you be so much better at saying what I’m trying to say than I am?
Of course it is the “hate speech” aspect I am concerned with, not rightwing ideology in general.
For whatever reason, I’m imagining google eliminating autocomplete or providing any results for “Laffer curve.”
Of course it is the “hate speech” aspect I am concerned with, not rightwing ideology in general.
For whatever reason, I’m imagining google eliminating autocomplete or providing any results for “Laffer curve.”
Of course it is the “hate speech” aspect I am concerned with, not rightwing ideology in general.
For whatever reason, I’m imagining google eliminating autocomplete or providing any results for “Laffer curve.”
(quite coy of Google’s browser to call it a prediction service, I’d say)
Actually, it’s not coy; it’s just them not using vernacular. What autocomplete is doing is prediction; based on past searches it uses a statistical predictive model to determine the most probable next letter/word/phrase. Here’s a basic overview of the idea, presumably in far greater detail than you’d ever care to have…
(quite coy of Google’s browser to call it a prediction service, I’d say)
Actually, it’s not coy; it’s just them not using vernacular. What autocomplete is doing is prediction; based on past searches it uses a statistical predictive model to determine the most probable next letter/word/phrase. Here’s a basic overview of the idea, presumably in far greater detail than you’d ever care to have…
(quite coy of Google’s browser to call it a prediction service, I’d say)
Actually, it’s not coy; it’s just them not using vernacular. What autocomplete is doing is prediction; based on past searches it uses a statistical predictive model to determine the most probable next letter/word/phrase. Here’s a basic overview of the idea, presumably in far greater detail than you’d ever care to have…
Is there any good reason why they shouldn’t eliminate autocomplete? Why would that be a bad thing (I’m not saying it wouldn’t, I just can’t think of a reason offhand)?
Is there any good reason why they shouldn’t eliminate autocomplete? Why would that be a bad thing (I’m not saying it wouldn’t, I just can’t think of a reason offhand)?
Is there any good reason why they shouldn’t eliminate autocomplete? Why would that be a bad thing (I’m not saying it wouldn’t, I just can’t think of a reason offhand)?
“Actually, it’s not coy; it’s just them not using vernacular. What autocomplete is doing is prediction; based on past searches it uses a statistical predictive model to determine the most probable next letter/word/phrase.”
Um, gee, thanks for letting me know that a predictive service is doing prediction; I couldn’t possibly have figured that out for myself.
I would have thought it was clear that I was just snarking about the fact that they seem not to want to mention that it’s Google doing the predicting.
“Actually, it’s not coy; it’s just them not using vernacular. What autocomplete is doing is prediction; based on past searches it uses a statistical predictive model to determine the most probable next letter/word/phrase.”
Um, gee, thanks for letting me know that a predictive service is doing prediction; I couldn’t possibly have figured that out for myself.
I would have thought it was clear that I was just snarking about the fact that they seem not to want to mention that it’s Google doing the predicting.
“Actually, it’s not coy; it’s just them not using vernacular. What autocomplete is doing is prediction; based on past searches it uses a statistical predictive model to determine the most probable next letter/word/phrase.”
Um, gee, thanks for letting me know that a predictive service is doing prediction; I couldn’t possibly have figured that out for myself.
I would have thought it was clear that I was just snarking about the fact that they seem not to want to mention that it’s Google doing the predicting.
You’re so welcome!
I’m going to blame my as-yet-still-decaffeinated state for my magnificent reading comprehension, and have a cup of tea.
You’re so welcome!
I’m going to blame my as-yet-still-decaffeinated state for my magnificent reading comprehension, and have a cup of tea.
You’re so welcome!
I’m going to blame my as-yet-still-decaffeinated state for my magnificent reading comprehension, and have a cup of tea.
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
I’m apparently not entirely awake despite the hour, and thus not entirely to be trusted, but I strongly suspect that you’re not seeing this despite packet-sniffing because of application-layer encryption. https://www.google.com/, yeah? The packets you’re seeing at the network layer aren’t decrypted until they hit the browser up on the application layer.
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
I’m apparently not entirely awake despite the hour, and thus not entirely to be trusted, but I strongly suspect that you’re not seeing this despite packet-sniffing because of application-layer encryption. https://www.google.com/, yeah? The packets you’re seeing at the network layer aren’t decrypted until they hit the browser up on the application layer.
Then I’m sure you’d have no problem coming up with packet traces that show Google pushing stuff into your cache, right?
I’m apparently not entirely awake despite the hour, and thus not entirely to be trusted, but I strongly suspect that you’re not seeing this despite packet-sniffing because of application-layer encryption. https://www.google.com/, yeah? The packets you’re seeing at the network layer aren’t decrypted until they hit the browser up on the application layer.
Janie, that’s some nice research on how browsers are working!
Janie, that’s some nice research on how browsers are working!
Janie, that’s some nice research on how browsers are working!
Where is he going with this? The guy’s not even in office yet and seems to be pissing off China bigly.
I don’t know if this headline is hyperventilation or what. I’m not that well versed in international relations. But I wonder if Trump understands that his desire to cozy up with Russia could be at odds with his desire to get tough with China (and Iran, for that matter).
I’d love to hear from any of the regulars here who have a better understanding of these interrelationships than I do. My limited understanding is that Russia and China are fairly tight.
Where is he going with this? The guy’s not even in office yet and seems to be pissing off China bigly.
I don’t know if this headline is hyperventilation or what. I’m not that well versed in international relations. But I wonder if Trump understands that his desire to cozy up with Russia could be at odds with his desire to get tough with China (and Iran, for that matter).
I’d love to hear from any of the regulars here who have a better understanding of these interrelationships than I do. My limited understanding is that Russia and China are fairly tight.
Where is he going with this? The guy’s not even in office yet and seems to be pissing off China bigly.
I don’t know if this headline is hyperventilation or what. I’m not that well versed in international relations. But I wonder if Trump understands that his desire to cozy up with Russia could be at odds with his desire to get tough with China (and Iran, for that matter).
I’d love to hear from any of the regulars here who have a better understanding of these interrelationships than I do. My limited understanding is that Russia and China are fairly tight.
NV: (a) I could tell where the packets I was seeing were coming from, and it wasn’t google; (b) even with the network disconnected, the autocomplete behavior was the same.
Now, perhaps I’m just so old-school that I use browsers in an old-school way: No chrome for me, turn off all that java/javascript/activescript nonsense.
But given the impatience of typing stuff into a search box, and waiting for network latency, it just made ZERO sense for google to kill one of it’s big competitive advantages (speed) by having it chat with the Mothership every time you push another key.
Yeah, there could be a hidden Google AI in your PC, doing all the magic; that would be sorta-believable for an Android phone, no so believable for a Linux PC.
NV: (a) I could tell where the packets I was seeing were coming from, and it wasn’t google; (b) even with the network disconnected, the autocomplete behavior was the same.
Now, perhaps I’m just so old-school that I use browsers in an old-school way: No chrome for me, turn off all that java/javascript/activescript nonsense.
But given the impatience of typing stuff into a search box, and waiting for network latency, it just made ZERO sense for google to kill one of it’s big competitive advantages (speed) by having it chat with the Mothership every time you push another key.
Yeah, there could be a hidden Google AI in your PC, doing all the magic; that would be sorta-believable for an Android phone, no so believable for a Linux PC.
NV: (a) I could tell where the packets I was seeing were coming from, and it wasn’t google; (b) even with the network disconnected, the autocomplete behavior was the same.
Now, perhaps I’m just so old-school that I use browsers in an old-school way: No chrome for me, turn off all that java/javascript/activescript nonsense.
But given the impatience of typing stuff into a search box, and waiting for network latency, it just made ZERO sense for google to kill one of it’s big competitive advantages (speed) by having it chat with the Mothership every time you push another key.
Yeah, there could be a hidden Google AI in your PC, doing all the magic; that would be sorta-believable for an Android phone, no so believable for a Linux PC.
I missed seeing this–politico did a fairly balanced piece on Mattis. Sort of what I knew, with more added. He’s good on some things, but seems a bit crazed on the subject of Iran and ISIS (he thinks they are allies, which is like the Saddam/ Osama connection the Bushies alleged).
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500
I missed seeing this–politico did a fairly balanced piece on Mattis. Sort of what I knew, with more added. He’s good on some things, but seems a bit crazed on the subject of Iran and ISIS (he thinks they are allies, which is like the Saddam/ Osama connection the Bushies alleged).
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500
I missed seeing this–politico did a fairly balanced piece on Mattis. Sort of what I knew, with more added. He’s good on some things, but seems a bit crazed on the subject of Iran and ISIS (he thinks they are allies, which is like the Saddam/ Osama connection the Bushies alleged).
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500
even with the network disconnected, the autocomplete behavior was the same
1. Did you try checking and unchecking the browser setting that tells the browser whether to autocomplete or not?
2. Did you try this experiment with your cache cleared, with both scenarios mentioned in #1? If you did that and got autocomplete results with a cleared cache and autocomplete enabled (as I did), where do you think they’re coming from if not your cache (which is empty)? If you did not do that, then you haven’t done enough varying experimental scenarios to draw the conclusion you’re drawing. (Which, I take it, is that autocomplete uses nothing but your own prior browsing history. Which is manifestly not the case if you clear your history and still get results.)
even with the network disconnected, the autocomplete behavior was the same
1. Did you try checking and unchecking the browser setting that tells the browser whether to autocomplete or not?
2. Did you try this experiment with your cache cleared, with both scenarios mentioned in #1? If you did that and got autocomplete results with a cleared cache and autocomplete enabled (as I did), where do you think they’re coming from if not your cache (which is empty)? If you did not do that, then you haven’t done enough varying experimental scenarios to draw the conclusion you’re drawing. (Which, I take it, is that autocomplete uses nothing but your own prior browsing history. Which is manifestly not the case if you clear your history and still get results.)
even with the network disconnected, the autocomplete behavior was the same
1. Did you try checking and unchecking the browser setting that tells the browser whether to autocomplete or not?
2. Did you try this experiment with your cache cleared, with both scenarios mentioned in #1? If you did that and got autocomplete results with a cleared cache and autocomplete enabled (as I did), where do you think they’re coming from if not your cache (which is empty)? If you did not do that, then you haven’t done enough varying experimental scenarios to draw the conclusion you’re drawing. (Which, I take it, is that autocomplete uses nothing but your own prior browsing history. Which is manifestly not the case if you clear your history and still get results.)
Snarki, re-reading what you wrote and spending 10m looking at Google Suggest API makes me think that you were using a client-side Google app. When you say a search bar was displayed, did you mean you had the google.com page in front of you, or did you have a search bar outside of the webpage area of your browser? I don’t know what browser you’re using, but I know Firefox has a number of search engine options available for in-browser-but-not-on-a-specific-webpage (i.e., on a toolbar) websearch, and those are presumably client-side apps. Google’s API certainly would seem to support that. One assumes that if it is client-side it’s drawing on some cached search data for the app, and it may even be using the app’s search cache if you use the google.com search because it recognizes a chance to avoid a remote query (and wasting server resources). All of that is speculation based on the above experiments and a few minutes digging through online documentation (e.g.).
All told, though, I fear I’ve exhausted my particular interest in this subject (I don’t see much of any reason to care whether it’s a dedicated client-side search app, a cached remotely-retrieved client-side applet, or a server-side app transmitting non-physical queries through the ether), so I’ll leave any further digging to you lot…
Snarki, re-reading what you wrote and spending 10m looking at Google Suggest API makes me think that you were using a client-side Google app. When you say a search bar was displayed, did you mean you had the google.com page in front of you, or did you have a search bar outside of the webpage area of your browser? I don’t know what browser you’re using, but I know Firefox has a number of search engine options available for in-browser-but-not-on-a-specific-webpage (i.e., on a toolbar) websearch, and those are presumably client-side apps. Google’s API certainly would seem to support that. One assumes that if it is client-side it’s drawing on some cached search data for the app, and it may even be using the app’s search cache if you use the google.com search because it recognizes a chance to avoid a remote query (and wasting server resources). All of that is speculation based on the above experiments and a few minutes digging through online documentation (e.g.).
All told, though, I fear I’ve exhausted my particular interest in this subject (I don’t see much of any reason to care whether it’s a dedicated client-side search app, a cached remotely-retrieved client-side applet, or a server-side app transmitting non-physical queries through the ether), so I’ll leave any further digging to you lot…
Snarki, re-reading what you wrote and spending 10m looking at Google Suggest API makes me think that you were using a client-side Google app. When you say a search bar was displayed, did you mean you had the google.com page in front of you, or did you have a search bar outside of the webpage area of your browser? I don’t know what browser you’re using, but I know Firefox has a number of search engine options available for in-browser-but-not-on-a-specific-webpage (i.e., on a toolbar) websearch, and those are presumably client-side apps. Google’s API certainly would seem to support that. One assumes that if it is client-side it’s drawing on some cached search data for the app, and it may even be using the app’s search cache if you use the google.com search because it recognizes a chance to avoid a remote query (and wasting server resources). All of that is speculation based on the above experiments and a few minutes digging through online documentation (e.g.).
All told, though, I fear I’ve exhausted my particular interest in this subject (I don’t see much of any reason to care whether it’s a dedicated client-side search app, a cached remotely-retrieved client-side applet, or a server-side app transmitting non-physical queries through the ether), so I’ll leave any further digging to you lot…
It was a “firefox startup page”, with a google search bar in the middle of the page. So perhaps not the same a going directly to http://www.google.com, or having some sort of an “app”.
Again, it’s probably a matter of my primitive browsing habits, but the only sort of ‘autocomplete’ that I normally see is *after* I put in a google search and it pops up with “did you mean (correct spelling)?”
And yes, I absolutely turn off “smart search” and stuff like that. Maybe that’s the difference.
It was a “firefox startup page”, with a google search bar in the middle of the page. So perhaps not the same a going directly to http://www.google.com, or having some sort of an “app”.
Again, it’s probably a matter of my primitive browsing habits, but the only sort of ‘autocomplete’ that I normally see is *after* I put in a google search and it pops up with “did you mean (correct spelling)?”
And yes, I absolutely turn off “smart search” and stuff like that. Maybe that’s the difference.
It was a “firefox startup page”, with a google search bar in the middle of the page. So perhaps not the same a going directly to http://www.google.com, or having some sort of an “app”.
Again, it’s probably a matter of my primitive browsing habits, but the only sort of ‘autocomplete’ that I normally see is *after* I put in a google search and it pops up with “did you mean (correct spelling)?”
And yes, I absolutely turn off “smart search” and stuff like that. Maybe that’s the difference.
I would file this under ” so obvious people have to be ignoring the idea on purpose.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/12/cia-avoiding-conclusion-putin-hacked-hillary-retaliate-covert-actions/
I would file this under ” so obvious people have to be ignoring the idea on purpose.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/12/cia-avoiding-conclusion-putin-hacked-hillary-retaliate-covert-actions/
I would file this under ” so obvious people have to be ignoring the idea on purpose.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/12/cia-avoiding-conclusion-putin-hacked-hillary-retaliate-covert-actions/
Well, if we’re posting entries in that particular column:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-election-polls-white-workers-firewall/
Well, if we’re posting entries in that particular column:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-election-polls-white-workers-firewall/
Well, if we’re posting entries in that particular column:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-election-polls-white-workers-firewall/
Donald – Time magazine had a story years ago with US intelligence boasting about how they helped Yeltsin win in the Russian elections.
IOKIYAtheUS.
Donald – Time magazine had a story years ago with US intelligence boasting about how they helped Yeltsin win in the Russian elections.
IOKIYAtheUS.
Donald – Time magazine had a story years ago with US intelligence boasting about how they helped Yeltsin win in the Russian elections.
IOKIYAtheUS.
Some detail here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-ramani/why-russia-is-interfering_b_12801892.html
Some detail here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-ramani/why-russia-is-interfering_b_12801892.html
Some detail here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-ramani/why-russia-is-interfering_b_12801892.html
IOKIYAtheUS.
There’s some “USA! USA!” in my heart. While I don’t doubt that “we” have done things at least as bad (to Russia and others) as whatever Russia may have done, it still bothers me more that they did it to “us.”
IOKIYAtheUS.
There’s some “USA! USA!” in my heart. While I don’t doubt that “we” have done things at least as bad (to Russia and others) as whatever Russia may have done, it still bothers me more that they did it to “us.”
IOKIYAtheUS.
There’s some “USA! USA!” in my heart. While I don’t doubt that “we” have done things at least as bad (to Russia and others) as whatever Russia may have done, it still bothers me more that they did it to “us.”
Well sure. OTOH, we don’t do self reflection/criticism very well in the US. Not much along the lines of “how would we feel if someone did this to us,” or “maybe this isn’t a good idea because it could come back to bite us.”
Instead it’s a very blinders on approach of – if the U.S. does it, it’s good!
I guess the rank hypocrisy and lack of self awareness just gets to me.
Well sure. OTOH, we don’t do self reflection/criticism very well in the US. Not much along the lines of “how would we feel if someone did this to us,” or “maybe this isn’t a good idea because it could come back to bite us.”
Instead it’s a very blinders on approach of – if the U.S. does it, it’s good!
I guess the rank hypocrisy and lack of self awareness just gets to me.
Well sure. OTOH, we don’t do self reflection/criticism very well in the US. Not much along the lines of “how would we feel if someone did this to us,” or “maybe this isn’t a good idea because it could come back to bite us.”
Instead it’s a very blinders on approach of – if the U.S. does it, it’s good!
I guess the rank hypocrisy and lack of self awareness just gets to me.
Interfering with elections by providing campaign advice to candidates: OK.
Interfering with elections by hacking opposing campaigns and selectively releasing stuff: NOT OK.
Not that the CIA hasn’t done both, and worse, of course; but it doesn’t make the “NOT OK” stuff “OK”, regardless.
There’s also that little “legality” thing, but nobody pays attention to such antiquated ideas any more.
Interfering with elections by providing campaign advice to candidates: OK.
Interfering with elections by hacking opposing campaigns and selectively releasing stuff: NOT OK.
Not that the CIA hasn’t done both, and worse, of course; but it doesn’t make the “NOT OK” stuff “OK”, regardless.
There’s also that little “legality” thing, but nobody pays attention to such antiquated ideas any more.
Interfering with elections by providing campaign advice to candidates: OK.
Interfering with elections by hacking opposing campaigns and selectively releasing stuff: NOT OK.
Not that the CIA hasn’t done both, and worse, of course; but it doesn’t make the “NOT OK” stuff “OK”, regardless.
There’s also that little “legality” thing, but nobody pays attention to such antiquated ideas any more.
I look at it as an acknowledged, though limited, pro-American bias on my part. I am willing to readily admit to it, rather than deluding myself about the inherent goodness of all things American.
I would also admit that, to the extent that Russia’s meddling helped Trump win (if it did), it bothers me more than if the same were done to help Clinton win.
Why? Very simply because I believe Trump will be a disastrous president and will harm my country. Why wouldn’t that bother me? And why wouldn’t the things that let to that outcome bother me more than the things that could have led to what would have been, in my opinion, a better one?
I’m coming to a point where I’d prefer to openly admit to my own bias and partisanship rather than pretending to possess something like objective purity in my outlook and opinions. It’s a tiresome game.
The facts are the facts, and we should try to know and understand them to the extent possible, but what we do with those fact in forming opinions and deciding which facts are most important is dependent to some degree on our points of view and self-interests.
Yes, there are moral and ethical limits to how far one might take partisanship or whatever kind of bias one might have, but I’m tired of people pretending they’re the only ones who are free of those things, while everyone else believes things “just because they’re (fill in the blank).”
This isn’t directed at anyone or anything in particular. It’s the culmination of many, many things over some amount of time.
I look at it as an acknowledged, though limited, pro-American bias on my part. I am willing to readily admit to it, rather than deluding myself about the inherent goodness of all things American.
I would also admit that, to the extent that Russia’s meddling helped Trump win (if it did), it bothers me more than if the same were done to help Clinton win.
Why? Very simply because I believe Trump will be a disastrous president and will harm my country. Why wouldn’t that bother me? And why wouldn’t the things that let to that outcome bother me more than the things that could have led to what would have been, in my opinion, a better one?
I’m coming to a point where I’d prefer to openly admit to my own bias and partisanship rather than pretending to possess something like objective purity in my outlook and opinions. It’s a tiresome game.
The facts are the facts, and we should try to know and understand them to the extent possible, but what we do with those fact in forming opinions and deciding which facts are most important is dependent to some degree on our points of view and self-interests.
Yes, there are moral and ethical limits to how far one might take partisanship or whatever kind of bias one might have, but I’m tired of people pretending they’re the only ones who are free of those things, while everyone else believes things “just because they’re (fill in the blank).”
This isn’t directed at anyone or anything in particular. It’s the culmination of many, many things over some amount of time.
I look at it as an acknowledged, though limited, pro-American bias on my part. I am willing to readily admit to it, rather than deluding myself about the inherent goodness of all things American.
I would also admit that, to the extent that Russia’s meddling helped Trump win (if it did), it bothers me more than if the same were done to help Clinton win.
Why? Very simply because I believe Trump will be a disastrous president and will harm my country. Why wouldn’t that bother me? And why wouldn’t the things that let to that outcome bother me more than the things that could have led to what would have been, in my opinion, a better one?
I’m coming to a point where I’d prefer to openly admit to my own bias and partisanship rather than pretending to possess something like objective purity in my outlook and opinions. It’s a tiresome game.
The facts are the facts, and we should try to know and understand them to the extent possible, but what we do with those fact in forming opinions and deciding which facts are most important is dependent to some degree on our points of view and self-interests.
Yes, there are moral and ethical limits to how far one might take partisanship or whatever kind of bias one might have, but I’m tired of people pretending they’re the only ones who are free of those things, while everyone else believes things “just because they’re (fill in the blank).”
This isn’t directed at anyone or anything in particular. It’s the culmination of many, many things over some amount of time.
Thanks, HSH, I think a lot of us (push comes to shove) agree with you on that bias.
Or perhaps, “people will do deplorable things when faced with a disastrous situation”.
Oh, I do so hope we have some deplorable fun with climate-change deniers when the time comes.
Thanks, HSH, I think a lot of us (push comes to shove) agree with you on that bias.
Or perhaps, “people will do deplorable things when faced with a disastrous situation”.
Oh, I do so hope we have some deplorable fun with climate-change deniers when the time comes.
Thanks, HSH, I think a lot of us (push comes to shove) agree with you on that bias.
Or perhaps, “people will do deplorable things when faced with a disastrous situation”.
Oh, I do so hope we have some deplorable fun with climate-change deniers when the time comes.
There’s a phrase I read regarding Haiti once–“morally repugnant elites”. I think we are overrun with them in both parties. Yes, Trump is worse and scary in many ways–climate change, picking a fight with China, etc. My Welsh link in the other thread was arguing that Trump had a rational motive for picking the fight–Welsh agreed it might lead to catastrophe. Personally I think there is enough of a chance of that to make it catastrophically stupid.
Sapient apparently read that as apologetics for Trump. Sapient reads into a lot of things. This is part of my problem with the other side–the binary thinking. The idea that because one side is awful the other side is good. No, just less awful. I don’t think it is some coincidence that Morell the torture defending advocate of killing Russians in Syria and former CIA acting head is in Clinton’s corner. It’s not a coincidence that McCain the defender of the Saudis and all round warmonger is unhappy with some of Trump’s positions. We’ve got lunatics in both camps. War crimes supporting nutcases. Rich billionaire bigots with too much influence in both parties. Adelson and the Koch brothers on one side, Saban in the other.
There’s a phrase I read regarding Haiti once–“morally repugnant elites”. I think we are overrun with them in both parties. Yes, Trump is worse and scary in many ways–climate change, picking a fight with China, etc. My Welsh link in the other thread was arguing that Trump had a rational motive for picking the fight–Welsh agreed it might lead to catastrophe. Personally I think there is enough of a chance of that to make it catastrophically stupid.
Sapient apparently read that as apologetics for Trump. Sapient reads into a lot of things. This is part of my problem with the other side–the binary thinking. The idea that because one side is awful the other side is good. No, just less awful. I don’t think it is some coincidence that Morell the torture defending advocate of killing Russians in Syria and former CIA acting head is in Clinton’s corner. It’s not a coincidence that McCain the defender of the Saudis and all round warmonger is unhappy with some of Trump’s positions. We’ve got lunatics in both camps. War crimes supporting nutcases. Rich billionaire bigots with too much influence in both parties. Adelson and the Koch brothers on one side, Saban in the other.
There’s a phrase I read regarding Haiti once–“morally repugnant elites”. I think we are overrun with them in both parties. Yes, Trump is worse and scary in many ways–climate change, picking a fight with China, etc. My Welsh link in the other thread was arguing that Trump had a rational motive for picking the fight–Welsh agreed it might lead to catastrophe. Personally I think there is enough of a chance of that to make it catastrophically stupid.
Sapient apparently read that as apologetics for Trump. Sapient reads into a lot of things. This is part of my problem with the other side–the binary thinking. The idea that because one side is awful the other side is good. No, just less awful. I don’t think it is some coincidence that Morell the torture defending advocate of killing Russians in Syria and former CIA acting head is in Clinton’s corner. It’s not a coincidence that McCain the defender of the Saudis and all round warmonger is unhappy with some of Trump’s positions. We’ve got lunatics in both camps. War crimes supporting nutcases. Rich billionaire bigots with too much influence in both parties. Adelson and the Koch brothers on one side, Saban in the other.
We have always been at war with Eastasia–
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-morell-russia-election-hacking_us_584eb2cde4b0bd9c3dfd73cc
Morell. It’s fascinating how our wonderful CIA professionals are given sich credibility. Fascinating is one word. Nauseating is another.
On what we have done vs what others have done, what Russia apparently did was steal some politically embarrassing documents about the Democrats and allow them to be published, without doing the same to Trump.. Some of the most interesting newsworthy material was barely covered at all in the MSM, which focused on the more gossipy elements. I don’t want Russia interfering in our elections, but if we are this fragile then that’s a much bigger problem. Anyone could have stolen those documents and given them to wikileaks. It is a disaster that Trump won, but there are a lot of reasons for that.
And this doesn’t even come close to the kinds of interference that we do elsewhere. If we were told the CIA stole and exposed material embarrassing to some political party in a foreign country, how many Americans would give even one tenth of a shit? In reality it is so far down on the list of things we’ve done it wouldn’t even register. If we didn’t like the party embarrassed I suspect many or most Americans would approve. Hell, how do Americans react to Yemen? I saw Rachel Maddow do a piece on that and all she cared about were the missiles fired at the us navy after the funeral bombing. She mentioned nothing about that. The whole point was to argue Democrats are saner in crisis situations. The people we help kill– doesn’t matter. This is the morality of people in a superpower.
If we can prove Putin or some high ranking Russian ordered this we should retaliate in kind. Expose something embarrassing about them. Tit for tat. But I read the NYT piece a few hours ago where they actually called themselves an agent of Russian intelligence and they sound insane. This is new–the press being McCarthyite about itself. One just can’t be too disgusted by American political culture. Every year it can surprise you with levels of stupidity and hypocrisy you couldn’t have even imagined. We have been heading for Trump for a long time.
We have always been at war with Eastasia–
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-morell-russia-election-hacking_us_584eb2cde4b0bd9c3dfd73cc
Morell. It’s fascinating how our wonderful CIA professionals are given sich credibility. Fascinating is one word. Nauseating is another.
On what we have done vs what others have done, what Russia apparently did was steal some politically embarrassing documents about the Democrats and allow them to be published, without doing the same to Trump.. Some of the most interesting newsworthy material was barely covered at all in the MSM, which focused on the more gossipy elements. I don’t want Russia interfering in our elections, but if we are this fragile then that’s a much bigger problem. Anyone could have stolen those documents and given them to wikileaks. It is a disaster that Trump won, but there are a lot of reasons for that.
And this doesn’t even come close to the kinds of interference that we do elsewhere. If we were told the CIA stole and exposed material embarrassing to some political party in a foreign country, how many Americans would give even one tenth of a shit? In reality it is so far down on the list of things we’ve done it wouldn’t even register. If we didn’t like the party embarrassed I suspect many or most Americans would approve. Hell, how do Americans react to Yemen? I saw Rachel Maddow do a piece on that and all she cared about were the missiles fired at the us navy after the funeral bombing. She mentioned nothing about that. The whole point was to argue Democrats are saner in crisis situations. The people we help kill– doesn’t matter. This is the morality of people in a superpower.
If we can prove Putin or some high ranking Russian ordered this we should retaliate in kind. Expose something embarrassing about them. Tit for tat. But I read the NYT piece a few hours ago where they actually called themselves an agent of Russian intelligence and they sound insane. This is new–the press being McCarthyite about itself. One just can’t be too disgusted by American political culture. Every year it can surprise you with levels of stupidity and hypocrisy you couldn’t have even imagined. We have been heading for Trump for a long time.
We have always been at war with Eastasia–
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-morell-russia-election-hacking_us_584eb2cde4b0bd9c3dfd73cc
Morell. It’s fascinating how our wonderful CIA professionals are given sich credibility. Fascinating is one word. Nauseating is another.
On what we have done vs what others have done, what Russia apparently did was steal some politically embarrassing documents about the Democrats and allow them to be published, without doing the same to Trump.. Some of the most interesting newsworthy material was barely covered at all in the MSM, which focused on the more gossipy elements. I don’t want Russia interfering in our elections, but if we are this fragile then that’s a much bigger problem. Anyone could have stolen those documents and given them to wikileaks. It is a disaster that Trump won, but there are a lot of reasons for that.
And this doesn’t even come close to the kinds of interference that we do elsewhere. If we were told the CIA stole and exposed material embarrassing to some political party in a foreign country, how many Americans would give even one tenth of a shit? In reality it is so far down on the list of things we’ve done it wouldn’t even register. If we didn’t like the party embarrassed I suspect many or most Americans would approve. Hell, how do Americans react to Yemen? I saw Rachel Maddow do a piece on that and all she cared about were the missiles fired at the us navy after the funeral bombing. She mentioned nothing about that. The whole point was to argue Democrats are saner in crisis situations. The people we help kill– doesn’t matter. This is the morality of people in a superpower.
If we can prove Putin or some high ranking Russian ordered this we should retaliate in kind. Expose something embarrassing about them. Tit for tat. But I read the NYT piece a few hours ago where they actually called themselves an agent of Russian intelligence and they sound insane. This is new–the press being McCarthyite about itself. One just can’t be too disgusted by American political culture. Every year it can surprise you with levels of stupidity and hypocrisy you couldn’t have even imagined. We have been heading for Trump for a long time.
Moralizing and disgust aside, I think there is more going on in this outrage about the Russians than just outrage about the election. I think that there are large segments in the mainstream that wanted a victory against Russia and Iran in Syria and are furious Obama didn’t do more– in general they want to fight the Cold War again. Syria was to be our proxy war like Afghanistan in the commie days, where we supplied rebels who would topple Assad and win a victory against the Iranians and the Russians. As in Afghanistan we were allied with jihadists fighting against a brutal regime backed by Russia. It hasn’t gone according to plan. People with this attitude see Trump as a threat, so the leaks to the press are meant to push back against a possible future change in policy by Trump. Trump, of course, is too personally confused and contradictory in his attitudes, seeming to want peace with Russia and war with Iran and may blunder into war with China.
This is why I harp on Morell. In a political culture with a reality based community, people would notice this guy’s views. They’d see Clinton’s support for more intervention, her ties with the Saudis, the general sordidness and stupidity of our policy in Syria and the Mideast and wonder if all the professed outrage really stemmed entirely from motives of civic virtue.
Also, of course, if it is the Russians fault it makes the Democrats feel good. No need for self examination at all. People who object are just Russian tools.
Moralizing and disgust aside, I think there is more going on in this outrage about the Russians than just outrage about the election. I think that there are large segments in the mainstream that wanted a victory against Russia and Iran in Syria and are furious Obama didn’t do more– in general they want to fight the Cold War again. Syria was to be our proxy war like Afghanistan in the commie days, where we supplied rebels who would topple Assad and win a victory against the Iranians and the Russians. As in Afghanistan we were allied with jihadists fighting against a brutal regime backed by Russia. It hasn’t gone according to plan. People with this attitude see Trump as a threat, so the leaks to the press are meant to push back against a possible future change in policy by Trump. Trump, of course, is too personally confused and contradictory in his attitudes, seeming to want peace with Russia and war with Iran and may blunder into war with China.
This is why I harp on Morell. In a political culture with a reality based community, people would notice this guy’s views. They’d see Clinton’s support for more intervention, her ties with the Saudis, the general sordidness and stupidity of our policy in Syria and the Mideast and wonder if all the professed outrage really stemmed entirely from motives of civic virtue.
Also, of course, if it is the Russians fault it makes the Democrats feel good. No need for self examination at all. People who object are just Russian tools.
Moralizing and disgust aside, I think there is more going on in this outrage about the Russians than just outrage about the election. I think that there are large segments in the mainstream that wanted a victory against Russia and Iran in Syria and are furious Obama didn’t do more– in general they want to fight the Cold War again. Syria was to be our proxy war like Afghanistan in the commie days, where we supplied rebels who would topple Assad and win a victory against the Iranians and the Russians. As in Afghanistan we were allied with jihadists fighting against a brutal regime backed by Russia. It hasn’t gone according to plan. People with this attitude see Trump as a threat, so the leaks to the press are meant to push back against a possible future change in policy by Trump. Trump, of course, is too personally confused and contradictory in his attitudes, seeming to want peace with Russia and war with Iran and may blunder into war with China.
This is why I harp on Morell. In a political culture with a reality based community, people would notice this guy’s views. They’d see Clinton’s support for more intervention, her ties with the Saudis, the general sordidness and stupidity of our policy in Syria and the Mideast and wonder if all the professed outrage really stemmed entirely from motives of civic virtue.
Also, of course, if it is the Russians fault it makes the Democrats feel good. No need for self examination at all. People who object are just Russian tools.