TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #1776
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    The state of education clearly leaves a lot to be desired. "Liberals are the biggest polluters because LA and NYC suffer smog" may seem a superficially sound statement, but even a cursory glance at the facts disproves it quite thoroughly.

    A decent education system would arm its citizens with both the ability to accurately evaluate arguments, and to construct reasonable arguments, but most folk seem ready to swallow any old bullshit, particularly if it conforms to their preconceptions.

    Of course, there is the question of whether one should expect more from a country where 4 in 10 people believe the Earth to have existed for no more than 10,000 years.

  2. #1777
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word. I don't know whether it's a new thing, but it's certainly a current thing, in that it doesn't seem to matter what facts are. It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the president because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?

    -- Stephen Colbert 2016 2006

  3. #1778
    Member
    Registered: May 2000
    Location: Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    A decent education system would arm its citizens with both the ability to accurately evaluate arguments, and to construct reasonable arguments, but most folk seem ready to swallow any old bullshit, particularly if it conforms to their preconceptions.
    Not to sound conspiracy theorist myself, but we are systematically defunding higher education (i.e. higher student loans) and watering down the benefits substantially. In combination with that, we are pushing more divisive and disliked candidates for our presidential elections. To me this is the making of McDonald's citizens with McDonald's elections so they never truly have a grasp of their own future or the society they want. We have been taught to be more interested in immediate emotional gratification without any concern for history or future. I think this is by design and is not only limited to those without a degree or education. I know plenty of "liberal" friends that want to eat up anything their party tells them is "reasonable".

  4. #1779
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by the_grip View Post
    It's not "liberal media", it's "money and agenda" media.

    I'd say just the "money' media.

    Our 24 hour news networks only have one true agenda: their ratings. They'll do everything they can to keep them high, from running stories without doing proper fact checking simply so they can get the first scoop, to hype up health scares such as SARS and Ebola to such breathless degrees, that they sound like we're suffering a world ending epidemic. They're doing it for no other reason than it gets people to watch. Because the more people they have watching, the more money they make.

    There are no conspiracy theories behind it. Just the usual lusting for the almighty dollar.

  5. #1780
    Member
    Registered: May 2000
    Location: Colorado
    By and large, yes, although Wikileaks showed some pretty clear agendas between some major news organizations and the Clinton campaign. Stephen Bannon also has a pretty clear agenda for Breitbart. The former actually backfired to some extent as I think many voters considered Clinton a shoo-in based on Trump's media coverage and the inaccuracy of pollsters.

  6. #1781
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It did, yeah. The Clinton campaign wanted good coverage, were willing to pay for it, and some of our news networks were willing to provide it. It's the current way of the world.

    Though this shouldn't surprise anyone. When Reagan struck down the Fairness Doctrine back in the 80's, everyone should've known this was the inevitable conclusion. News sources no longer have to offer up all sides of a political argument for the sake of properly informing the viewing public. Our networks are free to endorse who they want, how they want, so long as they don't blatantly lie (unless they mark it as an editorial first). If Fox wants to endorse Trump, and skew their news so they report Republican agendas in a more favorable light, they're free to do so. Same with CNN and Clinton.

    It's yet another example of how our so called Constitutionalist can't have their cake, and eat it too. They wanted to strike down the Fairness Doctrine because it ran counter to the 1st Amendment? Well, this is the end result. If the networks don't favor their cause, they can't scream and complain, shouting conspiracy and agenda to the heavens high. It's the networks 1st Amendment rights not to support their position if they don't want to, so they can either suck it up, or reenact the Fairness Doctrine so they can get the fair and balanced reporting they claim to want.

  7. #1782
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: cesspool
    Now Le Pen spectacularly leading in France, very predictable. What a great triumvirate it will be: Trump, Putin and Le Pen.

    PS: Frexit next BTW.
    Last edited by 242; 21st Nov 2016 at 15:52.

  8. #1783
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2013
    242
    What makes you think Trump would want any sort of alliance with Putin?

  9. #1784
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Because he said great things about him?

  10. #1785
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2013
    Starker
    All he did was not to throw a hissy fit whenever he mentioned the guy. That's not the same as saying great things about someone.

  11. #1786
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: cesspool
    Quote Originally Posted by nemyax View Post
    242
    What makes you think Trump would want any sort of alliance with Putin?
    From a The Guardian's article: "...Still, this scenario fails to explain Trump’s gushing public support for Putin. During the US election campaign, Putin was the only international figure whom Trump repeatedly praised."

    Putin hopes for a new version of the 1945 Yalta treaty and pre 1990 devided world with clear influence boundaries, and I don't think it's something too important for Trump, so the deal is quite possible.

  12. #1787
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him."

    @242
    It's not just Putin. The West's right wing (Le Pen, Farage, etc) also sees him as sort of an ideal realpolitik partner.

  13. #1788

  14. #1789
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    The US system is not creating prosperity for everyone, and that has been especially true through this last recession and recovery, which is why we have insurgent candidates like Trump and Sanders. Is that not obvious?
    By the the word "obvious", especially combined with populism, the message is we don't need to check the facts because it's an article of political faith that people are doing worse. More exactly it's a message of realpolitik (i.e., there are 2 senses of "obvious" here). It doesn't matter if you actually believe they're doing worse. It's a statement of fact 10s of millions of Americans believe it. That much is obvious. But the content is the opposite of obvious. It's political dogma. The economy is doing well and recovered remarkably from the 2008 crash, considering its magnitude. More to the point, it's doing much better than it could have under the regime the economic populists want to impose to their detriment. (Doing well under the circumstances doesn't mean they're actually doing "well" in an absolute sense in their perception. They would evidently say they aren't. But wellness is best measured against a baseline, and with measureable metrics. More than that is emotion, which is important but not grounds for policy.) In any event, the perception on the lowest social rungs doesn't see or feel the recovery. They don't know how to see the recovery, because the perception of political theology is different from the perception of political economics. The former grows out of resentment. The latter grows out of derivative equations.

    You've made several posts where you glibly refer to violent revolution and I don't know what point you're trying to make.
    For the record this is conflating a few things.
    By "revolution" I don't mean anything violent, quite the exact opposite. It's something that's itself glib and casual. But it is revolutionary in its scope and rhetoric, so it deserves the reference. Ok, the "blood or tears" was rhetorical. It's only going to be tears, but out of the same resentments that drove blood in the past cases. I'm tying this to the longer history of political revolutions and channeling Tocqueville on the French Revolution.

    The problem with popular revolutions isn't really violence (but that's the part, the symptom, they saw), but the underlying structure that they understood and described & that is shared here, that there is no "alternative system". There's only political processes, and overturning them just reconstructs the same processes and system by necessity, only (by design) leaving out the mechanisms that check it against abuses and direct how conflicts and breakdowns are resolved... Basically everything the revolutionaries wanted to avoid, they create for the purpose of avoiding. it's teriffically self-referential in that way. It's evident in Trump's case as his anti-corruption promise to drain the swamps we now know means to put in highly corrupt people and add gators to the swamp. The point is, it's a structural feature inherent in revolutions, even of the glib and casual type.

    I'm not myself glib about it. I'm channelling a huge literature in political theory, and the quote channelling Tocquville is one of my entryways to it. That's why that post was begging for a little poetic license for the much deeper point. For posts like this, metaphor does better than a 200 page dissertation.
    Last edited by demagogue; 21st Nov 2016 at 17:28.

  15. #1790
    Member
    Registered: May 2000
    Location: Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    The economy is doing well and recovered remarkably from the 2008 crash, considering its magnitude.
    This depends on how you measure the economy. In terms of the poverty rate, it is worse by a few percent from before the crash. In terms of real unemployment numbers, it is likely somewhere around 10 - 12% which was almost unthinkable ten years ago. In terms of capital producing more capital or capital fiddling around through financial measures to look like more capital, then yes. Of course, the world has way more capital floating around now, too.

    Kind of like how you view economics - if it is a top down approach, (i.e. economic models that assume rational consumers will fill demand curves that produced a trickle down philosophy towards economics that really hasn't borne itself out in reality) then yes. If it is a bottom up approach (i.e. more skilled workers means more jobs), then maybe there is some grey area in that call.

  16. #1791
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I don't want to be dogmatic myself. There's plenty of room for a debate on economic policy and policy should always be evolving to keep up with conditions. The catch with populism is that it wants to throw out the whole textbook and go with slogans that don't inspire any confidence at all. I really just want to make that weaker point, which is much weaker than saying there aren't issues and no need for smart reforms, which I wouldn't say.

    But another angle on that, in 1992 Clinton won on the "It's the economy, stupid" line, and there was a lot of economic anxiety then (although it was peanuts compared to 2008). Perot made very Trump-like statements like kill NAFTA and run gov't like a business. But for 2016, it doesn't feel like economic anxiety is really doing the work. It feels a lot more like identity politics that just channels economic arguments to make its point.

    Is it really Mexican competition over grueling agricultural and manual labor work that's driving Americans so batty they want to literally build a wall? I think it has more to do with the Latin Americans moving on to people's streets and becoming a force in popular culture, and whites (people I know) think why do they have to struggle while the Gonzaleses down the street seem to be doing just fine the way they party every weekend. They use the language of economic anxiety, but its roots are in resentment.

    Edit. Speaking of 1992, my undergrad thesis was on the demographics of the 1992 election. I can tell you, eg, there was a spike of support for Perot among Catholic voters because they distrusted "Clinton's bad character" but were not willing to vote Republican or not vote at all. The answer's always in the numbers, and I'm not going to believe anything about what Trump's win actually means until I see the book or article that crunches the numbers and puts it in perspective. Perot's vote was almost entirely a protest vote, and Trump seems the same. But "protest" isn't much of a basis for positive policy.
    Last edited by demagogue; 21st Nov 2016 at 18:33.

  17. #1792
    Member
    Registered: May 2000
    Location: Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    It feels a lot more like identity politics that just channels economic arguments to make its point.
    Gotcha, that is a great point and I 100% agree. I also agree with you on immigrants. I have never really understood what the heck our immigrant "problem" is when nobody can explain it in real terms. The reasons are always artificial or diverted to other subjects which might belie a personal issue that has no evidence for support.

  18. #1793
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Cuz there are no real terms, Grip.

    If someone were to argue logistics, especially in terms of massive influx of immigrants I could probably concede their point. But it's rarely ever that. Mostly it's Muslim invaders, out to destroy our way of life, or Mexican illegals out to take our jobs, stealing our tax dollars by riding our government provided services without paying a dime back in return. Usually stuff that's based more on feelings and anger than facts.

    If there's one thing I've noticed recently, it's that a lot of people have become overly concerned with what other people deserve, rather than what people do.

  19. #1794
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The alt right movement hails Trump.

  20. #1795
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Yeah, that's a little disconcerting.

  21. #1796
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    Actually, it's about ethics in gaming journalism.

  22. #1797
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    A message, from President-Elect Donald Trump...



    Main Points:

    - Agenda based on a simple core principle: Putting America First.
    - Trade: Submit notification of intent to withdraw from TPP negotiations.
    - Energy: Cancel job-killing restrictions on the production and harvesting of American energy.
    - Regulations: Formulate a rule that says for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.
    - National Security: Ask the DoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to come up with a comprehensive plan to protect against cyber attacks and conventional attacks.
    - Immigration: Investigate visa programs that undercut the American worker.
    - Ethics: Five year ban on executive officials that leave the administration, and lifetime ban on executive officials that lobby on behalf of a foreign government.
    Last edited by Vae; 22nd Nov 2016 at 04:01.

  23. #1798
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I've never cared what he thinks or says.
    No reason to start now.

    I have a folder of about 100 political speeches, so that's saying something too. It's like being a serious chess student and watching a chess game by an amateur that only won because his opponant was disqualified. You're actually going to play worse if you follow any of it.
    Last edited by demagogue; 22nd Nov 2016 at 02:29.

  24. #1799
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    You should. It will have repercussions. China is already moving in to fill the void USA creates by getting out of TPP and slashing environmental protections is not peanuts either. Not to mention all the corporate welfare he's planning.

  25. #1800
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    The TPP if you read into it all is quite horrible. Be good to see it die.

    And all of those points made in the video sound good.

Page 72 of 558 FirstFirst ... 222732374247525762676869707172737475767782879297102107112117122172322 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •