View Full Version : Dawn of the Trump Era
So the awful day has arrived. You can march and chant and annoy the police. You can raise a banner in rebellion or a prayer to Heaven. It really doesn’t change much. I know a few mayors are talking about ignoring uncongenial federal laws or policies like it’s 1859. Chuck Shumer talks so much about “the resistance”, I’m starting to picture him in a beret with a sten gun. So many are claiming to be “terrified”, I have to look out the window for signs of a zombie apocalypse. The departing president, who wielded his phone and pen like an orb and scepter, speaks darkly of “the fragility of democracy”. Liberals turn to Wikipedia to look into that “federalism” thing. Conservatives ponder the complicated stew of threats and opportunities he presents for their cause. Other countries are puzzled, wondering if the translator missed something.
Me, I’m choosing to be optimistic. But I do have a few questions:
Will anger at Trump spawn a reinvigorated Left movement the way Obama begat the Tea Party?
Will Paul Ryan become the most influential House Speaker since Henry Clay?
Will we depart NATO, leaving Europe to their own enfeebled devices?
A menagerie of Democrats have been posturing grandiosely during the cabinet hearings in preparation for the 2020 election. Will the identity politics of Cory Booker eventually prevail over the class resentment of Elizabeth Warren, or will Bernie Sanders’ combination of charm and emancipatory math get him the nomination now that the Clinton machine has been junked? Where are the young Democrats?
Conversely, will a chastened GOP empire strike back?
catherine
1-20-17, 10:25am
I'm still gobsmacked that he's going to be the man with his hand on the Lincoln bible today. But like you, I'm always pretty optimistic. I do think that citizens are going to have to work harder to help mitigate GOP agenda from running roughshod over certain human issues. With the Cabinet Trump is building, it appears that the theme song for the administration will be the same theme song as The Apprentice: "money money money money MONEY!"
I see there's a Bernie Sanders T-shirt that has his iconic caricature on it with the words Hindsight 2020, and supposedly he hasn't ruled out another run--even though he'd be 78. But probably Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker will be better positioned to be the Bernie surrogate in 4 years--we probably lost our chance with Bernie. I agree that the Left will be invigorated, which I think is great.
My predication is that the GOP will have an exhausting job taming the wild horse, and that they are not going to find it easy reforming/repealing Obamacare. I also think that unless Trump has a conversion experience, he'll probably saddle back to Trump Tower in 2020, voluntarily.
I think Elizabeth Warren lost all credibility when she backed the wrong horse.
She is not doing herself any favors in the confirmation hearings, either.
I don't know anyone from the Bernie campaign who would back her in the next election.
I feel like all bets are off. I don't have a clue how things will go. Yep, I'm gobsmacked every day too, catherine, thinking that he is our president. I want to be positive, but it's hard to do with Trump's history and his narcissism, plus the people he has chosen for his cabinet. I feel we are in for a very, very rough ride.
I can't imagine him lasting a full term. He's bound to run afowl of the law sooner rather than later. He's a pathological liar who thinks he's a law unto himself, how could he help but do? So after the impeachment we'll be stuck with Pence, another nut. How much ground will we lose in this country under these morons? I think they should have moved the inauguratoin up to last Friday, the 13th. (And what a classy first lady! Did you see the GQ spread she did? My gawd!)
catherine
1-20-17, 10:51am
I think Elizabeth Warren lost all credibility when she backed the wrong horse.
She is not doing herself any favors in the confirmation hearings, either.
I don't know anyone from the Bernie campaign who would back her in the next election.
Really? I didn't realize that she's been taken down a peg. Of course, I'd want to see Bernie up there again, and would vote for him, but I wonder if he'd run again.
I'm still gobsmacked that he's going to be the man with his hand on the Lincoln bible today. But like you, I'm always pretty optimistic. I do think that citizens are going to have to work harder to help mitigate GOP agenda from running roughshod over certain human issues. With the Cabinet Trump is building, it appears that the theme song for the administration will be the same theme song as The Apprentice: "money money money money MONEY!"
I see there's a Bernie Sanders T-shirt that has his iconic caricature on it with the words Hindsight 2020, and supposedly he hasn't ruled out another run--even though he'd be 78. But probably Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker will be better positioned to be the Bernie surrogate in 4 years--we probably lost our chance with Bernie. I agree that the Left will be invigorated, which I think is great.
My predication is that the GOP will have an exhausting job taming the wild horse, and that they are not going to find it easy reforming/repealing Obamacare. I also think that unless Trump has a conversion experience, he'll probably saddle back to Trump Tower in 2020, voluntarily.
I think it's quite possible we will see a re-energized left, but I also think it's even odds that energy will be channeled in electorally constructive ways. The GOP is now benefiting from many years of hard, patient work at the state and local level. They have built a cadre of effective young politicians that will serve them well in future years. One has to ask if the Democrats are willing to put in the same time and effort.
Or will all that energy dissipate in "intersectional" disputes, impotent rage and self-indulgent virtue-signalling?
Or will all that energy dissipate in "intersectional" disputes, impotent rage and self-indulgent virtue-signalling?
I've seen all of the above in both parties. No one has a corner on the market for virtue-signaling (depends on what virtues you find worth signaling), not all rage is impotent--some of it leads to important change, no matter what party you're aligned with.
ApatheticNoMore
1-20-17, 2:53pm
I don't think the term even "virtue signaling" adds anything, it itself is obfuscation. Why not just use the term "showing off", everyone instantly understands what you mean (and it's an age-old trait represented in human fiction and non-fiction since forever - a child knows what that means and there is a lot to be said for that). And it isn't parsing whether something is actual virtue or is virtue signaling or whether it's a sincerely held conviction or virtue signaling or whatever the heck you are even talking about. We don't actually have omniscience into everyone's motives, but everyone instantly knows that some people have personality traits inclined to show off (or maybe we all do but some more than others) and that is that.
You can fight primarily to advance a political party but the prerequisite for that it to have any hope that the political party will represent you and the interests you are fighting for in the first place. Otherwise it simply makes little sense, unless you are rich enough to literally buy off politicians to at least get a little personal quid pro quo going.
I've seen all of the above in both parties. No one has a corner on the market for virtue-signaling (depends on what virtues you find worth signaling), not all rage is impotent--some of it leads to important change, no matter what party you're aligned with.
I think that's true. There was a lot of anger at the passage of Obamacare several years ago, pretty much birthing the Tea Party. But apart from some terse Town Hall meetings, that anger for the most part channeled itself into supporting the campaigns of like-minded candidates, who were then able to influence events for good or ill. I see that as more conducive to change than blocking traffic, lecturing officials from the Broadway stage, marching, chanting or rioting. Those things are just ways of demonstrating your committment and political virtue to the already convinced.
I think Bernie Sanders, in his endearingly eccentric way, understood that you can't change the law without electing some lawmakers. His campaign was headed in the direction of a sort of progressive version of the tea party. Who knows what might have happened if the Clinton people hadn't marshaled the party apparatus against him?
I think Bernie Sanders, in his endearingly eccentric way, understood that you can't change the law without electing some lawmakers. His campaign was headed in the direction of a sort of progressive version of the tea party. Who knows what might have happened if the Clinton people hadn't marshaled the party apparatus against him?
Very true--Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton machine sabotaged Bernie's campaign, and it still didn't work out for them.
Very true--Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton machine sabotaged Bernie's campaign, and it still didn't work out for them.
I'm not crazy about the way we found out. I wonder how many in the US media were aware of what was happening but said nothing. It doesn't say much for their competence and integrity.
I think Donnie will redefine both the GOP and the Dems, which could hopefully and eventually have a positive outcome. He has derided the media to the degree I think they are going to hold him to the fire on keeping his promises and being honest as long as they remain free to write. My optimistic side hopes that people will eventually see him for what he is, the emperor without clothes.
Rogar, I too am hoping the media does a clear job ...but all the people I know who voted for Trump only watch FoxNews....no way they will ever see the emperor has no clothes. And if they ever do they will say,no matter what, it is Obama's fault, or Hilary's or Bill Clinton's fault.
I think people tend to exaggerate the influence of Fox News. I think they also tend to overestimate their own degree of open-mindedness compared to the people they disagree with. A reliable indicator of a poor argument is the appeal to the "Fox News Talking Point" incantation.
I don't think Hillary lost due to legions of Fox zombies, many of whom unaccountably were previous Obama voters. I think she lost because she ran a poor campaign.
From the news it seems like Trump's core supporters are the underemployed due to the loss of manufacturing and energy jobs. Those falling into that group may experience the news first hand if they lose their health insurance subsidies and other benefits like planned parenthood, and don't get the jobs they've wanted. I wouldn't totally discount it could go the other way and his stimulus programs could somehow help.
Outside of his core supporters there are bigger issues.
frugal-one
1-20-17, 8:42pm
I think people tend to exaggerate the influence of Fox News. I think they also tend to overestimate their own degree of open-mindedness compared to the people they disagree with. A reliable indicator of a poor argument is the appeal to the "Fox News Talking Point" incantation.
My brother said to watch Hannity on Fox News. What garbage! People watching this have a VERY skewed view!
(And what a classy first lady! Did you see the GQ spread she did? My gawd!)
I thought "slut shaming" was frowned upon.
What did President Trump mean when he said "I'm giving governing back to the people"? What does that look like? How does that happen?
And we're going to have more jobs and more American products. Are American really willing to pay more for products or is fair living wage going out the window to buy American?
Every time 'buy American' comes up on my FB page (lots of small town family), I post a website for American made. The response is usually "I can't afford that". Well? Ya can't have it both ways people.....
oh damn, this is 1 of my soapboxes. I'll stop. You all know this.
Ultralight
1-21-17, 6:50am
Dusk in America...
I thought "slut shaming" was frowned upon.
I do not pick on candidates and politicians kids, regardless of what I think about them. And I am hesitant to pick on other women, I will on a political basis but not a personal one. Too much bringing each other down instead of treating each other like adults that can work together or against each other, but not in the ways that we often have treated other women.
Hear, hear Zoe. They did not choose this office. The women and children need to be off limits unless they are part of the administration not just because they are related.
frugal-one
1-21-17, 11:17am
I thought "slut shaming" was frowned upon.
I think the whole idea of Melania being of the same affiliation as J. Kennedy is what prompted the "classy" response. I can't imagine Kennedy posing in the nude.
ToomuchStuff
1-21-17, 12:01pm
I feel like all bets are off.
I think Donnie will redefine both the GOP and the Dems, which could hopefully and eventually have a positive outcome. He has derided the media to the degree I think they are going to hold him to the fire on keeping his promises and being honest as long as they remain free to write. My optimistic side hopes that people will eventually see him for what he is, the emperor without clothes.
He has been using the media, the whole time he chastises them. Seems they are too codependent to me, as they both use the other. He has also called himself both a Democrat, and a Republican, and that should probably scare both parties.
I can't imagine him lasting a full term. He's bound to run afowl of the law sooner rather than later. He's a pathological liar who thinks he's a law unto himself, how could he help but do?
He is in a town, surrounded by lawyers, and he has been using lawyers for years. More codependence and knowing how to work the system?
I'm not crazy about the way we found out. I wonder how many in the US media were aware of what was happening but said nothing. It doesn't say much for their competence and integrity. The press is free, if you own the press.
What did President Trump mean when he said "I'm giving governing back to the people"? What does that look like? How does that happen?
And we're going to have more jobs and more American products. Are American really willing to pay more for products or is fair living wage going out the window to buy American?
Every time 'buy American' comes up on my FB page (lots of small town family), I post a website for American made. The response is usually "I can't afford that". Well? Ya can't have it both ways people.....
oh damn, this is 1 of my soapboxes. I'll stop. You all know this.
It could look like this site, getting more people vocal/involved. I have mixed feelings about the whole buying American thing, as I remember that, that, doesn't always equate to quality. (or honesty, in labeling) That doesn't even bring up an article I saw (but didn't read) that said, something like 50% of the jobs in the USA could be mechanized. (that may bring high tech jobs, but fewer people needed to do those)
I think the whole idea of Melania being of the same affiliation as J. Kennedy is what prompted the "classy" response. I can't imagine Kennedy posing in the nude.
Not sure if it was this site, or another, were someone mentioned living in France, and rushing out with their dad, all over to try to find a magazine issue where she was naked in it. It was only the backside, from a paparazzi, when she was on a beach, and his father was disappointed.
Either way, was this about slut shaming, or telling a woman what she could do with her body, in the same way as the abortion discussions start?
EDIT: Best line I heard yesterday, was two friends on opposite sides of the fence, having a discussion they had a few years ago. The Republican said to the Democrat, I am going to give you the same advice you gave me years back, give him a chance.
EDIT: Best line I heard yesterday, was two friends on opposite sides of the fence, having a discussion they had a few years ago. The Republican said to the Democrat, I am going to give you the same advice you gave me years back, give him a chance.
I gave him a chance. Then he questioned our president's legitimacy for 8 years. And he mocked a disabled reporter, bragged about sexual assualt, and made assorted sexist and racist comments on an almost daily basis. Then he got elected and I gave him another chance. Then I watched as he picked one incompetent after another for cabinet posts, and they have proudly displayed their incompetence in their confirmation hearings. And he went on a witchhunt for climate scientists within the government, and scrubbed the white house website of any references to LGBT or climate change moments after taking office.
He's had more than enough chances from me. He's a sleazy douchebag who's going to do his best to destroy everything good about this country in an effort to help rich people, including himself, make a buck off the backs of the rest of us. And he still hasn't released his taxes. If I were one to create conspiracy theories I'd bet that he's up to his eyeballs in debt to Russians. I hope against hope that his administration goes down in a big ball of flames once incontrovertable proof of massive corruption comes to light. The day he's forced to leave office before his term is over will be the biggest darn party this country has ever seen.
EDIT: Forgot to mention: And he wanted a red square style military display for his inauguration parade. Thankfully the military has far more class than him and said no.
ApatheticNoMore
1-21-17, 1:24pm
I think the whole idea of Melania being of the same affiliation as J. Kennedy is what prompted the "classy" response. I can't imagine Kennedy posing in the nude.
She does remind me of Jackie, she wears it well, Madame Onassis got nothing on her. Now she married very badly of course. Can you imagine, being married to Donald Trump? But then I suppose so did Jackie in some ways (in terms of picking a loyal husband, that standard of purity really doesn't seem to be applied to men).
http://www.snopes.com/trump-military-inaugural-parade/
Trump. Military parade. Fake news?
I hope against hope that his administration goes down in a big ball of flames once incontrovertable proof of massive corruption comes to light.
I keep wondering how on earth he's already "gotten away with" so many of the things he has said and done.
I know it's unlikely anyone will be interested in this 37 minute video, especially since it's with a New Age-y type writer, Byron Katie, but if your fears about Trump are wreaking havoc in your life, it could be useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulOFJB0AfLo
http://www.snopes.com/trump-military-inaugural-parade/
Trump. Military parade. Fake news?
Perhaps. Although unproven doesnt mean untruthful. And it would certainly fit in with the image of schooltard bully turned old man schoolyard bully he's worked so hard to cultivate. As a tv actor he surely would see the value of a parade like that's optics. Especially since he doesnt give a crap about anyone's opinion other than his own.
leslieann
1-22-17, 12:28pm
I am afraid that the media frenzy to make "news" about Trump and the way his administration is playing into it (whining about criticism, bashing anyone who may say something unpleasant about the President) is going to limit what we can hear about what is actually happening in terms of governing the country.
I want to know what those executive orders that have already been signed MEAN. I want to know what is actually going on while folks on the Trump team are offering childish retorts to (possibly) childish insults. I think this is all a way to keep the left busy while the right works fast and dirty right under everyone's nose.
Is there a way to get the media to straighten up? They are playing this just the way they played the campaign.
I think I may stay in Iceland another couple of weeks until the dust settles...
ApatheticNoMore
1-22-17, 12:48pm
I am afraid that the media frenzy to make "news" about Trump and the way his administration is playing into it (whining about criticism, bashing anyone who may say something unpleasant about the President) is going to limit what we can hear about what is actually happening in terms of governing the country.
I want to know what those executive orders that have already been signed MEAN. I want to know what is actually going on while folks on the Trump team are offering childish retorts to (possibly) childish insults. I think this is all a way to keep the left busy while the right works fast and dirty right under everyone's nose.
Is there a way to get the media to straighten up? They are playing this just the way they played the campaign.
Good point but of course not really about Trump at all, but about the media. The new Congress has already been passing laws (up the point of presidential signature - still need that) and Trump wasn't even sworn in and yet most media focus was on Trump and what he did or do not do with hookers in Russia or will or will not do as president rather than the ACTUAL LEGISLATION being passed (which I suppose also plays into some people's prejudice who think Trump is uniquely evil. But he's not, which of course does not make him good).
The media is almost hopelessly corrupt though so I don't know. I mean they attempted to throw an election. They announced the California (and a few other states) primary for Clinton before the election based on nothing. She was favored to win anyway and could always be manually installed against the popular will by super delegates if not, but it wasn't enough to them, they put their thumb on the scale on an election and undermined democracy. There's no cure for them, they need to be broken up (antitrust), but it won't happen. Meanwhile more and more people get their news from alternative sources, but they are almost all dishonest to some degree (like I said as is the MSM but the standards are often even lower in the non-MSM).
iris lilies
1-22-17, 12:53pm
I am afraid that the media frenzy to make "news" about Trump and the way his administration is playing into it (whining about criticism, bashing anyone who may say something unpleasant about the President) is going to limit what we can hear about what is actually happening in terms of governing the country.
I want to know what those executive orders that have already been signed MEAN. I want to know what is actually going on while folks on the Trump team are offering childish retorts to (possibly) childish insults. I think this is all a way to keep the left busy while the right works fast and dirty right under everyone's nose.
Is there a way to get the media to straighten up? They are playing this just the way they played the campaign.
Thank you Leslie, I have exactly the same concern. The mainstream media will cover too much of the stupid stuff, and the twitteruniverse is covering ONLY the stupid stuff.
Teacher Terry
1-22-17, 12:59pm
JP: I totally agree with you. When Trump is impeached that will leave us with Pence who is an even bigger nut job then Trump. Of course the same people that voted for Trump are going to be crying like babies when he institutes policies that hurt them and only help the rich. It is going to be quite the show.
ApatheticNoMore
1-22-17, 1:30pm
Of course the same people that voted for Trump are going to be crying like babies when he institutes policies that hurt them and only help the rich.
some form of those policies would be implemented anyway, would they be allowed to complain if they voted for Hillary and she implemented them, like say the trade agreements she was for before she was against them. Is it now if you vote you have no right to complain, funny but I've also heard that if you don't vote you have no right to complain!
Teacher Terry
1-22-17, 1:33pm
If you voted for someone knowing that what he/she says is not what they do then what is the point of complaining later? How anyone can believe one word that comes out of that man's mouth amazes me. He lies constantly. He would not know reality if it ran him over.
It's been an interesting week at work. Over the past year, my location has become very multi-national. The immigrants, all legal and some US citizens, have been freaking out. My response is to ask them if they're an illegal Mexican. It just stops them cold.
But the worst of all has been a mid-20s guy in my department. He's from Eastern Europe, came here as a small child, as a refugee. He's a citizen. He was *very* vocal and *very* proud on election day that he didn't vote. And either wouldn't or couldn't tell us why he wouldn't vote and was so freaking proud of the fact. I told him then that I didn't want to hear a word out of him bellyaching about *any* elected official since he couldn't be bothered to vote. He's been caterwauling all week about how we're doomed, etc. I finally got him to shut up Friday by reminding him about what I'd told him on election day. I also told him that the US took him in, otherwise, he'd still be back in his not doing very well home country.
I am afraid that the media frenzy to make "news" about Trump and the way his administration is playing into it (whining about criticism, bashing anyone who may say something unpleasant about the President) is going to limit what we can hear about what is actually happening in terms of governing the country.
I want to know what those executive orders that have already been signed MEAN. I want to know what is actually going on while folks on the Trump team are offering childish retorts to (possibly) childish insults. I think this is all a way to keep the left busy while the right works fast and dirty right under everyone's nose.
Is there a way to get the media to straighten up? They are playing this just the way they played the campaign.
I honestly think one of the most important issues with the new president right now is the disconnect between the media and the president. It's not just the size of the crowds at the inauguration, but a pattern of misrepresentation from the birther issue, the popular vote was won by illegals, denial of Russian meddling, and so on. Politicians are not known for their total honesty. Take the Bush WMD or Obama's, "you can keep your insurance". But these are more isolate and not a pattern. It may be a little annoying to have the media scrutinizing every word and even getting over ambitious and getting few things wrong. But to have a president routinely presenting what I guess they are now calling, "alternate facts" is something important and people need to know. Yesterday it was the inaugural numbers, but tomorrow who knows. Something more important about social security or medicare or a radioactive leak.
I tend to think Donald is not so innocent to think he can routinely fool the people, but that there is a method to his madness. Maybe to confuse people to where they really don't know where the truth lies. Then he can have his way with things. As far as his executive actions, it's in the news but just not headlines. He's only been in office a few days and han't really done much So we have that to look forward to.
iris lilies
1-22-17, 5:54pm
I honestly think one of the most important issues with the new president right now is the disconnect between the media and the president. It's not just the size of the crowds at the inauguration, but a pattern of misrepresentation from the birther issue, the popular vote was won by illegals, denial of Russian meddling, and so on. Politicians are not known for their total honesty. Take the Bush WMD or Obama's, "you can keep your insurance". But these are more isolate and not a pattern. It may be a little annoying to have the media scrutinizing every word and even getting over ambitious and getting few things wrong. But to have a president routinely presenting what I guess they are now calling, "alternate facts" is something important and people need to know. Yesterday it was the inaugural numbers, but tomorrow who knows. Something more important about social security or medicare or a radioactive leak.
I tend to think Donald is not so innocent to think he can routinely fool the people, but that there is a method to his madness. Maybe to confuse people to where they really don't know where the truth lies. Then he can have his way with things. As far as his executive actions, it's in the news but just not headlines. He's only been in office a few days and han't really done much So we have that to look forward to.
crowd estimates are notoriously wrong. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture.
But I say so what to this issue. Crowds bigger, crowds smaller than for Obama or on Women's Day
march. why the hell does it matter? If Trump's camp is claiming outsize crowds, that is silly but basically unverifiable. It is stupid for either side to pursue it.
I agree IL, he does seem obsessed with sizes of things, though.
crowd estimates are notoriously wrong. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture.
Interesting that I've not heard this mentioned by either side. An alternate fact? Maybe China did the estimates. Or a teenager in his basement.
My point was that by itself the inaugural count by itself probably is trivial, but a trend where Donald misrepresents the likely truth of the matter. And that it is an indication he will do so on bigger and more things.
iris lilies
1-22-17, 7:12pm
Interesting that I've not heard this mentioned by either side. An alternate fact? Maybe China did the estimates. Or a teenager in his basement.
My point was that by itself the inaugural count by itself probably is trivial, but a trend where Donald misrepresents the likely truth of the matter. And that it is an indication he will do so on bigger and more things.
Yes, I can agree to some extent with your idea that The Donald likes to present his own sets of facts.
One thing that the idiot mainstream media can do is to not rise to the bait for trivial thIngs.
As we were making these posts this evening I heard the venerable NPR intone anout crowd sizes. for god's sake leave it alone.
I think it is entirely possible that the Trump administration will roduce results that are measurably better in his mind but that others dismiss as not "better" based on different facts, or nterpretation of the same facts.
It reminds me of my former workplace, the dancing around of measures. Happens everywhere.
A similar thing could be said about the "idiot" leader of our nation, who just might have more pressing issues. He definitely messed with the hornets nest.
He will probably drop another media bomb in the next few days and it will go away.
iris lilies
1-22-17, 8:27pm
A similar thing could be said about the "idiot" leader of our nation, who just might have more pressing issues. He definitely messed with the hornets nest.
He will probably drop another media bomb in the next few days and it will go away.
Oh absolutely, and this goes to the core of why I don't like him, his seeming obsession with the last word. Trivial stuff, beneath the Office, occupies him.
Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave ‘Alternative Facts’ on Inauguration Crowd
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/wh-spokesman-gave-alternative-facts-inauguration-crowd-n710466
I think "alternative facts" is probably the most Orwellian thing I've ever heard come out of the White House.
The reality is that he's picked fights with probably the two worst groups he could pick fights with, the media and the intelligence community. If anyone is going to have the resources, and now the will, to dig up the dirt that causes his presidency to go up in the flames of the rocket's red glare, it's those two groups.
Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave ‘Alternative Facts’ on Inauguration Crowd
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/wh-spokesman-gave-alternative-facts-inauguration-crowd-n710466
I think "alternative facts" is probably the most Orwellian thing I've ever heard come out of the White House.
A friend posted an appropriate interpretation of alternative facts on facebook: "The dolphins are going to the superbowl! #alternativefacts"
Fortunately for all of us reality has a habit of biting back against alternative facts, or whatever it is one chooses to call lies.
"The dolphins are going to the superbowl!
Wow I didn't know marine mammals even liked football! >8)
(posted by a despiser of professional sports)
Miss Cellane
1-23-17, 12:14am
Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave ‘Alternative Facts’ on Inauguration Crowd
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/wh-spokesman-gave-alternative-facts-inauguration-crowd-n710466
I think "alternative facts" is probably the most Orwellian thing I've ever heard come out of the White House.
The following is a post I've been seeing all over Twitter and Facebook. Apparently the writer wishes to remain anonymous. If I find out the writer's name, I will edit this post.
If you are puzzled by the bizarre "press conference" put on by the White House press secretary this evening (angrily claiming that Trump's inauguration had the largest audience in history, accusing them of faking photos and lying about attendance), let me help explain it. This spectacle served three purposes:
1. Establishing a norm with the press: they will be told things that are obviously wrong and they will have no opportunity to ask questions. That way, they will be grateful if they get anything more at any press conference. This is the PR equivalent of "negging," the odious pick-up practice of a particular kind of horrible man (e.g., Donald Trump).
2. Increasing the separation between Trump's base (1/3 of the population) from everybody else (the remaining 2/3). By being told something that is obviously wrong—that there is no evidence for and all evidence against, that anybody with eyes can see is wrong—they are forced to pick whether they are going to believe Trump or their lying eyes. The gamble here—likely to pay off—is that they will believe Trump. This means that they will regard media outlets that report the truth as "fake news" (because otherwise they'd be forced to confront their cognitive dissonance.)
3. Creating a sense of uncertainty about whether facts are knowable, among a certain chunk of the population (which is a taking a page from the Kremlin, for whom this is their preferred disinformation tactic). A third of the population will say "clearly the White House is lying," a third will say "if Trump says it, it must be true," and the remaining third will say "gosh, I guess this is unknowable." The idea isn't to convince these people of untrue things, it's to fatigue them, so that they will stay out of the political process entirely, regarding the truth as just too difficult to determine.
This is laying important groundwork for the months ahead. If Trump's White House is willing to lie about something as obviously, unquestionably fake as this, just imagine what else they'll lie about. In particular, things that the public cannot possibly verify the truth of. It's gonna get real bad.
yes! What Miss Cellane said!
ApatheticNoMore
1-23-17, 12:52am
Creating a sense of uncertainty about whether facts are knowable, among a certain chunk of the population (which is a taking a page from the Kremlin, for whom this is their preferred disinformation tactic). A third of the population will say "clearly the White House is lying," a third will say "if Trump says it, it must be true," and the remaining third will say "gosh, I guess this is unknowable." The idea isn't to convince these people of untrue things, it's to fatigue them, so that they will stay out of the political process entirely, regarding the truth as just too difficult to determine.
I side with the 3rd group and think it's basically rational based on the question: does the truth of this issue actually matter or not? Now plenty of political issues really do matter, in fact most things that could actually be called policy, or the things that really drive policy, or the assumptions behind policy, do at least to a small extent. But a lot of political gossip at this point isn't really politics anyway, so I don't know. So it's a rational defense against a firehouse of claims and counter claims that even political junkies would be hard pressed to verify about things that may be trivial anyway.
And anyway Trump is very far from the only one playing that game it seems to me. Most of the allegations of Russian hacking were not proven either. Agnosticism would be a perfectly valid attitude there as well though one could try to assess if there would be motive to lie etc..
What Miss Cellane said, too.
Here's a description of newspeak from the 1984 novel. It seems to capture the "alternate fact" concept.
"Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
— Part II, Chapter IX – The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivi sm)
What Miss Cellane said, too.
Here's a description of newspeak from the 1984 novel. It seems to capture the "alternate fact" concept.
"Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
— Part II, Chapter IX – The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivi sm)
Wow.
I've always said that Donald is P.T. Barnum on steroids--a master salesman. I think that he is simply exerting the sales skills that have served him well for over 50 years, and is trying to apply them to "selling" his Presidency. That's fine when you're selling snake oil, but it gets pretty dangerous when you are systematically trying to delude 300 million citizens to protect your ego. We all know that Washington is no paragon of virtue and truth, but his brand of truth-spinning is more than spin, and for no motivation other than self-aggrandizement.
Perhaps. Although unproven doesnt mean untruthful. And it would certainly fit in with the image of schooltard bully turned old man schoolyard bully he's worked so hard to cultivate. As a tv actor he surely would see the value of a parade like that's optics. Especially since he doesnt give a crap about anyone's opinion other than his own.
So if it fits your narrative, proof is more or less optional? Isn't that just another form of "alternate facts"?
Miss Cellane
1-23-17, 9:19am
And now we are being told that Trump will not release his tax returns. Ever.
During the campaign, we were told that Trump's taxes were being audited, and that the returns would be released after the audit.
Kellyann said this was "litigated" (I do not think that word means what she thinks it means) during the campaign. Um, no. Requests were made that the candidate follow tradition and disclose his tax returns, but I don't think anyone went to court over it, because the promise kept being made that they would eventually be released.
There is no law or regulation requiring this. But it has been protocol since Nixon.
So. A) We were lied to during the campaign. Clearly, it was never intended to release the tax returns. And B) Trump does not seem to be willing to follow *any* established protocols. Ever.
And of course, C) Now everyone wants to know what is so damning in those tax returns that he won't release them.
Trump's tax returns are a small issue. I'm not arguing that this is a major breach here. But it is indicative of how he acts. And I am not comfortable with this degree of deception. If he does this over a relatively minor matter, how is he going to act over the bigger, more serious matters?
And it's the same with the crowd counts. By themselves, they are a very minor thing. But the oddly intense focus of both Trump and Spicer about the counts, and the threats to the press, are out of proportion to the actual facts. Is Trump really that insecure? Or is this the first round in a battle to completely discredit the press and eventually restrict access to what is happening in the White House to a few chosen media outlets? "You, you over there! You are fake news! Get out of the press room now!"
Or the complaints about approving his Cabinet nominees. A) There were delays in naming them. Christie had a plan and lists of people, but that was all thrown out when he was dismissed from the transition team, and they had to start all over again. B) There were delays in submitting financial and other records needed for the ethics checks. Again, this is on Trump, the transition team and the individuals nominated. So C) it is not the fault of Congress that this approvals haven't happened. In fact, some of the hearings are happening before the nominees have been vetted by the Ethics Office.
It was completely within the control of the transition team and the nominees to get the paperwork done on time. They didn't. But they are trying to spin this as the Democrats in Congress delaying things. When it is pointed out to them that Republicans in Congress "delayed" some of Obama's nominees, the spin/pivot doctors come out. Please. Stop trying to blame others for problems that you created.
Either Trump is going to micromanage his appearance in the press to the detriment of actually running the country (not good) or he is going to hobble the free press (also not good).
Or maybe this is just growing pains and it will all shake out in the end. But nothing Trump or his minions have said or done during the campaign or the transition, and certainly not in the first few days of his presidency, have indicated this will happen.
It's sort of trade off. Baldwin said he would quit his Trump impersonations when he releases his tax documents. I'd miss that.
Miss Cellane
1-23-17, 9:58am
It's sort of trade off. Baldwin said he would quit his Trump impersonations when he releases his tax documents. I'd miss that.
Me, too.
But again, Trump complains about the SNL spoofs of him. It is completely within his power to A) ignore them. Or B) stop acting in ways that allow him to be caricatured so easily. Or, you know, C) release the tax returns and Baldwin will stop impersonating him.
To continue to complain about something that you can easily stop is silly. I keep wanting to shake him and say, "Stop acting like a 10 year old! Grow up already!"
To make such a big deal out of a few SNL skits is silly. Any president makes decisions that some people don't like. This thin skin that Trump exhibits--it's going to be a long four years for him if every single little negative comment generates such responses.
(And it is also hard not to compare him to the Obamas, who were the recipients of some truly hateful, racist remarks. They ignored them. )
I will admit that I find myself philosophically opposed to both Trump and the fervently anti-Trump left. As Henry Kissinger said of the Iran-Iraq war, it's a shame both sides can't lose. In many ways, I see their hate-addled, infantilized politics as a mirror image of each other. I like what Yuval Levin wrote:
"Both wish to understand themselves as intensely popular, but both are in fact distinguished by a marked lack of popularity. Trump enters office as the least popular new president since the invention of polling. Yet he insists, and maybe he believes, that he has ridden into Washington on the back of a mass movement the likes of which America has never seen.
The activist Left enters this era having managed to lose a national election to Donald Trump. Yet it behaves as though it takes itself to be the obviously rightful voice of both reason and the masses. Both seem persuaded that they would be even more popular if only they were more like what they already are. They would both be wiser to consider how to broaden their appeal, rather than doubling down on what has limited that appeal and searching for ways to flaunt its reach. Yet both have acted in these opening days of the Trump era in ways likely to intensify the allegiance of those who are already committed and to diminish the chances of drawing more supporters."
frugal-one
1-23-17, 4:48pm
I think Trump is using a diversion tactic. Make a big deal of something trivial (the crowd size at his "coronation"). That way, we don't think about all the things he said he would do his first day.
I think Trump is using a diversion tactic. Make a big deal of something trivial (the crowd size at his "coronation"). That way, we don't think about all the things he said he would do his first day.
I agree. Keep us busy with the "alternative facts".
I agree. Keep us busy with the "alternative facts".
My brother posted this on FB yesterday and I thought it was hilarious. Click on it to see it better.
1687
iris lilies
1-24-17, 10:49am
My brother posted this on FB yesterday and I thought it was hilarious. Click on it to see it better.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1687&stc=1
It IS hilarious!
But in defense of Kelly Ann Conway, it is not unusual to have sets of facts conflict with one another. Only n a simpleton's world are there many undisputable "facts."
It IS hilarious!
But in defense of Kelly Ann Conway, it is not unusual to have sets of facts conflict with one another. Only n a simpleton's world are there many undisputable "facts."
I took it to be one of those nonsense political phrases like "settled science", "the wrong side of history" or "game-changer".
It IS hilarious!
But in defense of Kelly Ann Conway, it is not unusual to have sets of facts conflict with one another. Only n a simpleton's world are there many undisputable "facts."
Agreed - but a statement doesn't rise to the level of fact, or even an "alternate fact" without proof, or at least plausibility - and the White House seemed to fall short of that here.
Williamsmith
1-24-17, 10:39pm
Reading this thread, I have become very concerned that some of you ,whom I consider my virtual friends, are so distraught over the Trump Presidency that you might become physically ill. Please, I do care about your well being.
You cannot place a square peg in a round hole. Try to understand the man. Trump is a little bit George Patton, a little Albert Einstein, some Ralph Waldo Emerson and a pinch of Teddy Roosevelt. There are a few others.....
If you don't get a grip on him, you will go stark raving mad. There is a giant bottle of tums sitting at the entrance to the White House Press Room.
Wait until he names his Supreme Court Nominee next week......hold onto your hat!! This country is preparing to embark on journey back in time, on the tip of a Gemini Rocket. Peace folks.
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." Wayne Dyer
Teacher Terry
1-25-17, 1:21am
It is Alice in Wonderland where everything is upside down. He is building a wall and we are paying for it. Watching the national news thank goodness they are calling him out on his crap. Republicans are asking him to stop lying on national TV. Really sad and sick. He is making his press secretary sick. You can see it on his face. The news is actually comparing him to the leader of North Korea. It would be funny if not so bizarre. Thankfully I don't think the circus will last that long.
Ultralight
1-25-17, 7:53am
"America: The Series Finale!"
It is Alice in Wonderland where everything is upside down. He is building a wall and we are paying for it. Watching the national news thank goodness they are calling him out on his crap. Republicans are asking him to stop lying on national TV. Really sad and sick. He is making his press secretary sick. You can see it on his face. The news is actually comparing him to the leader of North Korea. It would be funny if not so bizarre. Thankfully I don't think the circus will last that long.
I agree with your comment about his press secretary. I've even wondered he would eventually commit suicide. Like you said.....you can see it on his face. It's all very distressing. Trump is a sick man and shouldn't have power.
Narcissists rarely kill them selves.
Williamsmith, I was wondering what the Breitbart news was all about and browsed a few of their articles and reader comments. The first thing I thought was, how can two sets of people get the same information and come up with so completely different conclusions. The other thing I thought was, these guys are very angry people. It is one thing to disagree but when anger gets beyond some normal modest levels it can be toxic for ourselves and those around us. It is good to keep things in perspective and ask how much will this affect me personally and how much of it is within my control.
With that in mind, I think Trump resembles more Pinocchio and the Big Bad Wolf than Emerson or Teddy Roosevelt:)
Narcissists rarely kill them selves.
Cathy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she meant Spicer, the press secretary, not Trump. The guy with the big bottle of tums that williamsmith mentioned.
IshbelRobertson
1-25-17, 9:01am
May I just say how odd it seems to have a President of the US give 'hints' aboutpolicy statements ahead of time on Twitter! ;)
This country is preparing to embark on journey back in time, on the tip of a Gemini Rocket.
So, how far back in time are we going?
The 50's? When bosses chasing secretaries around the desk was considered funny? https://mikelynchcartoons.blogspot.com/2008/07/office-party-drawings-by-whitney-darrow.html
The 60's? When governors could shout "Segregation now! Segregation Tommorra! Segregation FOREVER!" and keep their jobs.
The 80's? When white house press secretaries could laugh and make jokes about gay people when asked questions about a disease that was killing lots of us.
Personally I'd rather live in the present and not pine for a never returning past that, frankly, was for a lot of people a lot worse than today.
"America: The Series Finale!"
You think? I'm not sure I agree. In fact, we're the "Young and the Restless" of nations, with more seasons in the can than most, and no real worries about cancellation. This whole Trump thing is just another plot twist, like the evil twin, waking from the long coma or the switched babies. Stay tuned. If you want real jeopardy, rerun the burning Washington episode, the First Bull Run episode or the Cuban Missile episode.
Trump is a little bit George Patton, a little Albert Einstein, some Ralph Waldo Emerson and a pinch of Teddy Roosevelt. There are a few others.....
You forgot to mention PT Barnum and Goat Gland Brinkley. All those guys were relentless self-promoters too, but I think that's pretty much where the comparison ends.
This is one case, however, where I would like to be proven wrong. Which Mr. Trump has managed to do in the past.
What puzzles me, WS, is your faith or trust that Trump will say of his Presidential actions of all types, "This much and no further". That would be a positive sign of self-governance that I have not seen to date but I stand to be corrected. I have no emotion in this comment but what I would ask of any leader.
Reading this thread, I have become very concerned that some of you ,whom I consider my virtual friends, are so distraught over the Trump Presidency that you might become physically ill. Please, I do care about your well being.
You cannot place a square peg in a round hole. Try to understand the man. Trump is a little bit George Patton, a little Albert Einstein, some Ralph Waldo Emerson and a pinch of Teddy Roosevelt. There are a few others.....
If you don't get a grip on him, you will go stark raving mad. There is a giant bottle of tums sitting at the entrance to the White House Press Room.
Wait until he names his Supreme Court Nominee next week......hold onto your hat!! This country is preparing to embark on journey back in time, on the tip of a Gemini Rocket. Peace folks.
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." Wayne Dyer
Cathy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she meant Spicer, the press secretary, not Trump. The guy with the big bottle of tums that williamsmith mentioned.
Yes, I was referring to Spicer. I wouldn't ever expect Trump to kill himself. He's god, after all..... As Tammy said, narcissists rarely kill themselves, since they love themselves much too much to do that. They are the center of the universe, and make all their choices and actions based on that "fact"........or should I say "alternative fact".
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-17, 12:29pm
"America: The Series Finale!"
wishful thinking
Williamsmith
1-25-17, 1:41pm
"L'audace, l'audace toujours l'audace"......Napoleon.
Trump is best described as "Audacious." Don't expect him to be a Statesman or a Diplomat.
Your feelings are none of his concern, just your perceived responsibility.
I am quite comfortable with this as I have lived with this leadership model all my life. In the Academy, the first words I heard from my Commissioner was, "You here.....are all lower than whale shit." It takes some getting used to but I'm sure you all will adjust. You will learn to be audacious yourself. By the looks of things, you've already copped an attitude.
"L'audace, l'audace toujours l'audace"......Napoleon.
Trump is best described as "Audacious." Don't expect him to be a Statesman or a Diplomat.
Your feelings are none of his concern, just your perceived responsibility.
I am quite comfortable with this as I have lived with this leadership model all my life. In the Academy, the first words I heard from my Commissioner was, "You here.....are all lower than whale shit." It takes some getting used to but I'm sure you all will adjust. You will learn to be audacious yourself. By the looks of things, you've already copped an attitude.
"There's a fine line between audacity and idiocy." - Jim Butcher
I do not expect Trump to be a statesmen or diplomat. Nor do I expect him, based on the character traits he's displayed thus far, to be much of a commander either. It wasn't my experience serving in the military that scapegoating, petulance, avoidance of hard truths and bullying those you had at a disadvantage were considered leadership qualities.
"L'audace, l'audace toujours l'audace"......Napoleon.
Trump is best described as "Audacious." Don't expect him to be a Statesman or a Diplomat.
Your feelings are none of his concern, just your perceived responsibility.
I am quite comfortable with this as I have lived with this leadership model all my life. In the Academy, the first words I heard from my Commissioner was, "You here.....are all lower than whale shit." It takes some getting used to but I'm sure you all will adjust. You will learn to be audacious yourself. By the looks of things, you've already copped an attitude.
My perception is that Trump not only has concerns, but is actually obsessed with his ratings, from the popular vote down to the inaugural and Women's March. Whether Trump is audacious or even whacked is a concern, but what really matters is whether he can make America a better place, not just for the "silent majority" of angry populists, but for all the rest of us who have our own challenges. And if he can do so with respect to his fellow humans regardless of race or gender, with respect to the environment, and without major international incidents. Those are the things people need to hold him to, regardless of his badacity. I can take a wait and see, but it's not starting off well.
"The first responsibility of every citizen is to question authority"...Timothy Leary or Ben Franklin depending on which alt news a person reads.
Whether Trump is audacious or even whacked is a concern, but what really matters is whether he can make America a better place, not just for the "silent majority" of angry populists, but for all the rest of us who have our own challenges. And if he can do so with respect to his fellow humans regardless of race or gender, with respect to the environment, and without major international incidents. Those are the things people need to hold him to, regardless of his badacity. I can take a wait and see, but it's not starting off well.
That's the part of the popular political equation I've never really understood. I don't think its the President's job to make America a better place. It's the President's job to ensure government protects our liberty to make America a better place. If we place our trust in others to do it for us, we'll be forever disappointed.
That's the part of the popular political equation I've never really understood. I don't think its the President's job to make America a better place. It's the President's job to ensure government protects our liberty to make America a better place. If we place our trust in others to do it for us, we'll be forever disappointed.
I understand your point. The president is not the only figure in government and his duties do have some limits. According to the constitution, it is the responsibility of the government to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, to "promote" the general welfare...and to insure liberty. It doesn't mention personal responsibility, but that is surely part of things and possibly your point?
I understand your point. The president is not the only figure in government and his duties do have some limits. According to the constitution, it is the responsibility of the government to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, to "promote" the general welfare...and to insure liberty. It doesn't mention personal responsibility, but that is surely part of things and possibly your point?
Yes. Personal responsibility is a huge part of the promise our founders worked to ensure we enjoy. The responsibility to succeed or fail, thrive or wither according to our wants and abilities, without being held under the yoke of oppression. Modern government has evolved to the point where it eagerly assumes the right to protect us from ourselves, and for the most part, we allow it to do so. We get the government we deserve, I'm just not sure it's the government we need.
Anyone who might change that dynamic deserves the opportunity to try.
frugal-one
1-25-17, 4:02pm
That's the part of the popular political equation I've never really understood. It's the President's job to ensure government protects our liberty to make America a better place.
By canceling all government regulations (i.e. for the sole benefit of the employer) will DEFINITELY NOT make America a better place. By eroding our environment by reducing government environmental regulations will again NOT make America a better place. The rich will only get richer and our quality of life will decrease (both financially and environmentally). Ask me how I know.... I enforced many of those regulations while working for the government. I used to think myself an optimist but with Trump and his billionaire cronies in power the only outcome is the rich will get richer because they take care of their own.
By canceling all government regulations (i.e. for the sole benefit of the employer) will DEFINITELY NOT make America a better place. By eroding our environment by reducing government environmental regulations will again NOT make America a better place. The rich will only get richer and our quality of life will decrease (both financially and environmentally). Ask me how I know.... I enforced many of those regulations while working for the government. I used to think myself an optimist but with Trump and his billionaire cronies in power the only outcome is the rich will get richer because they take care of their own.So, for the purpose of this thread offshoot, I'll assume you do think it's the Presidents job to make America a better place, although probably only in ways you personally approve. That puts us philosophically at odds with each other, but I like you anyway. ;)
Yes. Personal responsibility is a huge part of the promise our founders worked to ensure we enjoy. The responsibility to succeed or fail, thrive or wither according to our wants and abilities, without being held under the yoke of oppression. Modern government has evolved to the point where it eagerly assumes the right to protect us from ourselves, and for the most part, we allow it to do so. We get the government we deserve, I'm just not sure it's the government we need.
We would probably disagree on some specifics, but I am somewhat in the same school of thought. My example would be the underemployed in the rust belt who have the same opportunities as many of us to provide for themselves, whether through training, education, relocation, or other means to elevate their status, but have instead chosen a savior to bail them out and the Obama demon to place blame.
We would probably disagree on some specifics, but I am somewhat in the same school of thought. My example would be the underemployed in the rust belt who have the same opportunities as many of us to provide for themselves, whether through training, education, relocation, or other means to elevate their status, but have instead chosen a savior to bail them out and the Obama demon to place blame.Yes, disagreement on specifics fuels most political discussions. If I were providing an example, I'd leave out the demon and suggest the chosen savior to be a government designed to meet our needs for us.
Upon reflection, there would be a demon in my example, that being any politician who encourages us to find a savior outside ourselves.
Teacher Terry
1-25-17, 4:28pm
What I have noticed is that people in rural areas seem to get stuck and many won't move for jobs. At one point when I was doing career counseling in a rural area there was no point in using the standard tests to help someone if they would not move. I would show them the classifieds jobs section for their area and say which job do you want to do. Sometimes that was the reality check for people to realize they had to move if they wanted a decent job. Yes it is hard to move but I never understood the refusal when your life was not working financially.
I would show them the classifieds jobs section for their area and say which job do you want to do. Sometimes that was the reality check for people to realize they had to move if they wanted a decent job. Yes it is hard to move but I never understood the refusal when your life was not working financially.
I agree.. some people cry for jobs.. with strings attached. My DH and BIL were discussing job opportunities--BIL needs full-time employment badly--and they both scoffed at the idea of BIL applying at a local convenience store, because "what's the point--it's only $8/hr". I reminded them that THEY were the ones who complain about immigrants taking low-paid jobs away from American workers, but it seems that they personally felt those jobs were beneath THEM.
Upon reflection, there would be a demon in my example, that being any politician who encourages us to find a savior outside ourselves.
That's getting a little heavy, but I'm all in...well almost all in.
gimmethesimplelife
1-25-17, 6:19pm
By canceling all government regulations (i.e. for the sole benefit of the employer) will DEFINITELY NOT make America a better place. By eroding our environment by reducing government environmental regulations will again NOT make America a better place. The rich will only get richer and our quality of life will decrease (both financially and environmentally). Ask me how I know.... I enforced many of those regulations while working for the government. I used to think myself an optimist but with Trump and his billionaire cronies in power the only outcome is the rich will get richer because they take care of their own.Frugal One, we have often disagreed in the past but with your post here I could not agree more. Seriously, you knocked this one out of the ballpark. Rob
frugal-one
1-25-17, 6:27pm
So, for the purpose of this thread offshoot, I'll assume you do think it's the Presidents job to make America a better place, although probably only in ways you personally approve. That puts us philosophically at odds with each other, but I like you anyway. ;)
I like you too but think some regulations are needed. i.e. safety, pollution of the environment, etc. Through experience I KNOW that most employers when they make more money they do not share it with their employees. GREED. Therefore, I also believe there should be minimum wages and salary tests.
ToomuchStuff
1-26-17, 10:55am
Regulations are not the only way to control a company. People must choose to be CUSTOMERS, and not CONSUMERS and their buying power has a huge amount to do with the success or failure of a business.
catherine
1-26-17, 11:04am
Regulations are not the only way to control a company. People must choose to be CUSTOMERS, and not CONSUMERS and their buying power has a huge amount to do with the success or failure of a business.
I agree, but if you are one customer, that's not going to do much. If you can organize or change the course of public opinion, great, but otherwise "voting with your dollar" is very important, but corporations are still going to have the upper hand.
But who would have paid extra to buy a car with pollution equipment on it? Especially the versions of it that were first invented. Today it works great. Back in the 70's it made cars run badly, didn't last forever, made the car get worse mileage, etc. No one would've bought it, and it wouldn't have advanced to the point it is today that we all take for granted.
Or, what electric plant owner/manager would've spent money to make their emissions less toxic. Surely their customers would continue to buy electricity regardless of what they did or didn't do. And besides, the acid rain from sulfur emissions usually happened in a different state, so it didn't even affect one's own plant's customers.
ToomuchStuff
1-26-17, 11:26am
But who would have paid extra to buy a car with pollution equipment on it? Especially the versions of it that were first invented. Today it works great. Back in the 70's it made cars run badly, didn't last forever, made the car get worse mileage, etc. No one would've bought it, and it wouldn't have advanced to the point it is today that we all take for granted.
Who bought or built their own electric cars? Who were early computer adopters? Who (bad example due to subsidies or tax write-offs) put up solar panels in the 70's?
Who bought or built their own electric cars? Who were early computer adopters? Who (bad example due to subsidies or tax write-offs) put up solar panels in the 70's?
Indeed people did. But only a very small part of the population. And if pollution controls on cars had been optional they would have gone the way of the EV1. But because of the equipment became standard, the technology improved significantly and at some point Denver stopped including the pollution report in the tv news weather because it was no longer an issue. If it hadn't been mandatory we'd still be living in cities with pollution levels like Beijing, Mexico City, Bangkok, or any other large city in a country with no, or weak, pollution regulations.
Regulating externalities seems a legitimate function of government. Especially environmental externalities.
The whole Tragedy of the Commons business.
So holding up pollution controls as an example of Bad Governmental Interference In The Free Market seems misguided to me.
Teacher Terry
1-26-17, 12:45pm
As someone with asthma I am all for pollution controls. When I was in Thailand in 1998 the air was horrible and the sky brown. Pics of China show the same kind of pollution. Ugh!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.