US Elections -- The Wrath of Khan

[Fragile Bird]

the infants are astroturfed, of course, placed strategically by the campaign at a nexus of the candidate and the cameras. this particular infant is apparently some sort of atheist commie moslem nazi

operative; trump is shrewd to have evaded the trap.

     

[lokisnow]

42 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the infants are astroturfed, of course, placed strategically by the campaign at a nexus of the candidate and the cameras. this particular infant is apparently some sort of atheist commie moslem nazi operative; trump is shrewd to have evaded the trap.

Oh no!  Altherion took over your account!

 

•••

This thread title is change we can believe in. 

[Stannistician]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Trump playing with fire (again).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36950083
 

Trying to delegitimise the result in advance might make sense as a way of protecting the Trump ego and ginning up the grudge mentality that's the basis of Trump's appeal, but it is highly dangerous, especially with zero evidence to substantiate the claim. It gives extremists an excuse to reject the idea that they might honestly be defeated.

I don't think it can be said enough just how highly dangerous this is.  We've just had 8 years where a significant percentage of the population believes that the current president does not legitimately hold power.  This is despite the fact that both McCain and Romney publically conceded both elections to Obama.*  Of course Trump was involved in this as well. 

What scares me is that I could see Trump, in an effort to protect his own ego, raising a big stink about the legitimacy of the election.  I could also see Trump not giving a concession speech, or giving a "concession speech" where he doesn't really concede - like saying he is supposed to do this or was forced.  It should go without saying that it is very dangerous when a large percentage of the population believes that power was not transferred legitimately.  Throughout the world and throughout history, civil wars have started over less.  I don't think that things would go that far in the U.S., but there has been a drastic rise in right wing militant groups over the last 8 years or so.  Trump is a selfish asshole, so I could see him doing this without any regard for how damaging it could be for the country. 

*Also despite the fact that this same percentage of the population didn't realize that Ted Cruz was and is (in terms of birth heritage) everything that they claim that Obama is - Ann Coulter even acknowledged this.

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Military mother booed by Trump supporters when she asked Mike Pence about Trump's disrespect towards the Kahn's and other military families and veterans.  It still just so amazing to me that Trump and his entire campaign have blundered this so spectacularly.  I also feel incredibly dumb for even now still being baffled by his supporters as well as every fucking politician who continues to  apologize and excuse his behavior.

 

The fact that they're booing, though, means he's acting in synch with his base.

[DanteGabriel]

2 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

I am a member of my local American Legion. By default, the members of the American Legion would be in line to vote for Donald Trump, despite his many flaws, simply because he supports the military and veterans. Making fun of the Khans wont sit well with veterans groups, and I wont be surprised to see the veterans groups not support Trump over this. Trump seriously blundered this, and he just keeps digging his hole. 

What was it that convinced you how much Trump supports veterans? Was it his promise to order the military to commit war crimes? His insults to a prominent POW? His multiple deferments out of Vietnam? His comparison of his inherited business career and the "hard sacrifices" he made to the losses suffered by Gold Star families? Just curious.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Donald Trump, Champion of Women in the Workplace:

Quote

The interviewer, in an attempt to contextualize the harassment, asked Trump what he would think if Ivanka were sexually harassed at the workplace. He replied, “I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case.”

 

Trump’s previous comments on women in the workplace include the observation that pregnancy “is an inconvenience for a business” and that “putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing.”

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/donald-trump-roger-ailes-if-ivanka-sexually-harassed-new-career.html

 

It's almost becoming a twisted game to type "Trump" into Google News and see what it spits back out. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Donald Trump, Champion of Women in the Workplace:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/donald-trump-roger-ailes-if-ivanka-sexually-harassed-new-career.html

 

It's almost becoming a twisted game to type "Trump" into Google News and see what it spits back out. 

You haven't seen the "It wouldn't happen to Ivanka, because she is a strong and powerful woman." line from Eric Trump? 

#partyoffamilyvalues

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Donald Trump, Champion of Women in the Workplace:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/donald-trump-roger-ailes-if-ivanka-sexually-harassed-new-career.html

It's almost becoming a twisted game to type "Trump" into Google News and see what it spits back out. 

An employee having to take off for maternity leave is an obvious inconvenience for a business. That seems like a relatively uncontroversial statement. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

43 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

What was it that convinced you how much Trump supports veterans? Was it his promise to order the military to commit war crimes? His insults to a prominent POW? His multiple deferments out of Vietnam? His comparison of his inherited business career and the "hard sacrifices" he made to the losses suffered by Gold Star families? Just curious.

It has to be his "Military Experience".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An employee having to take off for maternity leave is an obvious inconvenience for a business. That seems like a relatively uncontroversial statement. 

In a vacuum, sure. But there's a pejorative nature to the remark when it comes from someone with a track record like Trump's.

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In a vacuum, sure. But there's a pejorative nature to the remark when it comes from someone with a track record like Trump's.

I'm loathe to act like ma/pa-ternity leave is important to me, but you don't get to claim it's an inconvenience to assist a new parent while in the same breath attempt to take away a woman's right to get an abortion. Those two elements turn such comments from the GOP into at best an inadvertent attempt to restrict the capabilities of women.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

In a vacuum, sure. But there's a pejorative nature to the remark when it comes from someone with a track record like Trump's.

I think the alternative hypothesis is much more likely - when you're already convinced that someone is crazy, extreme, etc., you interpret their comments in light of those already existing opinions, and are more likely to present other comments by that same person as crazy, extreme, etc. even when they are pretty straightforward and true.

There is also the broader tendency of people to believe that the positions they hold ideologically are also true as a matter of utility. Torture isn't just morally wrong, it's also ineffective. The minimum wage isn't just morally wrong, it's also counterproductive and hurts those at the bottom. People bolster their ideological judgments with utilitarian ones. If you think, for example, that society should support women's participation in the workforce by minimizing the impact of their pregnancy (through paid leave, anti-pregnancy discrimination laws, etc.) then you are also more likely to believe that the impact of a pregnant woman taking leave from a company is no big deal to the employer. These types of things don't have to be bundled together, but we have a lot of psychological evidence regarding motivated reasoning to believe that they are. 

[Swordfish]

19 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm loathe to act like ma/pa-ternity leave is important to me, but you don't get to claim it's an inconvenience to assist a new parent while in the same breath attempt to take away a woman's right to get an abortion. Those two elements turn such comments from the GOP into at best an inadvertent attempt to restrict the capabilities of women.

 

Is trump pro life?

 

16 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I think the alternative hypothesis is much more likely - when you're already convinced that someone is crazy, extreme, etc., you interpret their comments in light of those already existing opinions, and are more likely to present other comments by that same person as crazy, extreme, etc. even when they are pretty straightforward and true.

There is also the broader tendency of people to believe that the positions they hold ideologically are also true as a matter of utility. Torture isn't just morally wrong, it's also ineffective. The minimum wage isn't just morally wrong, it's also counterproductive and hurts those at the bottom. People bolster their ideological judgments with utilitarian ones. If you think, for example, that society should support women's participation in the workforce by minimizing the impact of their pregnancy (through paid leave, anti-pregnancy discrimination laws, etc.) then you are also more likely to believe that the impact of a pregnant woman taking leave from a company is no big deal to the employer. These types of things don't have to be bundled together, but we have a lot of psychological evidence regarding motivated reasoning to believe that they are. 

If anyone reading this thread can't see how obviously true this is, then I'm not sure anything could ever convince them.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

What was it that convinced you how much Trump supports veterans? Was it his promise to order the military to commit war crimes? His insults to a prominent POW? His multiple deferments out of Vietnam? His comparison of his inherited business career and the "hard sacrifices" he made to the losses suffered by Gold Star families? Just curious.

I've come to accept that Republican voters will accept any deviation from conservative orthodoxy as long as it is accompanied by open hostility towards people of color.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

 

Is trump pro life?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/

[Boris the Blade]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An employee having to take off for maternity leave is an obvious inconvenience for a business. That seems like a relatively uncontroversial statement. 

Oh fucking well. Well it's not uncontroversial given how the asshole who said it has a highly misogynistic and anti abortion asshole as his running mate that also happened to state that Roe v Wade would be overturned if Trump won. That also isn't even getting into Trumps anti abortion bs as well, though it's hard to pin down if he is truly anti abortion or pro choice given how he flip flops on it a hell of a lot. Though to me he is anti choice since he decided to pick that scum Pence as his running mate.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An employee having to take off for maternity leave is an obvious inconvenience for a business. That seems like a relatively uncontroversial statement. 

It's a highly controversial statement, because it singles out a particular cause for time off that applies only to one group of employees.

You also cannot divorce the statement from its context, which is Trump being asked about a female employee who hid her pregnancy for him for months because she was worried about his expected negative reaction.

Here's what he also says in the same interview:

Quote

But when Dateline asked Trump if Kepcher took less time off because she was worried he “would have replaced her otherwise,” Trump admitted:
 “No. Although it’s an interesting premise. Maybe she should feel that way a little bit.”

That's even worse.

Trump appears to have very retrograde opinions about this. Maybe these would be uncontroversial statements fifty years ago. They are controversial today.

[lokisnow]

Welp, looks like Trump will win the general election as the Russians should have no trouble hacking the insecure united states electronic voting machines to ensure his victory. Probably why he was talking about it yesterday, he's in on the fix his Russian pals have cooked up.

 

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/31/12335238/voting-machines-next-target-russian-hacking-security

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I think the alternative hypothesis is much more likely - when you're already convinced that someone is crazy, extreme, etc., you interpret their comments in light of those already existing opinions, and are more likely to present other comments by that same person as crazy, extreme, etc. even when they are pretty straightforward and true.

That is certainly true, and it can effect anyone's perspective, including my own. However, given Trump's long track record of misogyny, and the context of the comment (Mormont you devious ninja), it's fair to assume that Trump wasn't just complaining about how it will effect his business. It may not be accurate, but Trump really hasn't earned any leeway when it comes to women in the workplace. 

And after doing some quick research, I'm not sure that Trump's complaint is even accurate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-22/california-shows-how-paid-leave-law-affects-businesses-not-much

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientific-proof-paid-parental-leave-is-good-for-everyone

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's a highly controversial statement, because it singles out a particular cause for time off that applies only to one group of employees.

You also cannot divorce the statement from its context, which is Trump being asked about a female employee who hid her pregnancy for him for months because she was worried about his expected negative reaction.

Here's what he also says in the same interview:

That's even worse.

Trump appears to have very retrograde opinions about this. Maybe these would be uncontroversial statements fifty years ago. They are controversial today.

Unfortunately, you've got a bit of a misunderstanding about the context within which I'm using the phrase "uncontroversial." 

A statement can be controversial in different senses. First, and the sense that I'm using it in, relates to the statement's truth. We might call this "factual" controversy. Is there a legitimate disagreement over the truth of the statement? Is the validity of the statement subject to factual controversy?

In this case, the answer is no. What Trump stated is factually uncontroversial. It's a matter of simple reality that a woman taking time off for pregnancy is inconvenient to the company. Laws like the Pregnancy Anti-Discrimination act recognize this, and are premised on the notion that, notwithstanding that pregnancy is an inconvenience for companies, there's a greater social benefit in forcing companies to eat those inconveniences and the associated costs. But there is no disagreement that the inconveniences exist. They have to hire a replacement or adjust the workloads of other employees. It's more work to be distributed. Often that means additional training, frequently for a person who is not expected to continue to work for the company on a long-term basis. It's not the worst thing in the world, but certainly it's an inconvenience. 

The sense in which you are using the phrase "uncontroversial" has more to do with "political" controversy. This kind of "controversy" is not about the truth-claim of the assertions. Rather, it's about "optics" and "signalling." It is obviously the case that Trump's comment is "politically controversial" because, well, it's the type of thing that liberals endlessly reiterate as proof of Trump's absurdity, his misogyny, his retrograde views on gender in the workplace. His factual statement on this one issue is a "stand in" for all of the other statements he's made which are actually false or subject to factual controversy. 

I acknowledge that this is true, but my acknowledgment comes with the caveat that just because it's true doesn't mean it's valid. The entire form of political controversy being expressed is, more or less, fundamentally invalid. It's based on metaphorical thinking - really a form of synecdoche - in which one thing is substituted for another. 

It's evident even in your post above. What you mean by "context" is the illegitimate claim that somehow a true statement of Trump's (women's pregnancies create inconveniences for their employers) can be rendered wrong by a different statement of Trump's that you disagree with (that maybe women should be afraid that their employer consider their pregnancy an inconvenience). Which, to be clear, is a statement I completely disagree with. I am personally very much for federally-required paid family leave for mothers and fathers. But my disagreement with his political stance on this issue doesn't render his other statement factually controversial.

This kind of manufactured political controversy and hysteria-making is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It may have its social uses - it certainly does here, as clutching your pearls over every supposedly "outrageous" thing that Donald Trump has said is a form of signaling. It shows that you're on the "correct" side of the Board's political divide. But as for its uses vis-a-vis actually describing reality and making valid truth claims? It's actively harmful and a pernicious form of obscurantism.