U.S. Politics: Confirming The Trumpocalypse

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

I don't know that it is. Cause your either going to have people who couldn't afford healthcare, who aren't going to complain about rationing when their former reality was no healthcare at all. Or you're going to have people who could, for whom if rationing is a problem will be able to afford to do something about it. Indeed will likely be able to afford even more with less of their money going to general healthcare.

 

I wouldn't necessarily break it down that way, because I don't think 'I used to have no coverage' translates into 'I'm happy just to have something and perfectly willing to accept rationing.'

And I don't think rationing only affects people who can afford to do something about it.

 

 

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Didn't say you were Trump. But surely you can see the hypocrisy of the "confirmation bias" statement? 

I cannot see any hypocrisy in my statement, no.  You're going to have to explain it to me.

And stop calling me Shirley.

 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

A series of jokes and two hypotheticals about what it might mean if it were true. I think your definition of serious and mine don't jibe.

Perhaps we are reading a different thread, then.

But confirmation bias is like, a real thing.  i didn't make it up.  Again, I'm not sure why this struck a nerve.

 

[Swordfish]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, this is why I was saying that it should be easily falsifiable - because there are so many specific details - names, places, dates - that can be verified. 

This one, for instance - it could be that this guy is lying, too. Given that the report said that he was turned, that would make sense as well. But it shouldn't be hard to do some investigation and find out .

Why do you assume no one has investigated this?

That's mind boggling to me given that we already know this information was in the hands of a lot of people who had a LOT to gain if it were true, and also, several intelligence agencies.

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Here's a good little tweet thread on the slide into authoritarianism. The first bit - that Trump actually brought cheering supporters to a press conference - should be chilling enough.

 

Wow. I was wondering who was cheering. I had never seen/heard that before.

[Swordfish]

37 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Indeed. If anything, a large part of the second amendment crowd is probably thrilled they'll be allowed to do whatever Trump orders them to do.

Generalizations are fun, but rarely insightful.

Tally up the math on how many votes trump got vs how many gun owners there are in the US, what their demographics are, and then get back to me with your opinion about whether that math bears out your statement here.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Perhaps we are reading a different thread, then.

But confirmation bias is like, a real thing.  i didn't make it up.  Again, I'm not sure why this struck a nerve.

 We must be, because I didn't see a single post that fit your description.

Of course confirmation bias is real. No nerve struck just asking you to back up your assertion with an example, which you seem loathe to do.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The cheering was disturbing.

[The guy from the Vale]

i) a large part isn't necessarily the majority

 

ii) not every gun owner is a single issue gun rights voter, which were the crowd I was mainly refering to.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Real neutrality there, alright.

Journalism isn't about neutrality as much as it is about trying to be independent, objective and factually accurate. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Now imagine CNN simply stating that and backing off from this confrontation. The issue would disappear within a few days. CNN stated their position to the world, and that's it. Trump would quietly take note of it and realise his error. And possibly be more conciliatory to them in future, without directly admitting his mistake. Because that's his style. If you push him, he will never back down. Strategy wise, if CNN really only cared about reporting the news, that would have been the sound approach. But instead, they are now escalating matters by having a hissy fit on every show they anchor.

That's not going to heal this rift.

I don't know who you think Donald Trump is. But he is not a guy who is interested in 'healing rifts', being 'conciliatory', or 'quietly taking note' of things. You are describing how CNN should respond to a disagreement with Barack Obama, not Donald Trump. If they take this tack with Trump, he will simply continue to kick them around any time he feels like it. This is his established pattern. (Of course, he'll do that anyway. But this way they at least get to stand up for themselves.)

And honestly, if you're concerned with having people behave professionally, you could more usefully start with Trump.

[Tywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The cheering was disturbing.

It was, but I'm a little relieved. For a while I was wondering if that was from alt-right media journalists sent to cover the "press conference."  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was, but I'm a little relieved. For a while I was wondering if that was from alt-right media journalists sent to cover the "press conference."  

That's coming.

[Squab]

I love that 4chan are claiming it. If they got CNN and Buzzfeed to report fake news, that's hilarious. Uber trolls.

People believe what they want to believe or what they are afraid to believe - Wizard's First Rule

[Kalbear]

Just now, Squab said:

I love that 4chan are claiming it. If they got CNN and Buzzfeed to report fake news, that's hilarious. Uber trolls.

People believe what they want to believe or what they are afraid to believe - Wizard's First Rule

Shockingly, 4chan is full of complete shit.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you saying you are a bad person about whom no one should care if you work for a health insurance company?

No, I think I explicitly stated otherwise.  It's not that no one should care they're losing a job, it's that I think it's worse to have fewer people covered just to keep a bunch of jobs that are basically middlemanning the market.  

 

Yeah, sucks to lose a job.  I've lost many.  But they'd be getting lost because they are part of a shitty system that would be evolving in what I consider the right direction.  

I don't think anyone here is saying single layer will fix all issues regarding health care.  But as you yourself said, it's better than anything else.  

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No, I think I explicitly stated otherwise.  It's not that no one should care they're losing a job, it's that I think it's worse to have fewer people covered just to keep a bunch of jobs that are basically middlemanning the market.  

 

Yeah, sucks to lose a job.  I've lost many.  But they'd be getting lost because they are part of a shitty system that would be evolving in what I consider the right direction.  

I don't think anyone here is saying single layer will fix all issues regarding health care.  But as you yourself said, it's better than anything else.  

One might even say that single payer is the worst form of health care system, aside from all the others that have been tried from time to time.

If Trump was found to have been blackmailed by Russia in some way (e.g. in his cabinet picks and/or certain policies), is that impeachable? If blackmailing is a crime then is being blackmailed also a crime? Are you a victim as well as a criminal?

[Squab]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Shockingly, 4chan is full of complete shit.

much like the Clinton news network

Whoever came up with it has exposed (again) how ridiculous most of the media are today. If only more news sites were like the Betoota Advocate

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 We must be, because I didn't see a single post that fit your description.

Of course confirmation bias is real. No nerve struck just asking you to back up your assertion with an example, which you seem loathe to do.

I am loathe to call out individual posters, this is true,  If you are inclined to believe that no one wanted to believe that story was true, and bought into it, then i don't really know what to tell you.  if you're really interested I can PM you some examples.

 

 

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

i) a large part isn't necessarily the majority

 

ii) not every gun owner is a single issue gun rights voter, which were the crowd I was mainly refering to.

 

Well, yes, you're second point is right on the nose.  i think the willingness to caricature gun owners into a monolithic block is extremely problematic.  there are, after all, something like a hundred million of us out there.

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Journalism isn't about neutrality as much as it is about trying to be independent, objective and factually accurate. 

Journalism, in it's current form, and particularly TV journalism, is about ratings, first and foremost.

Everything else is a distant second.

[Mexal]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I am loathe to call out individual posters, this is true,  If you are inclined to believe that no one wanted to believe that story was true, and bought into it, then i don't really know what to tell you.  if you're really interested I can PM you some examples.

People wanted to believe the story to be true but they also offered a healthy skepticism. I seem to remember a lot of statements starting out with "if true..." rather then commenting on it as fact. You're projecting what you expect us to be like rather then what we were like.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Mexal said:

People wanted to believe the story to be true but they also offered a healthy skepticism. I seem to remember a lot of statements starting out with "if true..." rather then commenting on it as fact. You're projecting what you expect us to be like rather then what we were like.

Yeah, that's pretty much all I saw outside of piss jokes. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

People wanted to believe the story to be true but they also offered a healthy skepticism. I seem to remember a lot of statements starting out with "if true..." rather then commenting on it as fact. You're projecting what you expect us to be like rather then what we were like.

I don't know why he can't just quote the examples and talk about them. Is there some sort of ban on quoting people? If someone said categorically that it was true, cool beans. Should be easy to show.