US Politics: Deep State Solution

[all swedes are racist]

shit sandwiches for all

[Relic]

Regarding Fox News - There is no new directive, and they won't be changing their stripes. Not until Murdoch the Older is dead. Just have a look at their site right now. Every single headline is either pro Trump, or anti " mainstream media".   

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, Relic said:

Regarding Fox News - There is no new directive, and they won't be changing their stripes. Not until Murdoch the Older is dead. Just have a look at their site right now. Every single headline is either pro Trump, or anti " mainstream media".   

Good thing Fox ain't 'mainstream media'.   >>>>>eyeroll<<<<<

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Relic said:

Regarding Fox News - There is no new directive, and they won't be changing their stripes. Not until Murdoch the Older is dead. Just have a look at their site right now. Every single headline is either pro Trump, or anti " mainstream media".   

Unlikely to change even then I would think. Fox found a niche as the conservative news voice of America and grew to become a substantial 1st choice news source for a large number of Americans, and people around the world. Even from just a business perspective it would be a bad idea to fall back to the pack ideologically since they would lose viewership. The only reason Fox would change ideological tack at any time in the forseeable future would be if they started losing viewers. And more than likely they would lose viewers to alt-right media, which is likely to push Fox further to the alt-right at least as an immediate reaction.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

@OldGimletEye what do you think of Scott Alexander's piece on cost disease?

what's your general take?

[Relic]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Unlikely to change even then I would think. Fox found a niche as the conservative news voice of America and grew to become a substantial 1st choice news source for a large number of Americans, and people around the world. Even from just a business perspective it would be a bad idea to fall back to the pack ideologically since they would lose viewership. The only reason Fox would change ideological tack at any time in the forseeable future would be if they started losing viewers. And more than likely they would lose viewers to alt-right media, which is likely to push Fox further to the alt-right at least as an immediate reaction.

I agree, for the most part. It makes zero financial sense for them to change their tune. However, I worked for both Murdoch the Older and the Younger (Lachlan), and the sons are a bit less married to the far right than their father is. Lachlan ,especially, was liked by the moderates within NewsCorp (they do exist).

This is a pretty good article about the brothers - http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rupert-murdoch-sons-james-and-lachlan-21st-centory-fox-1201520443/  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Relic said:

Regarding Fox News - There is no new directive, and they won't be changing their stripes. Not until Murdoch the Older is dead. Just have a look at their site right now. Every single headline is either pro Trump, or anti " mainstream media".   

Maybe so, but that Shep Smith blast was pretty epic.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

@Altherion Well executed? Wow. I want some of what you're smoking. I can't see how anyone could look at that objectively and describe it with those words.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

@OldGimletEye what do you think of Scott Alexander's piece on cost disease?

what's your general take?

Interesting post. I won't try to go through everything that the author goes through, but I'll take one.

Start with excessive user cost of healthcare that the CBO uses to project federal deficits in the future. Now what the CBO generally means by "excessive user cost" is cost that outpaces projected growth. If you look at that trend it is indeed a bit scary.

But, there is a reason, I'd submit, to be a tad skeptical. If those excessive user cost continue let's say 30 or 40 years out, most Americans would spend almost all their income on healthcare. Do we think that's going to happen?

Probably not.

So what is going on here? Well, it would seem the CBO is making it's projections on historical data. There doesn't seem to be, at this time, to my knowledge at least any kind of economic model of user healthcare.

Start around 1946. Harry Truman makes a speech about healthcare. Now according to him, something like 37 million men, or something like that, a high proportion of young men were not medically fit for military service during WW2. The implication by Truman was that many of these young men had never seen a doctor while growing up. I don't know how true that is. But, I'd suspect there is at least some truth to it though.

After WW2, the US becomes very prosperous. Also, many people get into the middle class because they get decent jobs. 

With this new found wealth, what to do people want? More access to doctors and medicine. So they spend on it. Not surprisingly medical prices rise in response.

And then with the nation's prosperity, there is a feeling that old people shouldn't be left to die because of lack of medical care. So you get Medicare. Which you know drive further spending. Which again, not surprisingly increases prices.

And then you have more government spending because of the tax exclusion for employer sponsored health care.

Will these trends go up forever? Maybe not. At some point, society may become rather satiated with medical services it receives meaning historical trends won't necessarily continue.

Also. the fact that Americans had a greater demand for healthcare during he last 20th Century, both from private and government sources, also means you have more people willing to supply those services, tending to push down the price.

Because of these factors you may end up hitting some kind of equilibrium eventually where medical prices are rising about the same as overall growth or lower. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to make smart choices about lowering medical prices now.

[Altherion]

21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

@Altherion Well executed? Wow. I want some of what you're smoking. I can't see how anyone could look at that objectively and describe it with those words.

Yes, well-executed. I fully understand that it doesn't look that way to you, but you are not his target audience. That is, I do not see a way for Trump to win somebody like you over without taking positions that would cause him to be abandoned by a huge number of people who are currently his supporters. Thus, he is not even trying to appeal to you. If you look at sites dominated by his supporters, you will see that they were very happy with what he said.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/02/16/american_horror_story_season_7_is_about_2016_election_maybe_has_trump_character.html

Ryan Murphy Says American Horror Story Season 7 Will Focus on the 2016 Election

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Yes, well-executed. I fully understand that it doesn't look that way to you, but you are not his target audience. That is, I do not see a way for Trump to win somebody like you over without taking positions that would cause him to be abandoned by a huge number of people who are currently his supporters. Thus, he is not even trying to appeal to you. If you look at sites dominated by his supporters, you will see that they were very happy with what he said.

Eh, I don't expect him to adopt positions that would win me over. I would hope he could get through one speech or appearance without telling obvious lies. Without appearing like an undignified clown. Without contradicting himself, often times in the same sentence.

[ThinkerX]

29 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Yes, well-executed. I fully understand that it doesn't look that way to you, but you are not his target audience. That is, I do not see a way for Trump to win somebody like you over without taking positions that would cause him to be abandoned by a huge number of people who are currently his supporters. Thus, he is not even trying to appeal to you. If you look at sites dominated by his supporters, you will see that they were very happy with what he said.

Yes, from what I have seen in the 'comments' sections of the relevant articles, Trumps supporters view his speech as a smashing success.  Their worldview is very different from what most posters here consider 'normal.' 

[Altherion]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, I don't expect him to adopt positions that would win me over. I would hope he could get through one speech or appearance without telling obvious lies. Without appearing like an undignified clown. Without contradicting himself, often times in the same sentence.

But what is the incentive for him to do any of that? His style clearly worked for him during the campaign and his supporters still love it so why should he change it?

[Crazydog7]

Should there be a new cabinet position?  What do we call the poor bastard who has to sprint across the very famous White House lawn everyday and say with a straight face “What President Trump meant to say was…..”   

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

But what is the incentive for him to do any of that? His style clearly worked for him during the campaign and his supporters still love it so why should he change it?

Because he already won the election? Has anybody told him yet? 

What's his approval rating at this point? I'm not suggesting he turn away from his supporters, I'm just hoping he can manage to conduct himself with some small measure of dignity. It's fucking embarrassing. This is the leader of the free world we're talking about.

[JGP]

44 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

This is the leader of the free world we're talking about.

Not anymore, man.

[IamMe90]

51 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

Should there be a new cabinet position?  What do we call the poor bastard who has to sprint across the very famous White House lawn everyday and say with a straight face “What President Trump meant to say was…..”   

 

We call him "Sean Spicer." 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Many Republican senators say privately they detest the concept, fretting that it will hurt their in-state retailers like Walmart, which is headquartered in Cotton's state of Arkansas. Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), sources said, has warned Trump and Ryan that border adjustment won't likely have the support needed to clear the Senate.

Hatch, in an interview after Ryan's presentation, said the speaker “didn’t cover [the border adjustment proposal] as specifically as I would have liked.” And Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the fifth-ranking GOP senator, said the Finance Committee will likely go a “different way.”

Others were more unequivocal.

“It’s beyond a complication. It’s a bad economic proposition,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.).

 

Ryan struggles to sell tax reform plan to fellow Republicans
GOP senators are wary of a pillar of the speaker's proposal, an ominous sign for one of Donald Trump's top agenda items.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/paul-ryan-tax-reform-republicans-235117

[Rippounet]

34 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But what is the incentive for him to do any of that? His style clearly worked for him during the campaign and his supporters still love it so why should he change it?

One might find several "incentives":
- Now that he's won the election he represents the entire American people, not just the idiots.
- He will need congressional support sooner or later if he wants to do anything meaningful. He might want to be able to talk like an adult for that.
- He might want to appear a bit smarter for his future dealings with other heads of state. Lest other leaders start communicating behind his back (there seems to be evidence this is already happening).
Of course, this posits that i) he can do better than what he does and ii) that he wants to do anything meaningful. Neither is obvious.

As to your point about Hillary being a "consumate neo-liberal" which made "gambling on Trump" a good idea I say: meh.
Hillary at least had a few proposals to actually address the question of inequality (raise taxes on the richest, make education cheaper)... Something which you systematically forget or dismiss.
Trump's proposals/policies are almost all likely to make inequality worse (with the possible exception of restricting immigration, and I'm still highly skeptical).
In order to see Trump as a "worthy gamble" you pretty much have to ignore everything the candidates said and go with a vague feeling that Trump is somehow an "anti-establishment outsider" that may seek to introduce genuine changes in the system... Although, of course, his own profile (an old white billionaire) makes it unlikely since he and his friends have profited from this system his entire life... In other words, you need to ignore even the most elementary facts and logic and rely instead on some sort of vague impression that, because Trump sounds even dumber than the average joe he'll take care of the "little guys."
While I understand how some uneducated or uninformed people might make such a mistake, I can't understand why you specifically (Altherion) could, and continue arguing that there is "hope" with Trump when, quite frankly, his cabinet does not provide any, and most of Trump's actions so far reflect his absence of genuine plans for the country and the future. This is a man who, apart from destroying Obama's legacy and pandering to his electorate, will be content to sign the Republican Congress's bills. He hasn't articulated any vision for the future, and, in all honesty, though I doubt he's as dumb as he looks, I don't think he is capable or willing to do that. To use your own terms "he has no incentive whatsoever" to do so.