U.S. Politics: A Song Of Mimes And Musicians

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

On the other hand every university in the Midwest and south (and everywhere else but those are the regions that seem segregated out of that sector) each respectively churns out hundreds of computer science students with BS degrees every semester. Is there really a dearth of college educated USA citizens to be mined when there are thousands of well educated domestic options who probably need minimal training? Why should we use these visas to artificially depress employment domestically in a well paying middle class jobs sector simply to save trillion dollar corporations a few thousand dollars (per employee)  in on the job training?

  

Citation needed for them being segregated out; I'm not talking about the couple of years of school needed, I'm talking about the industry experience. Most of the  H1-Bs that companies hire aren't right out of college graduates; they're senior level engineers who have experience in the field (and often in a specific field) or they're mathematicians who specialize in data science and algorithms. 

In order to train them, it takes, well, 3 to 5 more years. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

And she will run unopposed in the General Election. As the left pushes further left, the Republican Party needs to field moderate Republican candidates to compete in the Generals. 

Good luck with that.

[lokisnow]

Good on Pressley! Now imagine how glorious an uproar it would be if we kicked out Feinstein. Not gonna happen but I can dream. :-p

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

47 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

On the other hand every university in the Midwest and south (and everywhere else but those are the regions that seem segregated out of that sector) each respectively churns out hundreds of computer science students with BS degrees every semester. Is there really a dearth of college educated USA citizens to be mined when there are thousands of well educated domestic options who probably need minimal training? Why should we use these visas to artificially depress employment domestically in a well paying middle class jobs sector simply to save trillion dollar corporations a few thousand dollars (per employee)  in on the job training?

 

Speaking anecdotaly about experiences I’m familiar with, I think for a lot of companies it’s just a matter of, “we want such-and-such a skill set and planet Earth is our recruiting area”.  If an American can fill the position, fine. If it’s a recent immigrant who was educated somewhere else or a Canadian on a TN or an Italian on a green card, just as good.

Why does it seem to be so prevalent? Maybe it’s just perception. Maybe it’s the fact that these positions require post secondary education and it’s just really cost prohibitive for otherwise capable American students to afford.

Now that I’m back in school, I decided to look up what it cost me back in ‘92:

$750. Per. Year. Student fees and parking drove that up to an even grand. My books were more expensive.

This was for roughly the equivalent of an associates degree in Engineering Technology in the USA (we actually had more credit hours) Our tuitions didn’t pay the janitors salaries, and we knew it.

The same course at the same school is considerably more expensive today, but some of that is inflation and it’s still no where near what it costs for something comparable in th Unites States.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

He didn't say that.

I guaran-fucking-tee he did not say that.

Have you ever heard the man talk? 'Kill the fucking lot of them' ?????

That is way too advanced a sentence structure for that dolt.

I'm not joking either, I don't think he said that.

Now if the quote was "we should just get 'em! Let's just get 'em. Just shoot 'em!" Then I could believe it.

Maybe he was using his indoor voice.

3 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Trump said his biggest regret was denouncing neo nazis at Charlottesville. When did he denounce them? And him being regretful over that shows how much of a bigoted piece of shit he is.

It was about 3 days later if memory serves.  This was after considerable public criticism and (i suspect) a lot of prodding from his inner circle.

"Dog whistle, Donald. Subtle.  Suuuuuuubtle.  We want to imply racism without actually confirming it.  There's a good Donald.  Someone get the President a cookie."

2 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

And she will run unopposed in the General Election. As the left pushes further left, the Republican Party needs to field moderate Republican candidates to compete in the Generals. 

The sun will fucking burn the earth to ash before the Republican party nominates another moderate for federal office. 

[Bonnot OG]

Lol there is no such thing as a moderate republican. Most of them left and went to the Dems and have no issue pushing leftist candidates because they realize how fucking horrible the Republican party is.

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Good on Pressley! Now imagine how glorious an uproar it would be if we kicked out Feinstein. Not gonna happen but I can dream. :-p

Her, Pelosi and Schumer. God I'd love that. 

I see Trump thinks protesting shoud be illegal. Shocker, a fascist being fashy. 

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

I see Trump thinks protesting shoud be illegal. Shocker, a fascist being fashy. 

I think the word you're looking for is "fascistic" and yes, I did just make that up

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Maybe he was using his indoor voice.

It was about 3 days later if memory serves.  This was after considerable public criticism and (i suspect) a lot of prodding from his inner circle.

"Dog whistle, Donald. Subtle.  Suuuuuuubtle.  We want to imply racism without actually confirming it.  There's a good Donald.  Someone get the President a cookie."

Wasn't it more of a Both Sides denouncement of the people criticising the neo-nazis, rather than a denouncement of the Nazis themselves?

[lokisnow]

You all don’t see the many ways trump manipulates Woodward?

first he flatters Woodward. Then he reverse field suddenly and acts wounded with an I’m the victim, why are you so mean routine.

 so now Woodward has been flattered but is defensive: how can Woodward help, he wants to help, Donny is his old buddy whose feelings are hurt. Oh noes!

Then trump outrageously plays innocent to the basics of high level access with a completely feigned pretend “why didn’t you talk to me “

now it’s Woodward’s fault, and on cue Woodward is on the defense gabbling for ten minutes about utterly pointless inane attempts he made. He even begs the president at the end for some recognition as a good boy who worked hard “I exhausted all my methods!” RAJ! Don’t forget I talked to RAJ! I’m a good boy, good boy woody. 

Complete the charade with a staged distraction with Kelly Anne “coming in and taking the phone ” (pro tip she was there the whole time) that was probably just cover for Donny cracking up because bob was so easy to manipulate he couldn’t keep it straight anymore. KELLYANNE you remember me don’t you!? I’m a good boy Kellyanne! We had lunch. Good boy woody!

throw in some random talking points just to assert dominance and bingo you’ve completely flummoxed a major investigative journalist with a handful of basic techniques. He got time but got nothing, rookie stuff. High school stuff.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

You all don’t see the many ways trump manipulates Woodward?

first he flatters Woodward. Then he reverse field suddenly and acts wounded with an I’m the victim, why are you so mean routine.

 so now Woodward has been flattered but is defensive: how can Woodward help, he wants to help, Donny is his old buddy whose feelings are hurt. Oh noes!

Then trump outrageously plays innocent to the basics of high level access with a completely feigned pretend “why didn’t you talk to me “

now it’s Woodward’s fault, and on cue Woodward is on the defense gabbling for ten minutes about utterly pointless inane attempts he made. He even begs the president at the end for some recognition as a good boy who worked hard “I exhausted all my methods!” RAJ! Don’t forget I talked to RAJ! I’m a good boy, good boy woody. 

Complete the charade with a staged distraction with Kelly Anne “coming in and taking the phone ” (pro tip she was there the whole time) that was probably just cover for Donny cracking up because bob was so easy to manipulate he couldn’t keep it straight anymore. KELLYANNE you remember me don’t you!? I’m a good boy Kellyanne! We had lunch. Good boy woody!

throw in some random talking points just to assert dominance and bingo you’ve completely flummoxed a major investigative journalist with a handful of basic techniques. He got time but got nothing, rookie stuff. High school stuff.

Lol you are putting way too much thought into this. They are reactoinary trash, and Trump is not this methodical genius. 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Lol you are putting way too much thought into this. They are reactoinary trash, and Trump is not this methodical genius. 

I beg to differ. It's quite obvious from the transcript that Trump is playing Woodward, mocking him even. Someone clearly laughs at him at some point:

Quote

Conway: But anyway, I’ll give you back to the president. And I’m glad to hear that you tried through seven or eight different people. That’s good. You should tell him all the names. [Laughs] Thank you.

It's difficult enough to think Conway would be mocking Woodward without Trump being in on it.
But if you listen to the call, it's not even clear that it's Conway laughing and not Trump himself.

There are a lot of other clues if you listen to the call. Like the way Trump says "too bad," or how he mentions an unwritten book from twenty years ago... But most importantly, I don't think it takes a genius to play Woodward like that, it only takes the willingness to lie. Which is, I believe, why the WPost published that transcript: it shows one of the basic tactics used by the current White House to manipulate information and image and the dishonesty and nastiness behind it.

[mormont]

What is this nonsense about 'playing' Woodward?

How is Trump 'playing' him? What is Trump getting out of Woodward in this conversation? Trump is rambling, blatantly lying and playing the injured party. Woodward is politely tolerating this childish behaviour, while not budging from what he knows to be the truth. In what way does this represent a gain for Trump?

[Rippounet]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

How is Trump 'playing' him? What is Trump getting out of Woodward in this conversation?

Pleasure, obviously. The pleasure of ridiculing one of the most famous journalists ever, by denying him both legitimacy and credibility.

Plus he gets another opportunity to sell his "greatest president evaaa" and "fantastic economy" lines.

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

In what way does this represent a gain for Trump?

It'll be easier to deny everything in the book if Trump didn't even grant Woodward an interview.
And of course, it allows him to continue his work of discrediting the "mainstream media" for his base (so that they continue ignoring all the red flags about Trump and his administration).

Of course it doesn't work if you ascribe more credibility to Woodward than to Trump in the first place. So obviously it's not going to work on you.
But if you think of it in terms of spin, this was rather well done. Just take a look at how the other side is presenting it:

Quote

 

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/09/04/washington-post-publishes-trump-call-to-bob-woodward-for-book-press-blitz/

The author informs the president he raised the prospect of an interview with White House aide Kellyanne Conway two and a half months prior. President Trump told Woodward it was “really too bad” the two did not meet because he would have “loved” to have chatted about the book. “You know I’m very open to you. I think you’ve always been fair. We’ll see what happens,” the president said.

President Trump then offered Woodward a summation of his thoughts on the economy: “[A]ll I can say is the country is doing very well. We’re doing better economically just about than at any time. We’re doing better on unemployment maybe than ever.”

 

Of course, in a sane world this would in no way be a win for Trump, but an absolute PR disaster. But this is no longer a sane world we live in.

[mormont]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Pleasure, obviously. The pleasure of ridiculing one of the most famous journalists ever, by denying him both legitimacy and credibility.

Yeah, that conversation had zero impact on Woodward's legitimacy or credibility. Being mocked by a fool and a habitual liar doesn't damage those. 

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Plus he gets another opportunity to sell his "greatest president evaaa" and "fantastic economy" lines.

Anyone who's buying those already bought them: nobody else is going to buy them because of this. 

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It'll be easier to deny everything in the book if Trump didn't even grant Woodward an interview.

But Trump is trying to say the opposite. 

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Of course it doesn't work if you ascribe more credibility to Woodward than to Trump in the first place. So obviously it's not going to work on you.
But if you think of it in terms of spin, this was rather well done.

It really wasn't. Sorry. It's an attempt at spin, sure, but if the only effect it has is on people who would believe Trump over Woodward anyway, it is, at best, a pointless waste of time and effort. At worst, it verifies that Trump is lying. 

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Just take a look at how the other side is presenting it:

Of course, in a sane world this would in no way be a win for Trump, but an absolute PR disaster. But this is no longer a sane world we live in.

Sorry, but 'the world's a crazy place' can't be used as a method of standing up a claim that doesn't stand on its own. 

[Paladin of Ice]

43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Of course it doesn't work if you ascribe more credibility to Woodward than to Trump in the first place. So obviously it's not going to work on you.
But if you think of it in terms of spin, this was rather well done. Just take a look at how the other side is presenting it:

So... Trump's "victory" is that his most dedicated fans, who would already back everything he says or does, are going to view it as a win?

Yeah, winning in the mind of Joey on Breitbart who thinks the Finland press conference with Putin was a great victory for Trump and the country because "it totally triggered the libs!!!!1!" isn't a victory, it's the status quo. And if what you're waiting for is for those people to be aghast or decrying what Trump says, I've got a sad little piece of news for you: it doesn't matter what Trump says, they're never going to do that. He's their Racist-in-Chief and that's all the Breitbart commenters of the world care about, or are ever going to care about for as long as Trump is in office.

What Trump said with Woodward wasn't a victory or defeat, it wasn't great PR spin or playing a journalist, it was just more random scurrying back and forth by a cockroach caught in the spotlight.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Yeah, that conversation had zero impact on Woodward's legitimacy or credibility. Being mocked by a fool and a habitual liar doesn't damage those.

As long as Trump is president, whenever he denies a journalist an interview he is definitely denying them some kind of legitimacy and damaging their credibility with his base.

A "normal" White House would have been content with a statement saying "the president won't comment" or something similar. But because it's Trump he had to add a dose of nastiness and cruelty for his and his supporters' entertainment.

Now, saying the move was well executed doesn't mean one condones it in any way.

I understand your need to defend Woodward but the reason why Trump "wins" the exchange is that Woodward insists for far too long on the access issue, although it quickly becomes clear that Trump is being dishonest about it. So Woodward comes across as earnest but also unprepared for Trump's nastiness. He should have considered cutting the conversation short after Trump's long declaration about the economy, when it became clear that Trump was using the exchange for his own purposes ; instead he felt the need to put his credibility on the line by mentioning the fact that he's written books on eight presidents already. Then, once Trump and Conway basically admit that they knew about Woodward trying to get an interview, he moves to his assistant for support. And then, after a brief exchange on NATO initiated by Trump, Woodward still goes back to the access issue, when at this point he should have hung up instead.
It was painful to read, and cringeworthy to listen to.

And yeah, I guess in such cases most smart people will blame Trump's childishness. But as I was recently reminded right here on this board, most people in the world aren't smart. In the world at large, people who are childish, and petty, and who interrupt others while they are talking, are the ones who "win" exchanges and get their points across to the public. There's been lots of studies about this kind of thing and the results ain't pretty.
So, sorry guys, but as far as I'm concerned, Trump played Woodward, and he did it well. It doesn't mean much, just that he's pretty good at being a 6th-grade bully and belittling journalists.
Now, quite honestly, if you want to be constructive and credible when criticizing Trump, I think a good start would be to aknowledge that he can be pretty good with that kind of tactic. And I think that's what the WPost publishing this transcript and recording was meant for: so people know just how nasty Trump can be and be prepared for it if they need to be. Possibly Woodward thought it was worth "taking one for the team" in order to expose all this, but given the transcript we have I really doubt this was the plan all along.

[Altherion]

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed for them being segregated out; I'm not talking about the couple of years of school needed, I'm talking about the industry experience. Most of the  H1-Bs that companies hire aren't right out of college graduates; they're senior level engineers who have experience in the field (and often in a specific field) or they're mathematicians who specialize in data science and algorithms. 

In order to train them, it takes, well, 3 to 5 more years. 

Well yes, by definition "senior level" anything is going to need experience. The way this was handled in the past is that the best of the junior level people is promoted into the senior level position and a college student is hired for a junior level position. With your way, the junior level person is stuck with the inferior pay and there is no place for the college student.

[Mexal]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

What is this nonsense about 'playing' Woodward?

How is Trump 'playing' him? What is Trump getting out of Woodward in this conversation? Trump is rambling, blatantly lying and playing the injured party. Woodward is politely tolerating this childish behaviour, while not budging from what he knows to be the truth. In what way does this represent a gain for Trump?

This. The Woodward call was entirely about letting Trump know a book was coming out, not to interview him. Woodward tried through 6 different people to interview Trump and no one "told him" about it, except for you know, Trump admitting that people told him about it. Not sure at all how Trump plays Woodward.

[mormont]

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

As long as Trump is president, whenever he denies a journalist an interview he is definitely denying them some kind of legitimacy and damaging their credibility with his base.

Losing legitimacy with Trump's base means nothing. 

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Now, saying the move was well executed doesn't mean one condones it in any way.

But it wasn't well executed, so that's irrelevant. 

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It was painful to read, and cringeworthy to listen to.

As all Trump's statements are. But it was cringeworthy and painful to listen to Trump, not Woodward. He was fumbling and stumbling around in a fog of bombast, ignorance and lies, as usual.

 

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So, sorry guys, but as far as I'm concerned, Trump played Woodward, and he did it well. It doesn't mean much, just that he's pretty good at being a 6th-grade bully and belittling journalists.

If that's your idea of someone being 'played', you need to reconsider your understanding of the concept. That is not what it means.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Does anyone seriously think Woodward came away from that interview with a positive opinion of Trump? Does anyone think Woodward was debating Trump in that interview? Does anyone that no Woodward didn’t know what was happening when Conway came on the line?

he got to repeat his talking points? His talking points are idiocy and he repeats them constantly anyway.

”GDP less than zero” isn’t actually possible, anymore than a temperature below absolute zero is.