U.S. Politics: It’s beginning to look a lot like Rescission

[BigFatCoward]

5 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

ah yes, they simply allowed him to die in custody, they didn’t actually torture him to death like the others, very good, carry on

Don't be a child. Until there is some evidence that some neglect contributed or caused their death I'm more than happy to not leap to judge. People today seem unable to wait for full information  before making their decisions. If it turns out that neglect was a factor of more should have been done to help, then I'll be just as appalled as everyone else. From what I'd read this information hasn't been verified. 

[mormont]

7 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

oh shit, he’s done now

Really? I struggle to even see this as news.

I mean, of course it was bullshit, and of course it was done as a favour. We all surely understood that already. It's bone spurs. Even if it were a genuine diagnosis, it's a laughable, transparent excuse for an exemption that would only work for a rich white guy. Trump was a known draft dodger last week, he was a known draft dodger in 2016, and none of his supporters cared (though they would all have been apopleptic with rage if a Democratic candidate had done anything of the sort).

It's mildly interesting to have more information about the story but it won't shift the needle on attitudes to Trump one bit.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Not sure why, but Trump's approval rating dropped a full point (538 average has it at 41.4). I mean, I'm not sure why because there could be so many reasons but its hard to draw any inferences as to what peels off cultists at this point.

[all swedes are racist]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Don't be a child. Until there is some evidence that some neglect contributed or caused their death I'm more than happy to not leap to judge. People today seem unable to wait for full information  before making their decisions. If it turns out that neglect was a factor of more should have been done to help, then I'll be just as appalled as everyone else. From what I'd read this information hasn't been verified. 

lol, let’s not rush to judgement, regarding the agency running concentration camps and ethnic cleansing,,, be reasonable here folks 

[BigFatCoward]

8 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

lol, let’s not rush to judgement, regarding the agency running concentration camps and ethnic cleansing,,, be reasonable here folks 

Hyperbole much?

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Not sure why, but Trump's approval rating dropped a full point (538 average has it at 41.4). I mean, I'm not sure why because there could be so many reasons but its hard to draw any inferences as to what peels off cultists at this point.

Well in the last two weeks Trump has bungled negotiations for the wall, done all he could to tank the stock market and tried to dominate the spotlight by acting like a petulant child on Christmas.  I mean, I understand that Trump's support has proven bafflingly robust, but there hasn't really been a lot of good news for him until yesterday (stock market + good press for Iraq visit). 

EDIT:  I forgot Mattis!  He was very popular with Trump's base and now he's publicly broken with the President.  This administration has so many screwups you can't even keep them straight. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The fact that most of human society makes s based upon imagined constructs makes me loth to condemn a child for also using their imagination to believe in a person whose entire existence is based upon bringing others joy.  How is that in any way harmful?

You keep escalating the language. Questioning why a child can’t recognize the obvious is not the same as condemning them.

Anyways, back to GK’s quote from yesterday, would you rather a child believes the little lies rather than recognizing them? The latter will certainly better prepare the kid for the realities of life IMO.

[Guy Kilmore]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You keep escalating the language. Questioning why a child can’t recognize the obvious is not the same as condemning them.

Anyways, back to GK’s quote from yesterday, would you rather a child believes the little lies rather than recognizing them? The latter will certainly better prepare the kid for the realities of life IMO.

Psychological research disagrees with you.  Imaginative play, those "little lies" are very important to a young child's development.  It doesn't have to be Santa, that is just an easily engaged one considering popular culture, but there should be something.  The needs of a child's brain is very different than the needs of an adult brain, but even as adults we go around believing in certain fictions, because if we don't it all falls apart.

A brief summary on imagination and development

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Psychological research disagrees with you.  Imaginative play, those "little lies" are very important to a young child's development.  It doesn't have to be Santa, that is just an easily engaged one considering popular culture, but there should be something.  The needs of a child's brain is very different than the needs of an adult brain, but even as adults we go around believing in certain fictions, because if we don't it all falls apart.

A brief summary on imagination and development

Why do you keep conflating imagination with the inability to think critically? Of course a child needs a sense of imagination. A child can close their eyes and picture themselves sailing on the Caribbean in the early 18^th century readying themselves to pillage a port, or traveling through space on a rocket ship not yet imagined, or being chased by a dinosaur in Jurassic Park. That doesn’t also mean that they can’t start to see the world for what it is and distinguish what’s real from what is make believe. I figured out after losing my second or third tooth that the tooth fairy isn’t real. That didn’t mean I couldn’t also go grab my Transformers and dinosaur toys and get lost in a world of my own.

[Guy Kilmore]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why do you keep conflating imagination with the inability to think critically? Of course a child needs a sense of imagination. A child can close their eyes and picture themselves sailing on the Caribbean in the early 18^th century readying themselves to pillage a port, or traveling through space on a rocket ship not yet imagined, or being chased by a dinosaur in Jurassic Park. That doesn’t also mean that they can’t start to see the world for what it is and distinguish what’s real from what is make believe. I figured out after losing my second or third tooth that the tooth fairy isn’t real. That didn’t mean I couldn’t also go grab my Transformers and dinosaur toys and get lost in a world of my own.

Because Imagination is a part of how we think critically.  How we get to learning how the world is is through that process of imagination.  These aren't radical ideas and well established through published research.  You are the one that is gate keeping what is appropriate imaginative play versus what is not, based on, well, your own beliefs, which is funnily enough the very thing you are haranguing Scot about while claiming the ground of being pragmatic.

[mormont]

[mod] Maybe get back to discussing US politics? Or start a new thread about belief and childhood. [/mod]

[all swedes are racist]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Hyperbole much?

uh, no? 

[BigFatCoward]

31 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

uh, no? 

Either you don't know what ethnic cleansing is, or you don't know what hyperbole is, which is it? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Because of Mormont’s comment this will be the last I’ll have to say on this subject.

1 hour ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Because Imagination is a part of how we think critically.  How we get to learning how the world is is through that process of imagination.  These aren't radical ideas and well established through published research.  You are the one that is gate keeping what is appropriate imaginative play versus what is not, based on, well, your own beliefs, which is funnily enough the very thing you are haranguing Scot about while claiming the ground of being pragmatic.

I’m not sure we’re even in that much disagreement at this point on the process. Where we seem to disagree is the conclusion. I am simply of the belief that by the second grade, especially at this point in time with so much information at the tip of the finger, that a kid should have learned or realized that a man, riding a flying sleigh, led by flying reindeer delivering presents to everyone on Earth probably isn’t real. You can still have fun with the idea, much as you can with elves, but they should probably know it’s not an actual thing.

That’s why I disagree with your quote. Believing in little lies so you can accept the bigger ones is not a good thing. I think quite the opposite, that one should recognize the small lies so that they’re more equipped to see the bigger ones.

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Most don’t understand that the vast majority of human society is based on imagined constructs.  How well do you believe our society would work if most realized our laws and customs are all imagined fantasies?

What makes you say that? While I would concede that most people aren’t actively thinking about it, I think if you sat them down and talked about it a bit they would quickly be able to articulate the idea that most of our society is the byproduct of someone else’s idea or dream. And I don’t think it would affect very many people.

Perhaps this question explains to some degree why you’re religious and I am not. I personally don’t think all that much would change if religion went away if everything else held the same, but many religious people I know think society would quickly collapse if God disappeared. Are you of that belief?

[Guy Kilmore]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because of Mormont’s comment this will be the last I’ll have to say on this subject.

I’m not sure we’re even in that much disagreement at this point on the process. Where we seem to disagree is the conclusion. I am simply of the belief that by the second grade, especially at this point in time with so much information at the tip of the finger, that a kid should have learned or realized that a man, riding a flying sleigh, led by flying reindeer delivering presents to everyone on Earth probably isn’t real. You can still have fun with the idea, much as you can with elves, but they should probably know it’s not an actual thing.

That’s why I disagree with your quote. Believing in little lies so you can accept the bigger ones is not a good thing. I think quite the opposite, that one should recognize the small lies so that they’re more equipped to see the bigger ones.

What makes you say that? While I would concede that most people aren’t actively thinking about it, I think if you sat them down and talked about it a bit they would quickly be able to articulate the idea that most of our society is the byproduct of someone else’s idea or dream. And I don’t think it would affect very many people.

Perhaps this question explains to some degree why you’re religious and I am not. I personally don’t think all that much would change if religion went away if everything else held the same, but many religious people I know think society would quickly collapse if God disappeared. Are you of that belief?

I think you are stuck too much on the word lies.  In the context of the quote, lies is more about the concept of beliefs and the role of deception in maintaining ones beliefs.

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

Really? I struggle to even see this as news.

I mean, of course it was bullshit, and of course it was done as a favour. We all surely understood that already. It's bone spurs. Even if it were a genuine diagnosis, it's a laughable, transparent excuse for an exemption that would only work for a rich white guy. Trump was a known draft dodger last week, he was a known draft dodger in 2016, and none of his supporters cared (though they would all have been apopleptic with rage if a Democratic candidate had done anything of the sort).

It's mildly interesting to have more information about the story but it won't shift the needle on attitudes to Trump one bit.

A very large number of guys who were against the Vietnam war, with or without the help of their parents, got certifications from physicians that informed the draft boards that they had a chronic, non-treatable condition that certified them as members of the groups that excused service.

It's no news to anyone here how much the orange nazi has disgusted me long before he set his evil eye upon the Oval Office, but this isn't going to get anybody riled up.  Other than his lying about it consistently for decades after the fact, along with lying about all the other assistance his great success owed from being his thug daddy's thuggy son.

 

[Guy Kilmore]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

A very large number of guys who were against the Vietnam war, with or without the help of their parents, got certifications from physicians that informed the draft boards that they had a chronic, non-treatable condition that certified them as members of the groups that excused service.

It's no news to anyone here how much the orange nazi has disgusted me long before he set his evil eye upon the Oval Office, but this isn't going to get anybody riled up.  Other than his lying about it consistently for decades after the fact, along with lying about all the other assistance his great success owed from being his thug daddy's thuggy son.

 

Kind of my thoughts exactly.  I remember my grandfather sharing a story about how he had a boat gassed and ready to go across Lake Ontario if my father got drafted.  It is just another one that is the continued the part of the pattern.

[all swedes are racist]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Either you don't know what ethnic cleansing is, or you don't know what hyperbole is, which is it? 

who exactly do you think ice is targeting then? 

[Maithanet]

One of thing things I'm definitely worried about for 2020 is that Trump could AGAIN win the EC without winning the popular vote.  If you make a sort of 2018/2016 hybrid map based on the margins Democrats had in the House/governor's races in 2018 with the 2016 presidential results, you get something like this:

Trump wins IA, OH, TX, AZ, FL, NC. 

Democrat wins Clinton states + MI and PA.  That's good for exactly 268 electoral votes.  If the Democrat wins WI, that would put him/her over the top, but Wisconsin and Florida were the two states that Democrats notably underperformed in 2018 (although they still narrowly won the governor's race in WI).  If the political tides are moving against Democrats in Wisconsin, then where else could Democrats pick up the EVs necessary to win? The realistic options in 2020 are AZ, NC, and FL. 

2018 made me feel a lot more confident about both PA and MI - those are big states and much needed in 2020.  But Democrats need one more state to win the presidency (plus all the Clinton states, but I don't sense any of them slipping away).  Obviously, I'm hoping that the Democrat wins the popular vote by 5+ points, in which case there's no way the EC saves Trump.  But if the election is close, it is hard to know which of the WI/NC/FL/AZ group is the most promising.  And my fear is that Democrats could win the popular vote by 3-4 points, improve their 2016 margins in both Red and Blue America, but manage to narrowly lose all four of those states.

[Kalbear]

At this point, I would be very surprised if a Republican could win the popular vote without winning in a pretty large landslide across the country. California doesn't show any real signs of going more Republican, and Cali really runs up the score in popular vote.