(02-18-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 06:31 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 04:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  My point is that the issue is wasted energy.

How he feels about the election is not as important as whether specific administration actions / policies are good, bad or incompetent, or the Administrations explanation for them.

I get that he brings it up. At some point, I'd treat it as a simple statement and move on. It's what we do with people we care about, at any rate. I don't correct people who I know over inconsequential matters.
Make the point once, when he repeats how he feels again, don't give it air play. Move on to important stuff.

You're taking issue with the response, but the original question here was: why does Trump keep bringing this up? Why does he keep making the same false statement?

not sure:

1. He's incompetent, and cannot see how this hurts him.
2. He's stubborn and enjoys fighting.
3. He ornery and knows it upsets people and that energizes him.
4. He knows that every minute spent wasted on a meaningless issue is less time devoted to more important topics (i.e. a perpetual smoke screen.

I'm inclined to think it's a varying combination of 2, 3 and 4.

Actually being right or wrong is not much of an issue to him. It's winning battles.

More than 30 years ago, my first boss asked me the question/statement: "Being right seems to be very important to you."

It was not meant (or ultimately taken) as a compliment.

While there are certainly issues that need to be addressed and bird-dogged . . . every time this specific issue gets addressed, I feel like Trump is just playing a game with these guys, and I think he enjoys getting them worked up about this issue.

I still like to be right. But there is a time and a place for it. And quite often there is a cost that comes with it.

So the President of the United States of America is regularly playing a game where he lies to the media to piss them off, gets a thrill out of their anger, and uses it as a perpetual smokescreen to draw attention away from important issues.

I get that you're not a Trump fan, so presumably you're not in favor of it, but I don't get how you can be so unperturbed by it.

(02-18-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Anyone else think there is a connection between those who argue against climate change science and those who argue against the truthfulness of the majority of reporting, and vice versa? Seems to me that, at least on this board, they go hand in hand, and I wonder why.

Maybe you are right. It seems both groups are skeptical, and neither group accepts what they are told as unvarnished truth.

(02-18-2017 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Anyone else think there is a connection between those who argue against climate change science and those who argue against the truthfulness of the majority of reporting, and vice versa? Seems to me that, at least on this board, they go hand in hand, and I wonder why.

Well, do you mean "argue against climate change science" or argue against the impact or levels of anthropogenic causes of climate change that many suggest?

Big difference. Very big difference.

Your first iteration suggests that the science is an unwavering wall of thought, which it its not. That is the fundamental nature of science.

You're right, science in it's nature is about questioning the world around us in search for answer.

And from my discussions here, most people who argue against the rate of change/impact due to anthropogenic activities don't dissociate from the science itself. They are easily conflated, but shouldn't be as you state.

(02-18-2017 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would that include the work of people who have spent their entire career at Breitbart or Fox?

(02-18-2017 10:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, when one media outlet says Trump is "unhinged", it is gospel, and when another says it saw no evidence of that, it is biased. I think I understand now.

Well, Shep Smith of Fox called Trump's press conference "crazy" - so if I accept that as gospel, are we good? ;-)

Fox has some genuine journalists, along with some hacks. Breitbart is a joke, though.

And to Tangtonic's equation of vox and Breitbart, that's absurd IMHO. Vox is definitely left leaning and appeals to that audience, but it's not Breitbart. Not saying there aren't left leaning equivalents of Breitbart - I had some Bernie friends who posted stuff from them daily for most of 2016. None have the reach of influence that Breitbart has, however.

I used the Vox article earlier because I thought it was more detailed and went into the research a bit more, but by popular demand, here's a similar one from Politico, generally considered mildly right leaning.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...ian-213533

(02-18-2017 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Anyone else think there is a connection between those who argue against climate change science and those who argue against the truthfulness of the majority of reporting, and vice versa? Seems to me that, at least on this board, they go hand in hand, and I wonder why.

Well, do you mean "argue against climate change science" or argue against the impact or levels of anthropogenic causes of climate change that many suggest?

Big difference. Very big difference.

Your first iteration suggests that the science is an unwavering wall of thought, which it its not. That is the fundamental nature of science.

You're right, science in it's nature is about questioning the world around us in search for answer.

And from my discussions here, most people who argue against the rate of change/impact due to anthropogenic activities don't dissociate from the science itself. They are easily conflated, but shouldn't be as you state.

I would disagree -- and in fact i would point to many AGW-'hard' proponents who hold their view in a similarly religious viewpoint simply because that is the 'good' cause to be on, notwithstanding some of the questions about the 'hard' side that have come into play.

To me, the science is simply in the facts. I am a skeptic-'light' (i.e. thinking that there is an influence, but the feedback constants that the early hard proponents put out are not easily defended and should be reduced in light of that data), but at other times have been a skeptic-'hard', and a pro-AGW-'light'.

The main problem I see with many of the old school AGW-'hard' items has been a big problem in addressing valid issues about releasing code that papers are based on (Mann's tree rings hockey stick episode, for example), and data-patching (the scandal involving patching together disparate data in a single unattributed chart, with notes to the effect that it 'smooths the data').

Those are simply bad science, along with the failure and many times open refusal to release data to skeptics like McKittrick *isn't* good science. Would love to see more openness.

Good science comes from an open process and repeatability.

If the repeatable open science shows that the 'hard'-version is as good as, like, Newtonian motion, then it is what it is. But we are a *long* way from that at this point, imo.

(02-18-2017 12:14 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I used the Vox article earlier because I thought it was more detailed and went into the research a bit more, but by popular demand, here's a similar one from Politico, generally considered mildly right leaning.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...ian-213533

Thank you. Sorry but I regard Vox, HuffPo, and TPM as simply Doppleganger mirror images of Breitbart or RedState viewpoint and sharing about the same objectivity thereof. And that sir, is mho....

(02-18-2017 11:23 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 06:31 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 04:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  My point is that the issue is wasted energy.

How he feels about the election is not as important as whether specific administration actions / policies are good, bad or incompetent, or the Administrations explanation for them.

I get that he brings it up. At some point, I'd treat it as a simple statement and move on. It's what we do with people we care about, at any rate. I don't correct people who I know over inconsequential matters.
Make the point once, when he repeats how he feels again, don't give it air play. Move on to important stuff.

You're taking issue with the response, but the original question here was: why does Trump keep bringing this up? Why does he keep making the same false statement?

not sure:

1. He's incompetent, and cannot see how this hurts him.
2. He's stubborn and enjoys fighting.
3. He ornery and knows it upsets people and that energizes him.
4. He knows that every minute spent wasted on a meaningless issue is less time devoted to more important topics (i.e. a perpetual smoke screen.

I'm inclined to think it's a varying combination of 2, 3 and 4.

Actually being right or wrong is not much of an issue to him. It's winning battles.

More than 30 years ago, my first boss asked me the question/statement: "Being right seems to be very important to you."

It was not meant (or ultimately taken) as a compliment.

While there are certainly issues that need to be addressed and bird-dogged . . . every time this specific issue gets addressed, I feel like Trump is just playing a game with these guys, and I think he enjoys getting them worked up about this issue.

I still like to be right. But there is a time and a place for it. And quite often there is a cost that comes with it.

So the President of the United States of America is regularly playing a game where he lies to the media to piss them off, gets a thrill out of their anger, and uses it as a perpetual smokescreen to draw attention away from important issues.

I get that you're not a Trump fan, so presumably you're not in favor of it, but I don't get how you can be so unperturbed by it.

1, I don't think it started as a "lie", it started based on his emotion and how he felt about the election. He looks at a map and sees lots of red, concentrated blue, and a huge upset. Popular margin is mostly California or can be seen that way.
2. He's a powerbroker, not someone who lived in a precise world.! To him, the minutiae is nit-picking and semantics. Regardless of the numbers, it "felt" like a landslide on election night, fair enough?
3. At some point conceding feels like losing to him, and I think we all understand that seems to be something he cannot handle in any form, so he doubles down. It is a weakness, and a big one, but he loves conflict so the cycle feeds itself.

I am unperturbed, because on this issue it is totally meaningless.

When two people are miscommunicating, if both parties really want to get along, they try and understand what the other feels/means not just what they are saying.

The media lean heavily liberal, and they control what we see, so watching this play out, it has the "feel" of a lynch mob, because it comes across as 100 on 1. Of course most of this is Trump's fault. But if the press's goal is to prove how bad/dangerous Trump is, it would be better served focusing on something worthy of indictment. Every president spins things, most are better in clothing their messages in a veneer of facts.

There'are a lot of issues I'm much more interested in then how Trump characterizes his election win.

So does it just come down to some people caring about how the POTUS carries himself and how he acts in public versus others not caring?

(02-18-2017 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So does it just come down to some people caring about how the POTUS carries himself and how he acts in public versus others not caring?

I think there are factors that tend to exacerbate it. a) did you vote for Hillary; b) do you consider yourself leftish of center.

Sorry to rip the scab off, but the election result was a massive surprise. I think that wound is still very raw, which tends to let the aforementioned a--holeness (which was a factor unto itself for the voting selection) matter even more.

Kind of a positive feedback loop (albeit for a negative mental effect....).

My wife is still up in arms over anything Trump, as are most of her left-ish friends/acquaintances. And opposed to attenuating, the symptom is getting worse. Same holds for other friends that have those two characteristics.

Those who voted for Trump don't care.

Those that voted for none of the above were already well aware of the a--holeness factor, and weighed that (and other Trump factors of course), and compared them to the product from the left. The "meh" was already pre-baked in for them. From the 'vote for others' group, the choice was a narcissistic boorish jacka-- vs a power-hungry 'will commit gross breaches of national security to ensure that no FOI will ever know about her emails' choice.

I think that it is not just the outcome for those who supported Hillary and/or are left of center, but added into that is still the freshness of the carpet being swept out from underneath them.

(02-18-2017 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So does it just come down to some people caring about how the POTUS carries himself and how he acts in public versus others not caring?

I care, but it's on the list somewhere, not at the top.

I care far more about policy positions. If he delivers policies that I want to see implemented, I would prefer that to someone who leads the country in the wrong direction, regardless of appearances.

I make my voting decisions almost solely on issues, with little regard to whether they would be fun to go have a beer with or what kind of decorum they observe.

In this most recent election, Trump said far more that I agreed with than Hillary did, but he also said far more that I had extreme disagreements with than Hillary did.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...d_us_feb18

"Nearly half (48%) also think most reporters are biased against the president. Only 12% think they are biased for Trump."

since we have thrown global warming (or is it climate change now?) into the mix, here is where I stand on that issue:

We are warming. How much of that is due to natural causes and how much due to the actions of humans, hard to say.

My best guess, is that car is rolling downhill, and if we give it a little push, it will roll a little faster, and if we grab it, it will roll a little slower, but in either case, it will end up at the bottom of the hill. It will get warmer over time.

This Earth has been cooling and warming and cooling again and warming again for billions of years. No reason to think it is all man-caused now. Back when it was warmer, and the Vikings colonized Greenland (didn't they call it Vinland?) it probably wasn't campfires doing the warming. And back during the Year without a summer, it probably wasn't us either.

Up to a few hundred years agio, if the Earth warmed, it meant the village had to pull the tents back a few feet from the lake. Or if it cooled, it meant we had to head south for better foarage for the livestock.

Modern Earth, with our built up ports and entrenched agriculture, not so much.

I have no, repeat, no opposition to doing what we can. I have a lot of opposition to the frantic effort to return to some fictional time when everything was as it should be, before we started messing it up. Nobody can tell me what the target is.

If 60% of the warming is man-caused, and our efforts can reverse 30% of that, that means we can reverse 18% - but the globe will continue to warm, just slower.

Fine, if we use the time we buy to learn to live on a warmer globe. Not fine, if we waste that time whining about changes we cannot stop.

Some people want to label that thinking as a denier. I think the deniers are the ones insisting the change can be reversed.

(02-18-2017 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So does it just come down to some people caring about how the POTUS carries himself and how he acts in public versus others not caring?

I care, but it's on the list somewhere, not at the top.

I care far more about policy positions. If he delivers policies that I want to see implemented, I would prefer that to someone who leads the country in the wrong direction, regardless of appearances.

I make my voting decisions almost solely on issues, with little regard to whether they would be fun to go have a beer with or what kind of decorum they observe.

In this most recent election, Trump said far more that I agreed with than Hillary did, but he also said far more that I had extreme disagreements with than Hillary did.

I'm in a similar boat about the personality of the POTUS - I could care less if they are robotic like Romney, a good 'ol boy like W, or well, a robot like Hillary. So long as they take the position seriously and are interested in treating the presidency with the respect and effort it deserves. I had no questions that any of the past presidents or their opponents would do that.

But with Trump, he is someone the personifies the extreme point where character issues almost take over. I think there because a point where your personality and habits become so damaging, that they muddle and overshadow the policy you propose. Trump doesn't do his homework on the issues he is making decisions on (and I can cite numerous articles and reports to back that up), I liable to try and push falsehoods that errode the trust of the people in the POTUS as an honest person, is willing to use his bully pulpit to personally attack private citizens and businesses, and so on. At this points, his numerous severe character flaws that should have rendered him unfit to hold office are just piling up more and more and making it hard for me to see past them and evaluate him solely upon his decisions as Commander and Chief.

If we had any of the other Republican candidates, we at least would have had someone whose competence in executing the office I was confident in, even if I disagreed with their positions. Trump has not done anything to make me think he understands even the most basic concepts of our government like checks and balances.

Trump is not experienced in doing things the Washington Way, and this is one of the reasons people elected him. They were tired of business as usual, and one of the main complaints against him is that he is not doing things exactly the way they have always been done. Go figure. So some things are going to get a rough roll out and some mistakes will be made. It would probably be a tempest in a teapot if people/the press would just not jump on everything like it was harbinger of the end of the world. CHAOS!!! RUSSIANS!!!! GOLF!!!! Remember Obamacare's roll out? Not everything runs smoothly when you are doing something new.

Plus, it seems to me that Trump is hellbent on keeping his campaign promises, and keeping them now. I cannot remember any previous president doing so much that he promised in the first month. Maybe FDR, once he had the Court packed.

What were the campaign promises that Obama kept in the first month? Bush? Clinton? The other Bush? Trump has started on limiting immigration, building the Wall, canceling trade agreements, revising Obamacare, tax revision, canceling regulations, etc. Doing what he promised seems to be one of the things that make people like him more, or hate him more, depending on which way you leaned before.

FTR, I was not and am not in favor of everything he promised, but I am impressed that he is keeping his promises.

OO, what has Trump accomplished so far that has stuck?

I ask, because so far, other than pulling out a the TPP (which we hadn't signed), a lot of his actions haven't done anything or have been struck down in court. A lot is just talk at the moment.

Edit: also, I wasn't talking about what he was doing, I was talking about how he was conducting himself, and how I've found it to be on such an extreme that I find it to make him nearly unfit to hold the office.

(02-18-2017 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, what has Trump accomplished so far that has stuck?

I ask, because so far, other than pulling out a the TPP (which we hadn't signed), a lot of his actions haven't done anything or have been struck down in court. A lot is just talk at the moment.

Edit: also, I wasn't talking about what he was doing, I was talking about how he was conducting himself, and how I've found it to be on such an extreme that I find it to make him nearly unfit to hold the office.

Nothing has stuck, yet, what did you expect to stick in the first month against the Party of No?

But he has started, and on several fronts. This seems like something I have not seen before - a president keeping his promises starting from Day One. I know Obama mad e a stab at closing Gitmo the first day, but eight years later, still open. What other promises did Obama move on his first month? Or Bush or Clinton or anybody else? I may have forgotten.

I was talking about doing, not conducti. I care more about things getting done or not done than the niceties. Keeping campaign promises is about doing.
I don't care about the frills, and when the history is written, it will be the things done or not done, not the manner in which they are done or not done, that will be featured.

I also don't think being polite makes one either fit or unfit. I found Obama very impolite at times.

(02-18-2017 08:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, what has Trump accomplished so far that has stuck?

I ask, because so far, other than pulling out a the TPP (which we hadn't signed), a lot of his actions haven't done anything or have been struck down in court. A lot is just talk at the moment.

Edit: also, I wasn't talking about what he was doing, I was talking about how he was conducting himself, and how I've found it to be on such an extreme that I find it to make him nearly unfit to hold the office.

Nothing has stuck, yet, what did you expect to stick in the first month against the Party of No?

But he has started, and on several fronts. This seems like something I have not seen before - a president keeping his promises starting from Day One. I know Obama mad e a stab at closing Gitmo the first day, but eight years later, still open. What other promises did Obama move on his first month? Or Bush or Clinton or anybody else? I may have forgotten.

I was talking about doing, not conducti. I care more about things getting done or not done than the niceties. Keeping campaign promises is about doing.
I don't care about the frills, and when the history is written, it will be the things done or not done, not the manner in which they are done or not done, that will be featured.

So you're patting someone on the back for not accomplishing anything yet and just sticking his campaign rhetoric? What a high bar to cross, and what a strange thing to praise someone for while at the same time professing to not care about what someone is talking about...

As I've argued before, I am not yet on board with the whole "Party of No" (the title I guess that has now been passed from the Reps) because Trump has not had any time to do anything yet. In keeping with that line of thinking, I'd argue that there is absolutely nothing to pat him on the back yet with regards to keeping his promises. There just hasn't been time for Trump to actually do anything consequential.

(02-18-2017 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 08:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, what has Trump accomplished so far that has stuck?

I ask, because so far, other than pulling out a the TPP (which we hadn't signed), a lot of his actions haven't done anything or have been struck down in court. A lot is just talk at the moment.

Edit: also, I wasn't talking about what he was doing, I was talking about how he was conducting himself, and how I've found it to be on such an extreme that I find it to make him nearly unfit to hold the office.

Nothing has stuck, yet, what did you expect to stick in the first month against the Party of No?

But he has started, and on several fronts. This seems like something I have not seen before - a president keeping his promises starting from Day One. I know Obama mad e a stab at closing Gitmo the first day, but eight years later, still open. What other promises did Obama move on his first month? Or Bush or Clinton or anybody else? I may have forgotten.

I was talking about doing, not conducti. I care more about things getting done or not done than the niceties. Keeping campaign promises is about doing.
I don't care about the frills, and when the history is written, it will be the things done or not done, not the manner in which they are done or not done, that will be featured.

So you're patting someone on the back for not accomplishing anything yet and just sticking his campaign rhetoric? What a high bar to cross, and what a strange thing to praise someone for while at the same time professing to not care about what someone is talking about...

As I've argued before, I am not yet on board with the whole "Party of No" (the title I guess that has now been passed from the Reps) because Trump has not had any time to do anything yet. In keeping with that line of thinking, I'd argue that there is absolutely nothing to pat him on the back yet with regards to keeping his promises. There just hasn't been time for Trump to actually do anything consequential.

He has started keeping his promises, and multiple promises at that. How does this compare to previous Presidents?

If by patting on the back you mean giving credit where credit is due, yes I am patting him on the back for making efforts to keep his promises. What do you find wrong with that? Did you wait for the finished product to give Obama high fives for healthcare and closing Gitmo, neither of which happened in the first month, by the way.

I am really interested in the comparison with other President's first months and with them keeping their promises. Maybe I have given him too much credit. Set me straight. I will assign Obama to you. Maybe JAAO can help you with that.

So how deep does your hatred of Trump run that you cannot even grudgingly give him credit for trying to keep his campaign promises? I would certainly have no trouble giving credit to Clinton if she tried to keep her promises, whatever they were.

I don't even remember what promises were made eight years ago, beyond hope, change, and closing Gitmo. What were they and what did he do in the first 30 days to start fulfilling them?

My thought was that Trump was keeping more promises, and keeping them earlier, than any other first term President I can remember. I could be wrong - somebody refresh my memory.