Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I could agree with "not all generalizations are over-generalizations", but we were discussing one in particular, and it certainly was (in my opinion, of course). If something would be right at home in a negative attack ad, then it's probably the kind of statement that would (again) rile up the party base, but completely turn off discussion with anyone else...

That's my point - both parties do this constantly, but they're just talking to their supporters, and talking past the opposition... and I'm really tired of it lol. I say independent just to point out that this kind of language is a major turnoff to me, as someone who sees merit (and plenty of room for improvement ) in both parties.

Anyway, I think that's probably clear now, so I'll climb down off my soapbox on this issue . It's just something that really gets me lol!

Ok, I can see what you mean. I think we each read something different in the statements in question.

 RiTides wrote:
I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.

In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...

But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...

How did this sanity get let into the US Politics thread. Burn the Witch!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
For me it depends on how well they distinguish between the party in general and people who are [party], and if they can manage to actually use real words.

Crap like “libtards” gets an automatic “you’re an idiot not worth talking to” from me, as an example.

Don't forget sheeple or inversely repugs.

"Republicants" and "Dumbocrats" are up there with "Sheeple" with words that reduce my respect for a person's opinion to near zero put the gate.

"Sheeple" has no political connotation that I am aware of.

I mean, saying it with a straight face makes you a grade-a toolbox, but it's not associated with any party.

Sheeple Party 2018!

 Ouze wrote:
"Sheeple" has no political connotation that I am aware of.

I mean, saying it with a straight face makes you a grade-a toolbox, but it's not associated with any party.

Yeah sheeple is right up there with woke but at least it can still be an entertaining conversation. Sheepdog is worse, I will nope right out of any discussion with somebody that earnestly refers to them self as a sheepdog.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Republicans will love this. They can retire Pelosi and use him as their posterboy for why the Democrats suck balls so bad, want to take your guns and protect criminal illegal aliens and don't give a flying feth about you.* But seriously he's bad, like Mayor Daley level bad.

What? He's running for governor. His relevance outside of California is almost zero.

Think about it this way - Blagojevich was an outright criminal who got caught on tape bragging about his crimes. It was the most telegenic act of corruption you're ever going to get. And he really did reflect the corruption integral to Illinois Democrat politics. And despite all that, he still didn't become the poster boy for Republican attacks on Democrats. Republicans didn't even try, because they knew Blagojevich was just a governor and governors can't be used to define national parties.

But you want to argue that Newsom will be used to define Democrats nationally, based on an affair and frazzled whisper campaign. It is not a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.

The problem with this argument is Republican voters have moved their positions on individual issues. Support among Republicans for free trade has dropped under half, a couple of years ago it was in the high 80s. Support for Putin has gone from the teens up in to the 30s and 40s.

The dynamic you're claiming, of people who support their party while sticking to their ideals is not really how it works. Most people have little to no clue about most issues. They take cues from trusted leaders in politics and the media. So when Trump champions some issue or another and his loyalist media follows along, it impacts a lot of Republican voters downstream.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
"Sheeple" has no political connotation that I am aware of.

I mean, saying it with a straight face makes you a grade-a toolbox, but it's not associated with any party.

Yeah sheeple is right up there with woke but at least it can still be an entertaining conversation. Sheepdog is worse, I will nope right out of any discussion with somebody that earnestly refers to them self as a sheepdog.

Three kinds of people:wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. Who are you going to be?
A wolf of course!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Sometimes, though, I'm reminded of another old line in journalism: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."

Sure, there is definitely a sensationalist element to the media, and especially to their coverage of Trump, where every second tweet is apparently a death knell to US democracy.

I'm just saying that this idea that journalists are out there calculating hit counts on their individual articles, then talking to the ad sales teams about what articles will generate the most revenue is silly. Actual journalism is a lot more... bureaucratic than that.

CA is far more relevant nationally than Illinois. CA politics does have ripple effects outside of the state.

As for a few reasons as to why he's not a good choice,

He basically didn't ever show up to work when he was Lt Governor. And there isn't a lot of work for a Lt Governor to do, yet he couldn't manage to even show up more than half the time. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-lieutenant-governor-attendance-20180420-story.html

If you care about the environment, when he was Mayor of San Francisco during that big oil spill he ran off to Hawaii instead of dealing with the crisis.

 sebster wrote:
I'm just saying that this idea that journalists are out there calculating hit counts on their individual articles, then talking to the ad sales teams about what articles will generate the most revenue is silly. Actual journalism is a lot more... bureaucratic than that.

It sounds like you're describing an industry in need of a moneyball-style statistical analysis.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He basically didn't ever show up to work when he was Lt Governor. And there isn't a lot of work for a Lt Governor to do, yet he couldn't manage to even show up more than half the time. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-lieutenant-governor-attendance-20180420-story.html

If you care about the environment, when he was Mayor of San Francisco during that big oil spill he ran off to Hawaii instead of dealing with the crisis.

So as far as Gavin Newsom, the things that make him "bad, Mayor Daley bad" and as bad as Blajovich are that he didn't have great attendance as a Lt. Governor? That he went to Hawaii the day after being elected, and when the oil spill turned out worse than reported, he returned to San Francisco 2 days later and didn't go back to Hawaii until 2 months later?

The oil spill was November 7th. Here is is on November 12th:

 RiTides wrote:
In my post, I was very specific in talking about party - how people vilify, label, and characterize them. I think all of that is extremely unhelpful for a reasoned debate, and just leads to increased "tribalism" and partisanship.

I think you are working on an assumption that if we just end the tribalism then things will go back to being okay. I don't agree.

We are at a point right now where people who spent 8 years attacking Obama for unsustainable deficits won control and their only major policy was a tax cut that added $1.5tn to the budget (now costed as $1.8tn). Their voters don't love that legislation, but it hasn't caused any of them to realise the hypocrisy of the previous 8 years.

The solution to that isn't to try and be nice. You don't win by putting up a show of respect to someone who embraces such an obviously partisan, hypocritical set of political beliefs. You win by calling out that hypocrisy, and making sure that mobilizes enough voters to win next time around.

As an independent I understand you don't see it that way. As a person who's watched the Republican party very closely for a couple of decades, I can tell you it's the only way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think you’re downplaying the effect the profit motive has on private media companies. Granted journalists are motivated by the desire to find and tell a good story but whereas freelancers can pursue whatever story they want most journalists in media companies are given assignments. Which stories are assigned, what resources are allocated, what headlines are placed on a story, how it’s promoted, what prominence it is given, the amount and duration of coverage of a story are all editorial decisions that have to be justified in terms of money spent and revenue earned.

I'm not downplaying the profit motive, I'm saying the relationship is a lot more complex than most people recognise. You're right that journalists don't pick their own stories, but the people who assign them - editors - they're also journalists, they're not ad men. You have to move a couple more layers up the chain before you get to positions where ad revenue is driving decisions. That doesn't mean the journalist is free from commercial pressures, but it does mean that pressure is very indirect, and not the main driver of what stories do and don't get picked to be targeted.

Does the #metoo movement get more coverage than the opioid crisis because it’s more important or because the sensationalistic aspects of it generate more revenue? I agree that #metoo is an important story that deserves in depth coverage but it’s undeniable that the adage (and truth) that sex sells helps drive resource allocation and coverage to it instead of other less sexy stories that are also important.

The sensationalist aspect of MeToo matters, definitely, but even that's a two sided coin. Remember what is exciting to the reader was probably also pretty exciting for the journalist.

The bigger reason MeToo gets more coverage is what I already mentioned - it's where the reporters are. Most of the major MeToo incidents have been LA and NY, which also happens to be where a lot of national journalists are based. If half the country's national reporters were based in West Virginia, the opioid epidemic would probably be the number 1 story most nights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
CA is far more relevant nationally than Illinois. CA politics does have ripple effects outside of the state.

California is a lot bigger than everything. It means the CA governor gets a higher profile, but it doesn't mean they start to define the national party, if only for the fairly obvious reason they're not even part of the national party, they're part of the CA party.

As for a few reasons as to why he's not a good choice

Not even close to the question being discussed. Frazzled said Newsom was corrupt and said this corruption would be used by Republicans to define the Democrats nationally, in a way they currently use Pelosi. Of course, frazzled failed to demonstrate any evidence of said corruption, but I didn't even bother to address that because it's just the same old Republican mudslinging lies.

What I did address was the idea that governor could be used to define a national party, because that was a really funny claim.

Now you're wading in, trying to use a poor attendance record to support frazzled's claim. I can see that ad running real well. "Mr Johnson says he'll work for you as mayor for of Grand Chute in the great state of Wisconsin, but Mr Johnson is a Democrat, the same party as Gary Newsom, and that guy had a spotty attendance record when he was Lt Governor. Can you trust Mr Johnson to reliably attend necessary events? Can you?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
It sounds like you're describing an industry in need of a moneyball-style statistical analysis.

The opposite. It needs to avoid that at all costs. Because if some bright spark consulting team starts directly linking article clicks to individual journalist performance, then we will get the click driven media that RITides was complaining about.

The good thing is most newspapers understand the halo effect. Individual stories might cost a lot more and not generate as many clicks, but people know important work when they see it. Readers want to read media sources that break major stories, and advertisers wants to be associated with serious media outlets.

I know some people here have expressed concern about the media posting every little bit about Trump, but this one is just too funny to pass up.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44394156

Trump asks if Canada burnt down White House in call with PM

..."Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" Mr Trump reportedly asked in a call with Mr Trudeau over new tariffs.

It is not clear if the comment was intended as a joke, but CNN report that it followed an exchange in which Mr Trudeau asked how the US could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue.

The US imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from its allies - the EU, Canada and Mexico - last week.

"It is simply ridiculous to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the US," Mr Trudeau has said of the move...

so diplomatic!


On a more serious note, Abe is making a last ditch effort in Washington to convince Trump not to forget about Japan when talking to Kim.

Trump needs to be reminded that Canada has never lost a war in its history.

I would argue that Canada, Mongolia, and Vietnam are the 3 deadliest nations in military history.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Trump needs to be reminded that Canada has never lost a war in its history.

I would argue that Canada, Mongolia, and Vietnam are the 3 deadliest nations in military history.

both Mongolia and Vietnam lost wars.

Canada hasn't.

Canada, your quiet Aunt Brenda who will go full on Beast Mode if you mess with her cousin "Queenie" Elizabeth.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Trump needs to be reminded that Canada has never lost a war in its history.

I would argue that Canada, Mongolia, and Vietnam are the 3 deadliest nations in military history.

both Mongolia and Vietnam lost wars.

Canada hasn't.

Canada, your quiet Aunt Brenda who will go full on Beast Mode if you mess with her cousin "Queenie" Elizabeth.

Or when her team is facing the Maple Leafs.

The Auld Grump

Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.

The same could be said about the US War for Independence

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Trump needs to be reminded that Canada has never lost a war in its history.

I would argue that Canada, Mongolia, and Vietnam are the 3 deadliest nations in military history.

Sorry to break it to you, old chap, but the French have the most military wins in history. As distressing as that may seem.

I think refighting wars of 200 years ago is getting well off the topic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think refighting wars of 200 years ago is getting well off the topic.

Trump is seemingly disagreeing with the relevance

Mulvaney continues his attack on the dpeartment he hates, but also runs.... the CFPB

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/06/news/economy/cfpb-consumer-advisory-board/index.html

Mick Mulvaney took yet another swipe at his consumer watchdog bureau — all but terminating an entire board of advocates who advise the agency about fair lending and underserved communities.
The 25 members of the Consumer Advisory Board, established by law as part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were told on a conference call Wednesday that the board would not meet again until new members are appointed.

Current members were told that they would not be allowed to reapply, according to a recording of the call obtained by CNNMoney. That notice was softened on a second call, when CFPB officials suggested the members could try again in a few years.

We (the British, actually) burned the White House, therefore steel tariffs are permissible under the "national security" concerns clause in NAFTA. Makes sense to me!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.

The same could be said about the US War for Independence

Yes and no. Really what killed the British ability to carry on the war was their crippling deficit. All the Americans really needed to do was keep fighting and the British would eventually have had to give in because they would run out of money to pay the troops.

What was touch and go was the Continental army's morale and simply keeping the troops in the fight long enough for the British to capitulate.

The British ended the war with a national debt of 250 million Pounds. Equivalent to 3.6 billion today. At the time, that was a horrendous amount to be in the hole.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.

The same could be said about the US War for Independence

Yes and no. Really what killed the British ability to carry on the war was their crippling deficit. All the Americans really needed to do was keep fighting and the British would eventually have had to give in because they would run out of money to pay the troops.

What was touch and go was the Continental army's morale and simply keeping the troops in the fight long enough for the British to capitulate.

The British ended the war with a national debt of 250 million Pounds. Equivalent to 3.6 billion today. At the time, that was a horrendous amount to be in the hole.

At the same time, the war of 1812 ended just as Britain was about to be able to bring its full weight to bear. The US didn't manage to take Canada, that's that. What iffing is fun and all but I guess too off topic. Except in relation to tariffs, Trump is still worried about Canada even though that seems pretty silly putting the US and Canada side by side.

 sebster wrote:
The dynamic you're claiming, of people who support their party while sticking to their ideals is not really how it works. Most people have little to no clue about most issues. They take cues from trusted leaders in politics and the media. So when Trump champions some issue or another and his loyalist media follows along, it impacts a lot of Republican voters downstream.

Some people behave that way and others behave differently. I know this because I *actually have conversations with* Republicans who feel the way I described.

It's also important to note that this administration and Congress have secured both personal income tax cuts and a corporate tax cut, and have been pushing deregulation. These are all very mainstream GOP ideas that are supported by traditional Republicans. They might still think Trump is a buffoon, and might grit their teeth every time Trump opens his mouth or tweets. But they aren't going to *turn on their party and their party's defacto leader* because of some sparring over trade while taxes are being cut and companies are being given more freedom.

I'm sure that some things might look a certain way when you're viewing this country from 9000 miles away. However, I can assure you that there's more nuance at ground level with the GOP than it might appear, especially regionally. And bringing this back to the original point, that's why that 87% figure could be a little deceiving. All those supporters aren't of the MAGA-hat-wearing, rally-attending variety.

So, to bring politics back to a personal level, the Tariff thing is making my job a living hell. We have almost quadruple the number of price increases to process that we normally would, creating an insane amount of work for office staff, while we as a distributor then have to raise our prices for contractors who purchase from us, and our Canadian stores have no idea what they may get stuck with. I get to work nights and weekends (as an exempt employee) as a result.

And, to boot, nothing has actually even taken effect yet. Everyone is preemptively freaking out because they have no idea whats going on and theyre covering their asses before it hits, and there's no endgame, nobody knows what Trump is looking for or what trade structure differences may emerge or change, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Our VP who literally spends half his time lobbying at the EPA for our industry, is banging his head against the wall with this administration.

So, happened a few days ago, but Manafort has now been accused/charged with witness tampering during an ongoing investigation into him

I would not want to be Manafort right now. Witness tampering by itself is bad when it happens in an unrelated case, but when you do it in a case you're involved with it carries a tougher sentence iirc.

Trump being nervous about Canada because of the war of 1812 makes me smile, especially since all the Americans I know get annoyed when I point out they lost to Canadian colonials and First Nations.