Easy answer: yes. He has opposed lunacy. Not because he is exceptional, but just because he can see the obvious.
If I may, I will post a quotation from a NewYork Post article. I know you may not think it's a great newspaper, but it's a mover and shaker in our culture, so ignore it at your own peril. https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/obscene-federal-diversity-training-scam-prospers-even-under-trump/
"Critical race theory — the far-left academic discourse centered on the concepts of "whiteness," "white fragility" and "white privilege" — is coursing through the federal government's veins. Under a GOP administration, no less.
'Last month, a private diversity-consulting firm conducted a training titled "Difficult Conversations About Race in Troubling Times" for several federal agencies. The training called on white employees at the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Credit Union Administration and the Office of the Comptroller to pledge "allyship [sic] amid the George Floyd Tragedy."
According to a trove of whistleblower documents I've reviewed, the training begins with the premise that "virtually all white people contribute to racism" and hold narratives that "don't support the dismantling of racist institutions." Therefore, the trainers argue, white federal employees must "struggle to own their racism" and "invest in race-based growth."
The trainers then ask "white managers" to create "safe spaces," where black employees can explain "what it means to be black" and to be "seen in their pain." White staffers are instructed to keep silent and to "sit in the discomfort" of their racism. If any conflicts arise, the trainers insist that whites "don't get to decide when someone is being too emotional, too rash [or] too mean." Whites are told they can't protest if a person of color "responds to their oppression in a way [they] don't like."'
President Trump's response (according to this article: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/10/20/top-down_white_penitence_is_shaking_up_the_workplace_125684.html
"Trump's order, which goes into effect Nov. 21, has wide reach. It applies to all federal contractors, which includes many universities, nonprofits and businesses. But the White House was already moving against anti-racism activities before the executive order. When Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber issued a letter in September declaring that anti-black racism is spread deeply throughout the Ivy League school, the Trump Education Department evidently called Princeton's bluff by treating the mea culpa literally – announcing an investigation under federal anti-discrimination law.'
And from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
excerpt, the Executive Order:
"Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our forebears, America has made significant progress toward realization of our national creed, particularly in the 57 years since Dr. King shared his dream with the country.
Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.'
Right on Mr. President. Of course President Biden will immediately rescind the order. But wouldn't it be interesting if he didn't? He nearly got his head handed to him during the debates for working with segregationists of the other party in some fashion... at the time I was certain I'd vote for Joe. I thought, 'yeah he puts his foot in his mouth, but racist? I sorta doubt it.
We live in interesting times.
If you read the actual text of the order, you'll see that it's straight-up government censorship. So, no, I wouldn't count that as a good thing. The free speech brigade has been conspicuously silent on this front.
The First Step Act was a mostly good, if insufficient thing. I don't think he deserves much of the credit for it, but he did sign it.
Well, my own opinion is that if this country has traditionally erred in either paying too much attention to racism, or too little, the answer is" too little. Of course it would be white people who insist that the answer is "too much." Ask some people who are targeted by racism, and I think they will have a different answer. And their answer counts too.
Re: question in the title: I imagine we'll soon have a plebiscite ruling on that; I suspect in the negative.
M.
I've been thinking this week that if Obama's justice department had launched a similar anti-trust case against Big Tech as the one Barr announced this week, I would probably be in favor of it.
But one can't help suspecting "the right thing for the wrong reason, " as Eliot put it.
Somewhere back in there is a stock investment interest, campaign donation potential, or both... (Transparency: I once worked at Oracle, Larry E's political proclivities were well-known).
M.
Quote from: mamselle on October 21, 2020, 03:32:00 AM
But one can't help suspecting "the right thing for the wrong reason, " as Eliot put it.
Somewhere back in there is a stock investment interest, campaign donation potential, or both... (Transparency: I once worked at Oracle, Larry E's political proclivities were well-known).
M.
Exactly. On a Kantian view, one has to have the right intentions. Trump personally only cares about himself, so he never acts well.
One might suspect the same about many politicians -- they seek power and personal gain, and their political actions are just instrumental to that end. But they do end up doing some good anyway, to become popular. Trump's instrumental approach is to cater to the rich and nationalists, so again he won't be doing any good.
Any good that comes of the last 4 years of presidential mismanagement and corruption is just accidental, a side effect of something else. There's no "doing."
Quote from: mahagonny on October 20, 2020, 08:20:23 PM
'Last month, a private diversity-consulting firm conducted a training titled "Difficult Conversations About Race in Troubling Times" for several federal agencies.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 20, 2020, 08:20:23 PM
The trainers then ask "white managers" to create "safe spaces," where black employees can explain "what it means to be black" and to be "seen in their pain."
"Difficult conversations" is one of those buzz-phrases that alert the listener that malarkey is forthcoming. (Thanks for breathing new life into the m-word, Joe.) The phrase "be seen in their pain," meanwhile, is such meaningless, passive-aggressive psycho-babble that the earth should simply open up and consume whomever uses it.
Quote from: Hegemony on October 21, 2020, 12:10:45 AM
Well, my own opinion is that if this country has traditionally erred in either paying too much attention to racism, or too little, the answer is" too little. Of course it would be white people who insist that the answer is "too much." Ask some people who are targeted by racism, and I think they will have a different answer. And their answer counts too.
No one ever reads the whole background story on the situation that prompted the Executive Order.
A muckraker report (but factually correct based on reports from my colleagues at Sandia): https://christopherrufo.com/national-nuclear-laboratory-training-on-white-privilege-and-white-male-culture/
A web search for the program listed turns up several more local articles in various places, including Seattle, indicating that these programs have been problematic for several years, but now stuff hit the fan because a government contractor spend good money on these activities and it became public.
If the goal is to reduce racism, then the types of programs being discarded are not at all helping, although, yes, the Executive Order is much too broadly written and the lawyers for the national labs are already pushing back for clarification. The targeted programs are caricatures (although real in this case) that educated people generally say something along the lines of "No one is stating that all white males everywhere in the US are bad people just by going about their daily lives. The term 'white privilege' does not mean that all white people are so privileged at the expense of all other people that merely being white is oppressive." As it turns out, there are indeed people exactly saying those things and getting paid good money to deliver trainings focused on those things.
The diversity literature that crosses my desk is increasingly filled with exhortations to discard certain types of trainings as at best a waste of everyone's time and at worst causing more harm than good. An overview published out of Harvard in 2018 is a fairly neutral example: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf . The behaviors don't change and some undesirable behaviors are reinforced.
The title of this thread and the responses to it indicate how extremely polarized society has become. A few decades ago, this sort of question would only be asked by the sort of "non-elite" masses. Academics and journalists could be counted on to provide the nuanced and dispassionate analyis of which actions of the current administration can objectively identified as "good" and which cannot. This they would do for any administration.
Now, even in this forum for academics, as "activism" has replaced "analysis", instead of nuance and attention to detail being valued, moral outrage and bombast are not merely tolerated but expected. (And this happens on both ends of the political spectrum. People saying "Obama was the worst president of all time!" are just as tedious.)
From the title, I expected a true list of accomplishments like:
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/opinion/fact-check-trump.html and I have only selected items listed as true. I have reordered the points from the original list for better grouping and better impact on folks whose eyes will glaze over.
Criminal Justice Reform:
* In 2018, President Trump signed the groundbreaking First Step Act, a criminal justice bill that enacted reforms that make our justice system fairer and help former inmates successfully return to society.
* The First Step Act's reforms addressed inequities in sentencing laws that disproportionately harmed Black Americans and reformed mandatory minimums that created unfair outcomes.
* The First Step Act expanded judicial discretion in the sentencing of nonviolent crimes.
* In 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismantled an organization that was the internet's leading source of prostitution-related advertisements resulting in sex trafficking.
* Trump signed the "Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" (FOSTA), which includes the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act" (SESTA) which both give law enforcement and victims new tools to fight sex trafficking.
Healthcare:
* President Trump signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act that provides funding for states to develop maternal mortality reviews to better understand maternal complications and identify solutions & largely focuses on reducing the higher mortality rates for Black Americans.
* Trump signed a law ending the gag orders on Pharmacists that prevented them from sharing money-saving information.
* Trump signed an executive order this year that forces all health care providers to disclose the cost of their services so that Americans can comparison shop and know how much fewer providers charge insurance companies.
* Under Trump, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history.
* Signed Right-To-Try legislation allowing terminally ill patients to try an experimental treatment that wasn't allowed before.
* He created a White House VA Hotline to help veterans and principally staffed it with veterans and direct family members of veterans.
* Issued an executive order requiring the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to submit a joint plan to provide veterans access to access to mental health treatment as they transition to civilian life.
* Trump signed measure funding prevention programs for Veteran suicide.
* Signed the most comprehensive childhood cancer legislation ever into law, which will advance childhood cancer research and improve treatments.
* In 2019 President Donald Trump signed the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support Act (CARES) into law, which allocates $1.8 billion in funding over the next five years to help people with autism spectrum disorder and to help their families.
* In 2019 President Trump signed into law two funding packages providing nearly $19 million in new funding for Lupus specific research and education programs, as well an additional $41.7 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the most Lupus funding EVER.
* Trump signed a bill making CBD and Hemp legal.
Addressing Racism, Supporting Education and the Environment, and Improving General Welfare:
* Trump recently signed 3 bills to benefit Native people. One gives compensation to the Spokane tribe for loss of their lands in the mid-1900s, one funds Native language programs, and the third gives federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Montana.
* Over 90% of those benefiting from the retroactive sentencing reductions in the First Step Act are Black Americans.
* Trump received the Bipartisan Justice Award at a historically black college for his criminal justice reform accomplishments.
* Trump signed legislation forgiving Hurricane Katrina debt that threatened HBCUs.
* Signed the first Perkins C.T.E. reauthorization since 2006, authorizing more than $1 billion for states each year to fund vocational and career education programs.
* Executive order expanding apprenticeship opportunities for students and workers.
* In 2018, President Trump signed into law a $2.4 billion funding increase for the Child Care and Development Fund, providing a total of $8.1 billion to states to fund child care for low-income families.
* Trump's EPA gave $100 million to fix the water infrastructure problem in Flint, Michigan.
* Trump's U.S.D.A. committed $124 Million to rebuild rural water infrastructure.
* Trump signed the Save our Seas Act which funds $10 million per year to clean tons of plastic & garbage from the ocean.
* Trump signed a bill to require airports to provide spaces for breastfeeding Moms.
* Trump signed a law to make cruelty to animals a federal felony so that animal abusers face tougher consequences
Diplomacy and Trade:
* Companies have brought back over a TRILLION dollars from overseas because of the TCJA bill that Trump signed.
* NATO allies increased their defense spending because of his pressure campaign.
* Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
* Made a deal with the European Union to increase U.S. energy exports to Europe.
* Secured $250 billion in new trade and investment deals in China and $12 billion in Vietnam.
* Imposed tariffs on China in response to China's forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices, has agreed to a Part One trade deal with China.
* O.K.'d up to $12 billion in aid for farmers affected by unfair trade retaliation.
* Moved U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
* Trump appointed 5 openly gay ambassadors.
* Has had over a dozen U.S. hostages freed, including those Obama could not get freed.
Taxes:
* The tax cuts signed into law by President Trump promote school choice by allowing families to use 529 college savings plans for elementary and secondary education.
* The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by Trump doubled the maximum amount of the child tax credit available to parents and lifted the income limits so more people could claim it. It also created a new tax credit for other dependents.
* President Trump's historic tax cut legislation included new Opportunity Zone Incentives to promote investment in low-income communities across the country.
Reforming Government:
* Record number of regulations eliminated that hurt small businesses.
* Trump signed into law up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for millions of federal workers.
* Trump finalized the creation of Space Force as our 6th Military branch.
* Trump signed the Music Modernization Act, the biggest change to copyright law in decades.
* Trump signed the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund into law.
One can quibble about exact credit allocation for many of the accomplishments, but people who care about some of the individual items and followed closely are not morons for being happy that Trump kept campaign promises to fix certain specific items.
Pre-pandemic, the economic numbers were impressive. From Annenberg:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trumps-numbers-january-2020-update/
A few reputable sources also provide compilations of promises made and delivered. Not listed here. Many in polly_mer's list.
Not taking a position here, just posting some data. A lot happened in the first three years. Whether each thing was "good" or "bad"? No comment.
Quote from: Hegemony on October 21, 2020, 12:10:45 AM
Well, my own opinion is that if this country has traditionally erred in either paying too much attention to racism, or too little, the answer is" too little. Of course it would be white people who insist that the answer is "too much." Ask some people who are targeted by racism, and I think they will have a different answer. And their answer counts too.
Let's listen to a few then...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVIoC5ROaHk
Then there's Jason Riley, Larry Elder, Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughers, John McWhorter, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens, Jason Whitlock who all think we dwell on America's self identity with racism way too much and in negative, destructive ways. Can we recommend anyone listen to them, or is that rude?
There is someone on our faculty, a black person, who advises his colleagues that a white person quoting any of these black conservatives is tricking you. He's 'using them to talk to you.' This strikes me as odd and lazy, because their claims should be analyzed, and the finding should be they are either accurate or not, irrespective of who makes them. If you're not allowed to mention them and their thoughts, then we are refusing to examine our world, which is just plain stupid.
It's possible also to agree to put lots of attention on racism, but disagree on what to do, or not do, about it. That would be conversation I could bear without bristling. But the current climate is 'if you question the need for our corporate anti-racism training, you do not understand that racism is a problem, or you are outright racist.' Which is interesting, given that we are all presumed to be racist even if trying hard not to be. I guess you can still call someone racist because he disagrees with you about what to do about racism and what you're really accusing him of is having an anti-social nature.
I have a white friend my age minus 5 or 6 six years who was very smalll for his age and attended a black public school where he learned to run really fast. Talk about his experience, anyone?
Quote from: writingprof on October 21, 2020, 05:07:01 AM
"Difficult conversations" is one of those buzz-phrases that alert the listener that malarkey is forthcoming. (Thanks for breathing new life into the m-word, Joe.) The phrase "be seen in their pain," meanwhile, is such meaningless, passive-aggressive psycho-babble that the earth should simply open up and consume whomever uses it.
They're not difficult for those purveyors of this stuff...they are riding high. They do not like difficult conversations. They like conversations that they think will be difficult for people they hate, and getting paid a bundle for inflicting them on us.
Vincent Price, Duke University President [great name for a scary white liberal in a position of power, BTW]: "I cannot as a white person begin to fully understand the daily fear and pain and oppression that is endemic to the Black experience."
So, Mr. Price, i recommend you give up trying, and we'll all be better off.
There's a terrible, horrible, and probably necessary lesson that Trump has taught America. There are many citizens who don't care how their leader presents himself to us or to the world. They don't care about politeness, grace, poetry, art, or "class" (in the sense of doing or saying the "classy" thing). And they don't care about building friendly relationships with other countries. Indeed, they don't really care if he's a decent human being or not (and he's not). What they do care about, quite understandably, is action and results. Can you, the president, show me (not just tell me) that you care about my family, my job, and my existence? Can you help me put more money in my wallet and more food on my table?
Trump has convinced many people that he has and he can, which is the other big lesson he's reinforced for us: to paraphrase one of the president's heroes, you can fool some of the people all of the time. There's a brilliant editorial cartoon that features Trump exiting a rest room all in disarray, toilet paper everywhere, water dripping, and it's strongly implied that the smell is awful. And Trump yells from the exit, "Look what Joe did to the bathroom!" It's a perfect metaphor for Trump's legacy and accomplishments. And he is fooling many people--they believe what happened in the metaphorical bathroom is Biden's fault. If he fools enough people, he will be our president for another four years.
And then? Well, I don't think the republic will fall. I don't think democracy will die. I'll be scrambling my soon-to-be-retrenched self into another line of work and bringing my family with me irrespective of the election result. I can't speak for the rest of the country, or the rest of the academic world. But I will miss poetry. I will miss art. I will miss grace. And I will miss "class." And on some level, I will be the lesser for it.
We're not losing poetry or art by having a results-focused president over a classy president.
We are losing the pretense that everything is fine if people would just be quiet and respectfully listen to their social betters who have money and the energy to play the classy game.
Trump has done many things wrong, but refusing to pretend that being classy is very important is not one of them.
You're confusing "class" with pretention and putting on airs. Joe is pretty unpretentious--the guy said, "Shut up, man" during a debate (and he said it to the right person--also important).
And sure, nothing stopping me from taking a stab at creating art, or any of my artistic friends from doing so. But I would miss doing so where our leadership encourages, positively acknowledges, and supports such activity.
Quote from: polly_mer on October 21, 2020, 09:42:27 AM
We're not losing poetry or art by having a results-focused president over a classy president.
We are losing the pretense that everything is fine if people would just be quiet and respectfully listen to their social betters who have money and the energy to play the classy game.
Trump has done many things wrong, but refusing to pretend that being classy is very important is not one of them.
You don't need money to be civil. He has encouraged an incredible decrease in social civility, and that is, in my opinion, a serious problem.
He has seriously damaged immigration policy, and hurt the economy as a result. His tariffs have likewise damaged farmers and other working class citizens.
He has elevated racial tensions, and damaged our relationships with allies to no good purpose.
He has lessened his followers' trust in medicine and science. If you don't recognize this you live in a bubble.
Finally, your list is actually paltry when it comes to results. Signing legislation (often in spite of his rhetoric), and a bunch of meaningless proclamations hardly outweighs his faults.
I really miss having a president with class and appreciation of art, but that doesn't guarantee effectiveness. The two best examples of cultured presidents, in my lifetime, were Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. See where it got them.
Donald Trump doesn't even pretend to be easygoing let alone genteel, but that's part of why he succeeds. Most politicians talk like attorneys who have been trained to say everything in the way that will be most palatable for an audience to hear. If you were going to create a person like that, you'd never end up with Donald Trump. He was the same rough guy, dressed like Rodney Dangerfield, campaigning in the midwest as on the coast. People sensed they knew what he was.
Contrast that with Michelle Obama, who wears nice dresses, photographs well, speaks lyrically about values and human dignity. While she certainly knows that Beyoncé sells pornography to your kids, she calls her a role model for her daughters anyway. Need to name positive female role models, strong-willed, well adjusted women? Easy. Dolly Parton. Hilary Hahn. The tennis playing sisters, Nancy Kerrigan. Beyoncé Knowles was a terrible choice. The Obamas played the class act act to perfection. Their way.
QuoteHe [Trump] has elevated racial tensions, and damaged our relationships with allies to no good purpose.
I would worry about that too, and I'm afraid you're right, but he has had lots of help from the left.
Incidentally it turns out people believed race relations were better during the W. Bush years than during the Obama years, and it's not hard to see why. Democrats are not good for race relations because one of their methods for getting blacks out to vote is getting blacks angry at the system (whitey). Done by politicians, black white or other, who have prospered in the system by doing the normal things that help you prosper. Obama's comment about the Henry Louis Gates incident where he was arrested in his home was especially unfortunate. 'The police acted stupidly.' Incorrect. Gates copped an attitude instead of being cooperative. There are other examples where Obama could have done much better for race relations. So things are not always what they seem.
Quote from: little bongo on October 21, 2020, 09:18:27 AM
Trump has convinced many people that he has and he can, which is the other big lesson he's reinforced for us: to paraphrase one of the president's heroes, you can fool some of the people all of the time. There's a brilliant editorial cartoon that features Trump exiting a rest room all in disarray, toilet paper everywhere, water dripping, and it's strongly implied that the smell is awful. And Trump yells from the exit, "Look what Joe did to the bathroom!" It's a perfect metaphor for Trump's legacy and accomplishments. And he is fooling many people--they believe what happened in the metaphorical bathroom is Biden's fault. If he fools enough people, he will be our president for another four years.
Making false assertions is not unique to Trump, or the right. Society has moved to where certain assertions are to be automatically taken at face value, and any attempt to question or verify them is seen as cruel and hateful. For instance
- A biogically male criminal sentenced to prison asserts "I am female", and then proceeds to rape several inmates in a women's prison. To point this out is "transphobic".
- "Believe all women" dictates that any woman who asserts that she has been sexually assaulted is to be believed. To ask for evidence, or to suggest that she be sanctioned if she is proven to have lied, is "misogynistic".
- An assertion that "all white people are racist" is accepted as true, and asking for evidence is "racist".
So for members of society, including academics and the media, to pretend that truth must be established by evidence is hypocritical in the extreme.
The best way to counter all the lies by people including Trump would be to apply rigourous standards of evidence
across the board, so citizens would be skeptical about
any claims unless and until they are supported by by clear, objective facts.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
He has lessened his followers' trust in medicine and science. If you don't recognize this you live in a bubble.
"Medicine" and "science" are not things that one trusts or mistrusts. Doctors and scientists are. I trust doctors and scientists right up until they hold leftist protesters to a different COVID-spreading standard than churchgoers, to name just one of innumerable examples. Presumably you mistrust doctors who shill for tobacco companies, to name another.
Quote from: writingprof on October 21, 2020, 03:04:14 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
He has lessened his followers' trust in medicine and science. If you don't recognize this you live in a bubble.
"Medicine" and "science" are not things that one trusts or mistrusts. Doctors and scientists are. I trust doctors and scientists right up until they hold leftist protesters to a different COVID-spreading standard than churchgoers, to name just one of innumerable examples. Presumably you mistrust doctors who shill for tobacco companies, to name another.
I'm going to disagree with your examples. I do have trust in medicine and science. I don't think the people you mention did that (the protest example), nor do I think shilling doctors and scientists are engaged in either medicine or science. They are engaged in prostitution.
Look, I see writingprof's argument and I raise it:
Which science? Epidemiologists, who seem to think lives must be saved at any cost? So, shut down and shut off. Or, god forbid, those who might say let's protect the highly vulnerable and let everybody else play the odds if they wish to?
This trade off has been turned into a political contest, and rightly so, for we all have different endowments in life and different preferences..
Let me say the Dems want to turn off the economy, blame Trump, and win. Their supporters are not the ones working in essential industries taking risks to their health, but are continuing to collect their pay. Trump is appealing to those who have to work through this garbage to earn a living.
Apologies, reality wasn't meant to be nice.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 21, 2020, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: little bongo on October 21, 2020, 09:18:27 AM
Trump has convinced many people that he has and he can, which is the other big lesson he's reinforced for us: to paraphrase one of the president's heroes, you can fool some of the people all of the time. There's a brilliant editorial cartoon that features Trump exiting a rest room all in disarray, toilet paper everywhere, water dripping, and it's strongly implied that the smell is awful. And Trump yells from the exit, "Look what Joe did to the bathroom!" It's a perfect metaphor for Trump's legacy and accomplishments. And he is fooling many people--they believe what happened in the metaphorical bathroom is Biden's fault. If he fools enough people, he will be our president for another four years.
Making false assertions is not unique to Trump, or the right. Society has moved to where certain assertions are to be automatically taken at face value, and any attempt to question or verify them is seen as cruel and hateful. For instance
- A biogically male criminal sentenced to prison asserts "I am female", and then proceeds to rape several inmates in a women's prison. To point this out is "transphobic".
- "Believe all women" dictates that any woman who asserts that she has been sexually assaulted is to be believed. To ask for evidence, or to suggest that she be sanctioned if she is proven to have lied, is "misogynistic".
- An assertion that "all white people are racist" is accepted as true, and asking for evidence is "racist".
So for members of society, including academics and the media, to pretend that truth must be established by evidence is hypocritical in the extreme.
The best way to counter all the lies by people including Trump would be to apply rigourous standards of evidence across the board, so citizens would be skeptical about any claims unless and until they are supported by by clear, objective facts.
Well, let's walk through this. Yes, people on both (all) sides lie. Got it.
Okay, there was a 45-minute break there, because i put myself to sleep responding to that statement. Good nap.
Next, we'll go through your three cherry-picked examples of things that nobody on this thread was talking about. I mean, jeez, man. Well, i quoted from Jean-Paul Sartre about your tactics already, so let's move on. Now... being concerned about rape in a women's prison doesn't make one transphobic. Using such incidents to justify denying the rights of trans citizens is most certainly transphobic. And, here's a wild and naive idea--let's work on prisoner safety across the board maybe?
Being concerned about those accused (perhaps falsely) of rape or sexual assault does not make one misogynistic. Using those incidents to complain about the necessity of taking women seriously is most certainly misogynistic.
And finally... the racist statement? it's a way of looking at and reframing long-standing racist practices--which are real, by the way. We've been through this.
All right then, you sea lion, you. To paraphrase the great Douglas Adams, you should thank me for all the fish.
Mocking Ford at the rally just before the confirmation hearing is definitely in the "good" column in my book. People need to stop taking these last minute hit jobs seriously. If you can't come forward to the police within the same decade or two and by doing so rob the accused of the ability to defend themselves, that's a you problem. If you disagree, do you believe there aren't any number of opposition research firms trying to "find" someone who will me too the right person at this given moment? You don't think there's one woman in a nation of 150 million of them that would say whatever it took if they thought Row was on the line? No one actually believed this nut job.
Quote from: little bongo on October 21, 2020, 08:44:20 PM
Now... being concerned about rape in a women's prison doesn't make one transphobic. Using such incidents to justify denying the rights of trans citizens is most certainly transphobic. And, here's a wild and naive idea--let's work on prisoner safety across the board maybe?
Being concerned about those accused (perhaps falsely) of rape or sexual assault does not make one misogynistic. Using those incidents to complain about the necessity of taking women seriously is most certainly misogynistic.
This is the equivalent of the anti-maskers saying that requiring masks is just a prelude to "them" "taking away all our freedom". By implying that it's only a cover for something bigger and more nefarious, it doesn't have to be answered on its merits.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 21, 2020, 03:04:14 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
He has lessened his followers' trust in medicine and science. If you don't recognize this you live in a bubble.
"Medicine" and "science" are not things that one trusts or mistrusts. Doctors and scientists are. I trust doctors and scientists right up until they hold leftist protesters to a different COVID-spreading standard than churchgoers, to name just one of innumerable examples. Presumably you mistrust doctors who shill for tobacco companies, to name another.
I'm going to disagree with your examples. I do have trust in medicine and science. I don't think the people you mention did that (the protest example), nor do I think shilling doctors and scientists are engaged in either medicine or science. They are engaged in prostitution.
So, basically, you "trust science" while simultaneously asserting that the activity of scientists with whom you disagree is "not science." Funny, that's exactly my position.
Quote from: writingprof on October 22, 2020, 05:23:17 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 21, 2020, 03:04:14 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
He has lessened his followers' trust in medicine and science. If you don't recognize this you live in a bubble.
"Medicine" and "science" are not things that one trusts or mistrusts. Doctors and scientists are. I trust doctors and scientists right up until they hold leftist protesters to a different COVID-spreading standard than churchgoers, to name just one of innumerable examples. Presumably you mistrust doctors who shill for tobacco companies, to name another.
I'm going to disagree with your examples. I do have trust in medicine and science. I don't think the people you mention did that (the protest example), nor do I think shilling doctors and scientists are engaged in either medicine or science. They are engaged in prostitution.
So, basically, you "trust science" while simultaneously asserting that the activity of scientists with whom you disagree is "not science." Funny, that's exactly my position.
Not exactly funny. It is correct that we agree. You seem surprised. I thought we were just nit-picking phrasing. The kind of thing I do that my wife hates while she constantly does it to me (while not admitting it).
Quote from: dismalist on October 21, 2020, 05:34:17 PM
Look, I see writingprof's argument and I raise it:
Which science? Epidemiologists, who seem to think lives must be saved at any cost? So, shut down and shut off. Or, god forbid, those who might say let's protect the highly vulnerable and let everybody else play the odds if they wish to?
This trade off has been turned into a political contest, and rightly so, for we all have different endowments in life and different preferences..
Let me say the Dems want to turn off the economy, blame Trump, and win. Their supporters are not the ones working in essential industries taking risks to their health, but are continuing to collect their pay. Trump is appealing to those who have to work through this garbage to earn a living.
Apologies, reality wasn't meant to be nice.
Your example again conflates science with public policy. I'm not arguing that there have to be trade offs when it comes to policy. There always are. What I'm unhappy with is that the President openly and constantly subverts the
results of medicine and science to our detriment.
You also seem to think that when I say "President Trump" I am saying "Republicans", which is not the case. It is true that I will vote a straight ticket for the first time in my life, but it is not a condemnation of Republicans in general. While I have issues with many Republican policies I have in fact never written "Republicans want to..." or "Democrats want to...". It is because all the elected Republicans in my state have expressed support for this President. Period.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on October 21, 2020, 09:42:27 AM
We're not losing poetry or art by having a results-focused president over a classy president.
We are losing the pretense that everything is fine if people would just be quiet and respectfully listen to their social betters who have money and the energy to play the classy game.
Trump has done many things wrong, but refusing to pretend that being classy is very important is not one of them.
You don't need money to be civil. He has encouraged an incredible decrease in social civility, and that is, in my opinion, a serious problem.
He has seriously damaged immigration policy, and hurt the economy as a result. His tariffs have likewise damaged farmers and other working class citizens.
He has elevated racial tensions, and damaged our relationships with allies to no good purpose.
He has lessened his followers' trust in medicine and science. If you don't recognize this you live in a bubble.
Finally, your list is actually paltry when it comes to results. Signing legislation (often in spite of his rhetoric), and a bunch of meaningless proclamations hardly outweighs his faults.
Most people don't really trust medicine and science when it conflicts with what they want to do. If everyone really believed, then everyone would exercise regularly and eat as nutritious a diet as their budget allows.
Most people want civil as long as they like the current situation and then quickly argue that calls for civility silence the necessary voices for change when they want change.
Many people also insist that critical thinking is really important, but do not regularly follow a large range of credible enough sources so that they could discover new information that will change their mind. Why not? Well, because gathering enough information from all sides is actually hard and time consuming with often unpleasant results when the reality is messy. It's much easier to make a decision, stick to a bubble of information that will support that decision, and discard any conflicting information that happens to cross the bubble boundary.
Quote from: polly_mer on October 22, 2020, 07:06:32 AM
Most people don't really trust medicine and science when it conflicts with what they want to do. If everyone really believed, then everyone would exercise regularly and eat as nutritious a diet as their budget allows.
Most people want civil as long as they like the current situation and then quickly argue that calls for civility silence the necessary voices for change when they want change.
A corollary to this is that people favour "dialogue" and "openness" as long as their view is the minority one, and then switch to "not going backwards" and claiming the debate should be closed when their view is the majority one.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
Finally, your list is actually paltry when it comes to results. Signing legislation (often in spite of his rhetoric), and a bunch of meaningless proclamations hardly outweighs his faults.
What about the First step Act. One might think the people concerned about systemic racism would applaud that one.
QuoteMocking Ford at the rally just before the confirmation hearing is definitely in the "good" column in my book. People need to stop taking these last minute hit jobs seriously. If you can't come forward to the police within the same decade or two and by doing so rob the accused of the ability to defend themselves, that's a you problem. If you disagree, do you believe there aren't any number of opposition research firms trying to "find" someone who will me too the right person at this given moment? You don't think there's one woman in a nation of 150 million of them that would say whatever it took if they thought Row was on the line? No one actually believed this nut job.
I didn't believe her but to me the republicans were complicit. They deserved her after what they did with Obama and Merrick Garland. So when they said people weren't being fair...what goes around comes around.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 07:32:35 AM
What about the First step Act. One might think the people concerned about systemic racism would applaud that one.
Yes, he signed it. He can have a cookie for that. To be totally fair to him, a pen is almost as hard to lift single-handedly as a glass of water.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 08:19:18 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 07:32:35 AM
What about the First step Act. One might think the people concerned about systemic racism would applaud that one.
Yes, he signed it. He can have a cookie for that. To be totally fair to him, a pen is almost as hard to lift single-handedly as a glass of water.
It could be a hard thing to sign if you were a racist who thought poor blacks who have screwed up belong in jail.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 08:25:38 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 08:19:18 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 07:32:35 AM
What about the First step Act. One might think the people concerned about systemic racism would applaud that one.
Yes, he signed it. He can have a cookie for that. To be totally fair to him, a pen is almost as hard to lift single-handedly as a glass of water.
It could be a hard thing to sign if you were a racist who thought poor blacks who have screwed up belong in jail.
Not so tough when it's very popular and enjoys strong bipartisan support.
Its disingenuous to think that this particular race has anything to do with comparing lists of career accomplishments, or recent political accomplishments and then having a dispassionate member of the media or whoever declaring "This guy's list is clearly longer, he wins!" (OK, no jokes about long lists please....).
Perhaps some of the President's accomplishments have not gotten sufficient attention, but it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 08:29:25 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 08:25:38 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 08:19:18 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 07:32:35 AM
What about the First step Act. One might think the people concerned about systemic racism would applaud that one.
Yes, he signed it. He can have a cookie for that. To be totally fair to him, a pen is almost as hard to lift single-handedly as a glass of water.
It could be a hard thing to sign if you were a racist who thought poor blacks who have screwed up belong in jail.
Not so tough when it's very popular and enjoys strong bipartisan support.
Do you mean those bigoted republicans in Congress supported it too? That's even more startling.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 07:32:35 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 21, 2020, 09:56:29 AM
Finally, your list is actually paltry when it comes to results. Signing legislation (often in spite of his rhetoric), and a bunch of meaningless proclamations hardly outweighs his faults.
What about the First step Act. One might think the people concerned about systemic racism would applaud that one.
How on earth is that not an example of what I wrote? He signed a significant piece of legislation IN SPITE OF HIS RHETORIC.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 08:35:25 AM
Do you mean those bigoted republicans in Congress supported it too? That's even more startling.
If you look at the reasons cited for its support, you'll discover that there was a big push for it from the Koch brothers and elsewhere in the Republican party
because it's a lot cheaper than the alternative. For one part of the Republican coalition, spending less government money is a very attractive proposition.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 22, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
How on earth is that not an example of what I wrote? He signed a significant piece of legislation IN SPITE OF HIS RHETORIC.
Yeah, it's
absolutely an example of what you wrote. It was also the very first suggestion made in this post. I don't understand what's to be gained with pretending it's a counterexample to your claim, or just ignoring the fact that people in this thread are willing and able to recognize it as one good thing (with the caveat that all he did was sign it, not craft it or lobby for it, of course).
I'm left to conclude, as you observed elsewhere, that the purpose of this thread is not actually its advertised purpose.
What Trump says:
"Every day of my presidency, we will fight for a cleaner environment and a better quality of life for every one of our great citizens.
What Trump does:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 10:10:08 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 22, 2020, 08:35:25 AM
Do you mean those bigoted republicans in Congress supported it too? That's even more startling.
If you look at the reasons cited for its support, you'll discover that there was a big push for it from the Koch brothers and elsewhere in the Republican party because it's a lot cheaper than the alternative. For one part of the Republican coalition, spending less government money is a very attractive proposition.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 22, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
How on earth is that not an example of what I wrote? He signed a significant piece of legislation IN SPITE OF HIS RHETORIC.
Yeah, it's absolutely an example of what you wrote. It was also the very first suggestion made in this post. I don't understand what's to be gained with pretending it's a counterexample to your claim, or just ignoring the fact that people in this thread are willing and able to recognize it as one good thing (with the caveat that all he did was sign it, not craft it or lobby for it, of course).
I'm left to conclude, as you observed elsewhere, that the purpose of this thread is not actually its advertised purpose.
But the two of you are talking about the signing of this order as though no thought process about it being good for our nation could possibly have been present, which really illustrates personal dislike of the man. OK, I appreciate your candor. I asked for it.
I don't like his demeanor much, but all this talk about him being 'all about himself' is only a little bit valid. All these presidents and congressmen have egos.
Signing decent legislation rather than vetoing it gets you some credit. We're happy to grant that.
But it doesn't get you a ton of credit, especially when you had zero involvement in the legislative process that generated it. Nor is it like he was going against any kind of grain in signing it; it was an easy decision. That's worth something. But it's not worth much, and when it's held against the balance of torrent of utter shit he's actually responsible for, it disappears like a turd in a sewer.
Each to his own calculation. Lately I've been noticing the amount of sh!t being peddled by the left. Kamala Harris proclaims, with great drama 'there's no vaccine for racism!' So, who is she referring to, whereas, it is not at all clear that whites are more racist than non-whites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlGE9dg7fyM
I'm pretty sure that he will have significantly boosted the viewership of the next episode of 60 Minutes.
Regarding the Elder clip, I think the answer to the racism of other groups is a resounding yes. I am constantly surprised that no one pushes back when people lose their minds about the dating partners of blacks. I've mentioned here before the backlash Robert Smith (the CEO who paid off student loans for a class of graduates at Morehouse) got due to his white wife. Many have harassed actor Michael B Jordan for dating outside his race. One of the most shocking surprises on this issue is that the focus group firm that did some pro bono work for the city of L.A. during the OJ case rated the likability of the victim Nicole was LOWER than the suspect and several others in the trial, due to resentment over this issue. Let's also not forget that juror Cassie Bess has admitted the jury decided that it was ok to let off a double murderer who killed two whites as "payback for Rodney King."
This doesn't even bring into account the institutionalized racism against whites in the form of affirmative action, diversity hires and earmarked opportunities such as federal contracts and scholarships. You don't even need to say the code words anymore. "Non white" is acceptable.
He has not started any new wars.
Quote from: Anselm on October 22, 2020, 07:13:53 PM
He has not started any new wars.
Well, yes. Technically all those militiae were already organized in 2016. They are just a little noisier and more active now.
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 22, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Anselm on October 22, 2020, 07:13:53 PM
He has not started any new wars.
Well, yes. Technically all those militiae were already organized in 2016. They are just a little noisier and more active now.
IIRC, an awful lot of them organized in 2008 and 2012. (But it wasn't racism or anything! Promise!)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 22, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Anselm on October 22, 2020, 07:13:53 PM
He has not started any new wars.
Well, yes. Technically all those militiae were already organized in 2016. They are just a little noisier and more active now.
IIRC, an awful lot of them organized in 2008 and 2012. (But it wasn't racism or anything! Promise!)
The militia movement was in full swing under Bill Clinton's presidency.
Quote from: Anselm on October 22, 2020, 07:48:36 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 22, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Anselm on October 22, 2020, 07:13:53 PM
He has not started any new wars.
Well, yes. Technically all those militiae were already organized in 2016. They are just a little noisier and more active now.
IIRC, an awful lot of them organized in 2008 and 2012. (But it wasn't racism or anything! Promise!)
The militia movement was in full swing under Bill Clinton's presidency.
Sure. I'm talking about the new crop of 'non-white-supremacist' militias. Y'know, "Oathkeepers" and shit like that.
He lost the election.
M.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 08, 2020, 08:28:59 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 05:36:30 AM
He lost the election.
M.
Yessssss!!!!!!!!!!!
Which, in about two months, will give my brain some beneficial active learning. After the inauguration I will have to start remembering to put flag stamps on envelopes right side up again. I flubbed it exactly once in the previous four years, but hopefully the retraining period will be short.
I considered doing that, too.
M.
Trump's ability to do an end-around traditional news sources and speak directly to his base through social media (and other means) has been unusually successful. The term "Fake News" is now a generally accepted term in most circles here in the red state I live in. I don't know if this is "good," but it has been interesting.
Quote from: fishbrains on November 09, 2020, 06:58:25 AM
Trump's ability to do an end-around traditional news sources and speak directly to his base through social media (and other means) has been unusually successful. The term "Fake News" is now a generally accepted term in most circles here in the red state I live in. I don't know if this is "good," but it has been interesting.
The last guy who said plainly that the media are biased against republicans, and got people to listen, was Reagan. Ron Reagan, the president's son gives me the impression he believes hid dad would answer 'no' to the question posed by this thread, but he doesn't necessarily know.