Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
Nah. Trump was a reaction to eight years of Obama's clinton-esque neoliberalism but without the dotcom boom to smooth over things conservatives didn't like. And what Biden's win actually shows us is that any Democrat who was on the stage last year could have gotten the nomination and likely won the presidency this time because of the sheer levels of turnout. Which means that if people were smarter overall, we'd have President Sanders instead. So now things are going back to the status quo that led us to Trump in the first place. Kanye 2024 yasssssss.  |
High level of turnout makes a Dem win more likely; is that what you' re saying in the bold bit? It seems like you're belittling Biden's win by saying, "That's just because he's the head of the party that's more popular."
Quote:
|
1. Ok? Russia and China are always hacking us or trying to undermine the U.S. in some form or fashion. Just because the news isn't always talking about it doesn't mean it hasn't been happening for a long time. I'm frankly surprised it was reported at all, seeing as there's zero benefit for that kind of information to become public.
|
I think there is great benefit in having a well-informed public; an ideal shared by everyone who ever picked up a newspaper or watched a news broadcast. As you point out, hacking prob goes on all the time; this story has hit the headlines because of how serious it is. Lucky you weren't a reporter when the Titanic sank, Anteater: "The public don't need to know about this; boats sink all the time."
Quote:
2. Why would you expect Trump to be commenting on the deaths when it doesn't solve anything one way or the other? That's not how he thinks: any acknowledgement of weakness is just more ammo for his detractors.
There's zero merit in him commenting on it when Americans basically do whatever the hell they want regardless of what the government says. Whether they want to go and protest or eat out at fancy restaurants...we're all our own worst enemy.
|
Prior to Trump, presidents were labelled as "Healer in Chief", I think, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who respond to a kind word from a President even though, as you say, "it doesn't solve anything one way or the other". There are plenty of other motives for speaking beyond "solving things".
At one level, the idea in bold is true, on the other hand, it's not; people do listen to the government - especially when there is clear, consistent messaging. One reason why or one example of Americans are doing what the Hell they want is on the issue of masks: a bewildering lack of direction, so people do what they want. An example of consistant messaging: smoking damages your health. Not everyone, but plenty of people have followed the government's advice on that.
Why won't a news story ever stay simple? Thanks for the article, Anteater.
Quote:
|
So you have some grifters who are bad at hiding their dirty laundry and others that do a better job at minimizing scrutiny because they're better at lying to us? Got it, thanks.
|
I found this comment a little troubling. It seems to be an exercise in Conspiracy Theory 101: the statistics don't support my belief, therefore the truth has been hidden.
Here's another example: Stats on genecide of Jews during WWII:
Germany under Hitler: approx 6 million killed
England under Churchill: approx 0 killed
Following your logic, we should therefore conclude that Churchill was better at hiding his policy of Jewish genecide than Hitler.
In one sentence, you take us from facts to fallacy; what's alarming is just how easy and how popular this kind of argument has become.