President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed..., you don't really care.... so why pretend?

Why the faux-outrage on a Trump tweet about a boeing project but Trump eviscerating a Lockheed project doesn't require response?

You seem selective in your outrage Billy?
Why is that?

Not a fan of hypocrites myself, nor people who willfully defend them and 'stretch' the truth to do so.

Did Obama run on a central policy of manufacturing jobs?

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Lots of people had lots to say on that project...

Obama criticised it by saying:
"I think it is ... an example of the procurement process gone amuck.."

Accordingly the project was cancelled at the insistence of the White House.
Lockheed ate a lot of it & the taxpayer even more so.

So, again..... Obama cancels project... no one cares!
Trump threatens cancellation.... grrrr... bad!

Lockheed stocks crater..... no one cares
Boeing has a 4hr/2% tim..... grrrr.... bad!

Seem ok to you?

Ok, who brought it up and who made the biggest "allegation" - not McCain?

Manic Moran

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

But then, there wasn't really a bidding process on this..... EADS/Airbus pulled out so it was awarded to Boeing without competition.

And of course this is not unique on the part of Trump.
Back in the day St Obama was scathing towards Lockheed on the costs of the Marine-1 replacement programme.......
T'would be hypocritical to attack Trump for echoing his predecessor.

That may be for the best. Look at the KC-X saga, where protests between EADS and Boeing resulted in a re-start of the process. I seem to recall similar with the LUH contract.

I've had to study the US military procurement system. It's absolutely eye-watering. The checks and balances which are built into it to make sure there is no fraud and that we get the best value for what we're paying for are so god-awful that you may be better off just accepting the fraud (or at least, 'best guess') and saving the money overall.

Earlier this year, the head of the Army expressed his frustration at the $17million dollar pistol testing process (Just the testing, mind), saying in effect "Just give me a credit card with a $17m limit, I'll go to the local sports store, and buy everyone a bloody pistol. And get a bulk discount"
https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That must have really boiled your pee, no?

Mod:
You are around long enough to know that isn't acceptable in the forum.

More substance and less personals please everybody!

El_Duderino 09

It's amusing to watch role debate the relative truth of Trump's Boeing tweet.

The truth, in case anyone missed it, us that Trump can wipe a billion off your stock value in he time it takes him to do a sit-down wee. That news won't have escaped any CEO in the world.

Does anyone want to stand over the statement that Trump can't leverage companies to relocate to Pennsylvania, Transylvania, or anywhere else he wants?

Boeing stock recovered this time. Now everyone knows he is likely to play with company stocks on a whim. Wait until the next time he does it. Who wouldn't be monitoring his Twitter account for mention of companies? Who wants to be left holding stock that Trump rubbished? Who would buy stock in a company that stands up to Trump?

recedite

I presume he made a few dollars on it for himself too
Its not insider trading when you're an outsider.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

I presume he made a few dollars on it for himself too Its not insider trading when you're an outsider.

That's a disgusting thing to say and you should be ashamed. Donald Trump would never do something like that. He completely divested from the Trump business and his children are running it now.

On a completely unrelated topic, I'd be shocked if Donald Trump Jr. didn't make a small fortune

FreudianSlippers

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's amusing to watch role debate the relative truth of Trump's Boeing tweet.

The truth, in case anyone missed it, us that Trump can wipe a billion off your stock value in he time it takes him to do a sit-down wee. That news won't have escaped any CEO in the world.

Does anyone want to stand over the statement that Trump can't leverage companies to relocate to Pennsylvania, Transylvania, or anywhere else he wants?

Boeing stock recovered this time. Now everyone knows he is likely to play with company stocks on a whim. Wait until the next time he does it. Who wouldn't be monitoring his Twitter account for mention of companies? Who wants to be left holding stock that Trump rubbished? Who would buy stock in a company that stands up to Trump?

My issue is not the President or President-elect making statements in the course of his/her office in the appropriate forum. 140 characters on Twitter is not the appropriate forum, particularly when the basis of the statement appears to be factually inaccurate.

El_Duderino 09

FreudianSlippers wrote:

My issue is not the President or President-elect making statements in the course of his/her office in the appropriate forum. 140 characters on Twitter is not the appropriate forum, particularly when the basis of the statement appears to be factually inaccurate.

Tell trump that. It's much more convenient than a press conference on the news that takes concentration on the part if the receiver, requires a third party medium (media elites) to carry the content and is subject to pesky follow up questions and evidence standards from journalist.

It's his way of communicating with his supporters. He knows his demographic is less educated and isn't going to spend 5 mins reading an article. They want the message in 5 seconds and that's what the given them.

The fact that it's so brief also leaves lots of unanswered questions for the cognitively engaged which means it sets the media agenda for the entire day.

Posters like yourself will try to dig deeper and uncover the relative truth of his tweet and other posters will argue the points. Both of you are missing the point of the message. It was a demonstration of his power over all businesses.

FreudianSlippers

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

(media elites)

I stopped reading there. The dumbing down of the Western world is a shame and elitism and education is not the problem with the West.

Idiocracy and populism is the problem.

El_Duderino 09

FreudianSlippers wrote:

I stopped reading there. The dumbing down of the Western world is a shame and elitism and education is not the problem with the West. Idiocracy and populism is the problem.

Nope, you stopping reading when you see a phrase you don't like/understand is the problem. I don't like the idea that actual journalism is 'elite media' but that's he world we live in.

Idiots get their news from Twitter. Twitter is ideal for populism. Trump communicating his populist ideas to idiots via Twitter is the new normal.

Stop reading wherever you like. But please stop being surprised that the reality of what's appropriate has changed. The president elect uses Twitter and so will the next President

Zubeneschamali

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

#dumpstarwars

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

I wondered if that would happen.

I saw a trailer for it last week and it occurred to me that it bucks the trend of movies and TV at the moment. They tend to be apocalyptic, zombie, turmoil and having to reimagine the whole system of government. Think walking dead, the 100, Westworld, designated survivor, man in the high castle.. There isn't much from the point of view of outnumbered outgunned rebels fighting against the huge, evil empire.

I wondered if it was released at the wrong point in time. FWIW it was the only star wars movie that ever appealed to me. Looks class.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope, you stopping reading when you see a phrase you don't like/understand is the problem. I don't like the idea that actual journalism is 'elite media' but that's he world we live in.

Idiots get their news from Twitter. Twitter is ideal for populism. Trump communicating his populist ideas to idiots via Twitter is the new normal.

Stop reading wherever you like. But please stop being surprised that the reality of what's appropriate has changed. The president elect uses Twitter and so will the next President

It doesn't matter where you read your news as long as you are skeptical put it through the bullsh1t detector courtesy of Carl Sagan.

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge.

Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

PopePalpatine

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

#dumpstarwars

They did it last year for Episode VII, because apparently JJ Abrams is a "beta male" orchestrating a cultural Marxist conspiracy against white men...or some other Mountain Dew-fuelled conspiracy theory along those lines. :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They did it last year for Episode VII, because apparently JJ Abrams is a "beta male" orchestrating a cultural Marxist conspiracy against white men...or some other Mountain Dew-fuelled conspiracy theory along those lines. :rolleyes:

You forgot "cuck" their favourite insult!

El_Duderino 09

Akrasia wrote:

It doesn't matter where you read your news as long as you are skeptical put it through the bullsh1t detector courtesy of Carl Sagan.

Well I agree with you but the reality is there is so much information available right now, that you can pick your own 'truth'.

You can live in fox news land or the guardian land (not the same level of terrible but they illustrate the point). The electorate was divided by education in a way that isn't normal in US elections. Brexit was similar where people with only junior cert equivalent and O level (less academic version of A level, leaving cert equivalent), were overwhelming likely to vote to leave. People with A level and above, increasingly voted to remain.

Dividing people by how educated/smart they are, means you can't expect the same level of thought to be done by both sides. You also can't expect the same arguments to be convincing to both sides. The third thing is that you can't expect the better educated people to understand that what they consider a convincing argument, is often received as talking down to trump voters. They don't understand it and they can go back to fox news land which speaks directly to their education/comprehension level. They have guests like Phil Robertson from duck dynasty to help explain the issues for them.

That's why terms like 'elite' are so convincing to trump supporters, while meaning nothing to you and a lot of other people. If you dont know who the elites are, then you're almost certainly an elite.

In conclusion. Trump voters don't care about Carl Sagan or his bullsh1t detector.

oscarBravo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well I agree with you but the reality is there is so much information available right now, that you can pick your own 'truth'.

You can live in fox news land or the guardian land (not the same level of terrible but they illustrate the point). The electorate was divided by education in a way that isn't normal in US elections. Brexit was similar where people with only junior cert equivalent and O level (less academic version of A level, leaving cert equivalent), were overwhelming likely to vote to leave. People with A level and above, increasingly voted to remain.

Dividing people by how educated/smart they are, means you can't expect the same level of thought to be done by both sides. You also can't expect the same arguments to be convincing to both sides. The third thing is that you can't expect the better educated people to understand that what they consider a convincing argument, is often received as talking down to trump voters. They don't understand it and they can go back to fox news land which speaks directly to their education/comprehension level. They have guests like Phil Robertson from duck dynasty to help explain the issues for them.

That's why terms like 'elite' are so convincing to trump supporters, while meaning nothing to you and a lot of other people. If you dont know who the elites are, then you're almost certainly an elite.

In conclusion. Trump voters don't care about Carl Sagan or his bullsh1t detector.

Ye gods, that's depressing. Not necessarily wrong; just depressing.

If there are two sides to an argument, of which one tries to use reason and logic and the other side just shouts that one down, it's obvious that reason and logic can't win. The only alternative is to try to shout louder, which means that reasoned discussion is replaced by a shouting match.

Who's the winner? Anyone who can't make their case logically, but is good at shouting. Who's the loser? Pretty much everyone.

El_Duderino 09

oscarBravo wrote:

If there are two sides to an argument, of which one tries to use reason and logic and the other side just shouts that one down, it's obvious that reason and logic can't win. The only alternative is to try to shout louder, which means that reasoned discussion is replaced by a shouting match.

Well trump appealed to emotion and Clinton was appalling at getting people excited. He talked about how America doesn't win anything anymore and he would make America win again. Simple message not confused with facts or figures.

Some people are convinced by logical argument. Premise 1 + premise 2 =conclusion. Those arguments have a longer lasting affect but they take more effort to understand.

Emotional arguments are simpler and quicker get behind, but they don't have as long lasting affect - this is why trump supporters aren't turning against him for reneging on campaign promises like locking up Hillary, banning Muslims and repealing Obama care. They were emotional appeals which whipped people into a frenzy and we're forgotten about soon after.

I don't now how you win without turning your message into complete garbage.

All I know it that Michelle Obama should be right when she said 'when they go low, we go high'. Go high maybe, but for god sake don't go high brow!

El_Duderino 09

I couldn't think of the name if the psychological theory that explains the depth of cognition someone gives and the affect in terms of strength of attitude change and length of affect. It's called the elaboration likelihood model.

You might prefer the 'central route' which takes a lot of thought and critical analysis of the evidence.

Trump supporters are more likely to prefer the 'peripheral route' which uses heuristics and emotion. It doesn't rely on reasoned argument or critical analysis.

'I'll make America win again, believe me' is a preamble yo the argument for you, but it IS the argument for someone else. Trump tapped into that psychological process. Clever, no?

K-9

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

#dumpstarwars

It's the alt right. They are becoming quite the SJW's!

El_Duderino 09

A surprising consequence of Trump's presidency will he the compliance of the press.

I listened to two interviews in NPR 'fresh air' podcast, this week. Megan Kelly from fox news and the editor of the New York times. Both spoke about the intimidation trump applied to them. In Kelly's case her life was turned upside down since the primary debates. Death threats, rape threats, reporters harassing her and her family.

Trump blew hot and cold with her for about 9 months. Each time he tweeted about yer it would result in her life going into lockdown for fear of these threats. Now she is back on good terms with him -only doing topical stuff or positive pieces.

Very few journalists will be willing to go beyond reporting on the topic of the day as set by major events or trumps Tweets. Investigative journalism could results in harm to the journalist so I expect analysis to be limited to day-to-day reporting/bitching rather than serious investigation.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A surprising consequence of Trump's presidency will he the compliance of the press

As opposed to what? The way they relentlessly pursued Bush?

osmiumartist

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I stopped reading there. The dumbing down of the Western world is a shame and elitism and education is not the problem with the West.

Oh look. You're pretending he was complaining about "education" when he said "elites" and nothing more.
But who'd notice you added in an extra word or two there, huh?
So you're against Trump and orphanages yourself?

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

As opposed to what? The way they relentlessly pursued Bush?

More topical. I think he'll use Twitter to make it easy for journalist to follow the day to day story. He'll also make life hell for journalists who do investigations and write about things outside the story of the day. That's exactly what he did to Megan Kelly.

Like with Boeing, he showed what he can do if he wants to. If you were an investigative journalist, you'd know all about the hassle it cost Kelly.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Raise the standard please.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Megan Kelly from fox news.... Now she is back on good terms with him -only doing topical stuff or positive pieces.

Similar to the way Enda Kenny is back on track with him, and now has the auld shamrock run booked for 17th March. These people tried to diss Trump during his campaign because it was seen as the trendy thing to do at the time, and they failed to take out into account the possibility that he might actually win. Now they are having to eat humble pie. Good enough for them.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Similar to the way Enda Kenny is back on track with him, and now has the auld shamrock run booked for 17th March.

These people tried to diss Trump during his campaign because it was seen as the trendy thing to do at the time, and they failed to take out into account the possibility that he might actually win. Now they are having to eat humble pie. Good enough for them.

That's a bit cynical. They dissed him because he is a serious threat to world stability. He doesn't play by the established rules so he threatens the rest of the world who abide by he rules and are somewhat hamstrung by them.

That's why he'll get so much done in his first term -for better or worse.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

That's why he'll get so much done in his first term -for better or worse.

Oh expect overall bad things to happen, with Goldman Sachs shares up 33%, somethings brewing!

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's a bit cynical. They dissed him because he is a serious threat to world stability. .

Absolute nonsense. The current secretary of defense Ashton Carter is an old school cold war type who still acts as if the Soviet Union is the main enemy. The administration have stoked up tensions with Russia while allowing islamic terrorism to spread globally, and while the ME burns.

After January that will all change. Mad Dog Mattis will take control. Good relations with Russia will be restored, US support for jihadists in Syria will end. Relative peace will be brought to the the Levant, within a couple of months max.

By that time Merkel will be out on her ear and the EU will also change tack. Kenny, as always, will be the bamboo flexing and bowing to the prevailing wind.