US General Election 2016

So now Trump has managed to piss off the Australians. Who goes around pissing off Australians?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-analysis-trumps-clash-australia-strains-alliance-092616807.html

wowzer he is pissing off Crocodile Dundee

Having done some reading now, I'll give the new administration credit for nominating Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court.  It seems to have been a thoughtful, mature decision process.  

Our new foreign policy looks more like this though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/donald-trump-management-style.html?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/fruit-of-a-poison-tree.html?

It is a point of view.

Bluebottle wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/fruit-of-a-poison-tree.html?

It is a point of view.

In my opinion that only takes us further along the path to chaos. There's nothing good that comes from using the judiciary as a political football, whoever started it. We need a strong, clear thinking judiciary now as much as at any time since the Civil Rights Movement and both sides of the congressional isle should see that. Petty grandstanding and name-calling during the confirmation process only drives partisan wedges into places they don't belong.

Bluebottle wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/donald-trump-management-style.html?

Somewhere in a Scott Adams blog entry I can't locate right now, he states that chaos and rapid firings are a tried and true business model for rapidly iterating into what actually works. It's a nice contrast to see several business experts rejecting that model.

David H wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/fruit-of-a-poison-tree.html?

It is a point of view.

In my opinion that only takes us further along the path to chaos.  There's nothing good that comes from using the judiciary as a political football, whoever started it. We need a strong, clear thinking judiciary now as much as at any time since the Civil Rights Movement and both sides of the congressional isle should see that. Petty grandstanding and name-calling during the confirmation process only drives partisan wedges into places they don't belong.

It's hard to figure out the best way to teach the republicans a lesson about their blockage of Obama's nominee: lead by example or exact punitive retaliation. I think they should start by blocking while stating that they will end their retaliatory campaign once at least one Republican senator apologizes for their past behavior. The risk of course is what the Republicans are doing: changing the rules so retaliation is sidestepped.

Former prime minister of Norway detained for an hour at airport because he had a stamp in his passport from Iran, 2014.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/03/former-norwegian-prime-minister-detained-at-dulles-airport-for-an-hour-he-visited-iran-in-2014/?utm_term=.a76d9779be42

This is #4 post in a row? I can see why South Park gave up on Trump - there really IS too much material.

Howard Stern is supposed to be friend of Trump's. He said

Trump ran in the election not because he wanted to be the leader of the free world but because he wanted “a couple more bucks out of NBC” in his contract for The Apprentice. “That is why Donald is calling for voter fraud investigations. He’s pissed he won. He still wants Hillary Clinton to win,” Stern added (jokingly?). “He’s so f***ing pissed, he’s hoping that he can find some voter fraud and hand it over to Hillary.”

He also said that the platform Trump ran on is completely opposite to the Trump he's always known, who was a staunch Hillary supporter, loved the press and Hollywood. But then, this is Howard Stern we're talking about. Taking him seriously is an exercise in credibility.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/howard-stern-claims-donald-trump-wants-hillary-clinton-to-be-president-165254904.html

Scott Adams predicts flurry of "White House in chaos" fake news a week before it starts.

{{Not sure it matters if there is 'chaos' behind the scenes or not when there is definitely chaos in front of the scenes! }}}

"Oh, the administration is making an unprecedented mess of things. Let's predict the media covers that."

I'm afraid I don't get it Bungo - Adam's post was already a week into the administration, and there already signs of chaos. Predicting the next week would be more of the same (or even worse: chaos tends to lead to more chaos) doesn't exactly take a crystal ball.

Doesn't show the media is making up anything. Perhaps the media is reporting what's actually there?

if Trump does an executive order then the border staff have no clue whats going on, then a judge puts the kibosh on it a couple of days later, I reckon that's the definition of chaos. but brexit is ten times more chaos, this will go on for years.

halfwise wrote:I'm afraid I don't get it Bungo - Adam's post was already a week into the administration, and there already signs of chaos.  Predicting the next week would be more of the same (or even worse: chaos tends to lead to more chaos) doesn't exactly take a crystal ball.

Doesn't show the media is making up anything.  Perhaps the media is reporting what's actually there?

What I understood it as is the use of the (as Adams describes it) linguistic kill shot "chaos" would be used to describe the administration in the coming week, its clear it became pervasive in the media from the examples given. Now, no matter what is happening in the WH, in the back of your mind you'll assume it's chaotic, and will adhere to confirmation bias.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141202065606/stamina-trumps-linguistic-kill-shot-for-clinton

One LKS used on Trump during the campaign after the conventions was "dark." Not a typical word associated with politics but definitely engineered better than previous attempts at LKS on Trump. One of these was when Hillary called Trump "dangerous Donald" you probably don't remember it, because it was not effective. The LKS and persuasion of the Clinton camp improved after, what Adams speculated, Robert Cialdini (Godzilla of persuasion and marketing, worked with the Obama campaign) may have been helping the Clinton camp craft their messages.

I guess all I can say is be aware of linguistic kill shots and how they work with confirmation bias.

Nobody would deny how the power of first definition plays into defining a commentary. But let's be fair: this was Trump's favorite weapon - "Lying Ted", "Crooked Hillary"....so he isn't innocent here. Of course, the rules of a campaign and the rules of reporting are (and should) be different. I think everyone is wary enough to pick up on linguistic kill shots in a campaign, not so much in media reporting.

I wrote earlier that I found somewhat compelling Adams' claim that directed chaos was an efficient business strategy to cycle through mistakes quickly. Nobody does better rationalization of Trumpism than Adams; I'm very curious to see if it bears out as time goes on and we begin to see results.

First you convince yourself there is a term like "linguistic kill shot". Then you convince yourself that the media as a whole is using this against your favoured political figure. Then you convince yourself that the media is "lying" and "the enemy". Then you convince yourself you should "open up those libel laws {so Trump and his ilk} can win lots and lots of money". Then you convince yourself the media really can't be trusted with all that freedom of expression.

Come on guys, this sort of thinking is so dangerous.

That's really insulting, Blue. From that post I can tell you don't think much of me. Adios.

Come on Bungo and Blue! This is an Election Thread in the "Big Bad Serious Forum"!

There's supposed to be a little give-and-take because we're of all different ages and backgrounds from all around the world. How could there not be? But that doesn't mean it's disrespectful.

It's like the Who Thread. There may be a little drama from time to time, but in the end it's the back-and-forth that makes it interesting!
 

{{Yup thats precisely what this thread is for- a safe place to fundamentally disagree with someone!
But all view points, even opposing ones, are fair play and welcome. Indeed they are the point. }}}

I believe you are made aware of something you might not have noticed before when you thrash out a "discussion". It can be an eye opener, the very least you get an education.

this is mere handbags compared to the Who thread.

Cor yeah !