Slashdot Mirror


New Study Explains Why Trump's 'Sad' Tweets Are So Effective (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses. He is particularly known for one specific tweet construction: he sets up a situation that he feels should inspire anger or outrage, then punctuates it with "Sad!" New research from New York University suggests a reason why this style is so effective: a tweet containing moral and emotional language spreads farther among people with similar political persuasion. The study offered up "duty" as an example of a purely moral word, "fear" as a purely emotional one, and "hate" as word that combined the two categories. The research found that the use of purely moral or purely emotional language had a limited impact on the spread of a tweet, but the "presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their diffusion by a factor of 20% for each additional word." The impact of this language cut both ways. Tweets with moral-emotional words spread further among those with a similar political outlook, and they spread less with those who held opposing views, according to the research published in the journal PNAS. The study looked at 563,312 tweets on the topics of gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change, and rated their impact by the number of retweets each one received.

272 comments

  1. That's not a style by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll

    That's the same "style" that every older mother in America uses in every other Facebook or Twitter post they've ever made. Shit, my mother was using that "style" before the internet even existed, sending me tragic newspaper clippings in the mail with "sad" written on them.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SJW: Someone who has run out of real adversity and now has to invent it

      So basically it's Someone Just Whingeing?

    2. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some Jackoff Whining

    3. Re:That's not a style by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Why were the topics "gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change" chosen to prove this theory? Less divisive topics might been better suited.

    4. Re:That's not a style by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because part of the study was measuring the rate of spread among people with the same and opposite political views to the tweeter using the moral-emotional language, so tweets about divisive topics make perfect candidates as there are clearly identifiable sides.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:That's not a style by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use the same words but nobody reads them. Sad.

    6. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, what a whiny little bitch you are! Sad!

    7. Re:That's not a style by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      I'm retweeting this!

    8. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luddites vs Apps.

      Sad!

    9. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SysV init vs systemd.

      Sad!

    10. Re:That's not a style by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The majority of the world is clearly against it while those who are for it are dying out and on the way to the genetic dumpster due to negative birth rates.

      [citation needed]

      (And just so you know... I've already one handy that says you're wrong.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same Sex Marriage around the world. Given that India, China, and SE Asia comprise about half the world's population and same-sex marriage is NOT allowed there, it's easy to see that the majority of the world does not accept gay marriage.

    12. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, the SJW is usually defending someone else. Man why isn't there a nice term for the opposite. HateAndSuffering Lover? I don't know...

    13. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, you'd hate to ruin the sanctity of marriage. People these days are doing so well with it............. /s

    14. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Government represents the people in theory only. It's not a valid source of statistics. By your logic, 25 million North Koreans support killing their uncles.

    15. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation? Basic Geography that you should have learned in high-school.
      - East Asia doesn't like homos and feminism.
      Total population: Over 1.6 billion. Controlled birth rates because they otherwise go out of hand.
      - Southeast Asia doesn't like homos and feminism due to Islam being a big thing or Western values being touted as Cultural Imperialism. Total population: Over 0.6 billion. Ladyboys are mostly relegated to Philiphines which incidentally are 92% Christian.
      - South Asia doesn't like feminism, homos, but some tribes have tolerance towards transgenders out of religious reasons.
      Total population: Over 1.7 billion.
      - Central Asia doesn't like feminsm and homos because Islam is a big thing and Turkic people don't like that shit.
      Total population: 0.06 billion and going up these days.
      - Middle East, i don't even have to tell you anything.
      Total population: 0.3 billion and rising.
      - Russia and Eastern Europe: If not Orthodoxy suppressing fag and feminism worship, given how feminism and LGBTQBBQ are some of the core inventions of socialism, marxism, and ultimately communism, those who finally burned Communism into dust shit on these values. Negative birth rates come due to Communism, and revitalization due to these destructive ideologies is going hard.
      Total population: 0.29 billion.
      - North Africa same as Middle East, while Sub-Saharan Africa is its own anti-western genocidal story.
      Total population: 1.2 billion and rising.
      =================
      We are already at 5.75 billion of the world population, well beyond half, well into the territory of majority,
      and i haven't even quantified that even the civilized world is divided about homos and feminists,
      that only 1 country in South America has homo tolerance, that Central America is also its own story.

      As far as fertility rates go, you can look up the maps. All countries with feminism and fag worship have high infertility proportional to the fag worship and vagina worship that they hold.
      They will get substituted, with the fag and vagina worship destroyed, by the fertile cultures who hate the same;
      much like Rome experienced with barbarian whites at the time when whites didn't give a fuck about fag worship and vagina worship.
      Enjoy your degeneracy while it lasts, history shows it is very short-lived in cultures.

    16. Re:That's not a style by SharpFang · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "Defending" is such a nice word until you look at what activities are hidden behind it.

      Setting on fire the limo owned by Muhammad Ashraf, a muslim immigrant running a limo rental service. Wounding Luis Villarroel, a mexican immigrant, driver of that limo, with shards of broken windows. All in the name of defending immigrants from Trump.

      Look, Soviet Russia was "only defending" other countries from the capitalist oppression too. It's just a narrative.

      Honest minorities people behind #notyourshield during gamergate? Read up. First link on Google: "The reality is #notyourshield is an astroturfing campaign designed to invalidate very real accusations of misogyny and racism in gamergate" - a bullshit narrative pushed by SJWs and caught up by liberal press to silence the minorities who don't want their "protection".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    17. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we see that in the fact that for the US "in only three states has marriage been redefined by popular vote". It's been redefined overwhelmingly by Courts and legislation, not the people. So when it's been up for vote - at least in the US - it's failed miserably. It was judical/Governmental fiat that made it law.

    18. Re: That's not a style by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Imagine our surprise that you are too stupid to know the difference between the US and third world countries.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    19. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is bothered by someone actually fighting for social justice.

      No one?

    20. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First link on Google: "The reality is #notyourshield is an astroturfing campaign designed to invalidate very real accusations of misogyny and racism in gamergate" - a bullshit narrative pushed by SJWs and caught up by liberal press to silence the minorities who don't want their "protection".

      The first link on Google. The only way to find accurate news accounts. If it wasn't true, it wouldn't be first, right? Sad.

    21. Re:That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A hyperbole that isn't that far off. It takes total nutcases to actually support injustice. They exist, but they are few and far in between.

      OTOH, what SJWs fight for hardly qualifies. Fighting discrimination by other sorts of discrimination? Fighting bigotry with a different form of bigotry? Dismissing all criticism, no matter how valid, as "excusing the oppressors'? They made their own rules as to what comprises social injustice and what doesn't; a set that is severely biased and skewed and way far from objectively 'fair', and they fight for it, blind for any injustice they introduce and full of excuses about why whomever they harm "deserves it".

    22. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'cause US is "majority of the world" as in the GP post?

    23. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The topic is US politics dumbfuck.

    24. Re: That's not a style by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      i concentrate on twtr.

    25. Re: That's not a style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are backpedaling now because of your attention span being short?
      Also the USA itself is very divided, while the very redneck conservatives and other conservatives who shit on LGBTQBBQ and Feminism have positive birth rates while all left leaning radicals have negative ones.
      Want stats for those too?

    26. Re:That's not a style by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      who uses memos? I thought even technophobic baby boomers even used email?

  2. Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teflon Don's tweets; or Billary's pantsuits and harpy like screeching. Discuss.

    1. Re:Which is worse by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Tweets are less invasive, because I never see them unless I go to Trump's twitter page. Or CNN. Or ABC. Or Foxnews. Or Slashdot. Or...

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Which is worse by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Or people that still can't get over the fact that Hillary lost.

      Sad! :-^

  3. President Bartlett could have told you about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He already knew about the Ten-word answer over a decade ago. And none of the words should have more than three syllables.

    A short pithy rejoinder will accomplish more than a Platonic dialogue, no matter how well composed it might happen to be.

    In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.

  4. Study? by Zemran · · Score: 2

    Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:Study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well PNAS published it. Or at least that's what she said!

      (Seriously, why does anyone take PNAS seriously? The journal's name is literally a dick joke.)

    2. Re:Study? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      More like a bit of advertising. How's Twitter's business these days? Is Trump doing for them what Howard Stern did for Sirius? How many new Trump shows is NBC planning when he leaves office? Does anybody know when that will happen?

      Tune in next week for this and more!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Study? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm always surprised by the number of people who think Twitter users are there because of Donald Trump. He really isn't a draw, and Twitter was actually more successful before he became a well known Twitter user.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Study? by emagery · · Score: 1

      Naw... a study is simply the gathering of data and the elimination of confounding variables and the isolation of statistically significant variables. Theorizing comes next with trying to explain WHY these observations work as observed, to be followed again with experiments to attempt to verify or disprove the theory. You're jumping ahead of all the meticulous work.

    5. Re:Study? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I don't have the numbers, so I can't say. I guess Trump doesn't need to be a 'draw' per se, because all the damn newspapers are 're-tweeting' him on the front page anyway.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. In other news.... by kelanos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The vast majority of the population are semi-brainless machines whose hearts and minds are manipulated from simple word-commands from authority

    Dark but true, deal with it

    1. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of the population are semi-brainless machines

      But you are one of the smart ones, right?

    2. Re:In other news.... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      I bet was the word "job" that won him the presidency.
      It's too bad that hillary used too few of those and too much of "alt-right".

    3. Re: In other news.... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Since John Oliver is one of the most trustworthy journalists in the US today that really isn't a bad thing.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sort of true.

      Human beings are hard wired (yes, you too) to remember the last thing anyone tells them. The more time a person spends listening to a single person or message the deeper the message will be engrained. Advertising is a great example of this phenomenon.

      Trump's tweets, although rarely "on message" usually follow a formula. Repeat that formula (snarky message + "sad") and you get effective communication.

      Want me to prove it? Read the next line and listen to the little voice in your head repeat the formula.

      Knock knock.

    5. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of the population are semi-brainless machines whose hearts and minds are manipulated from simple word-commands from authority

      Dark but true, deal with it

      Per the late comedian George Carlin: Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

    6. Re:In other news.... by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      Too bad "Would you kindly ..." doesn't work on them.

    7. Re:In other news.... by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" comes to mind.

      It's interesting, how close we've come.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    8. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what my sister is like whenever she gets her news from John Oliver.

      I'm sure your parents who watch Fox News are MUCH better. And that you yourself have no news source bias at all.

    9. Re:In other news.... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Dark but true, deal with it

      Don't you mean - "sad" ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  6. Trump is only the product of his time by William+Baric · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why single out Trump? This "moral-emotional" style is what everyone is doing. Up to a few years ago it was only feminists and other left leaning political groups who were using it, but now even right leaning political groups are using it. Trump is only following the trend. Rational discourse is dying in the West.

    1. Re:Trump is only the product of his time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump wasn't actually the focus of the study.

    2. Re:Trump is only the product of his time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We never had rational discourse. The difference is more dumb people are online, effectively being louder. Facebook is the new AOL.

  7. Sad? by Jack_the_Tripper · · Score: 5, Funny

    /. has devolved into mostly partisan bickering. Sad!

    1. Re:Sad? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      /. has devolved into mostly partisan bickering. Sad!

      Slashdot has always had partisan bickering.

    2. Re:Sad? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Funny

      No we haven't. Fucking troll.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Sad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      You must be new around here.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    4. Re: Sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant shill?

    5. Re: Sad? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You missed the word "mostly" apparently. He is right. Slashdot is now "political non-discourse for people who think they are needs because they are trying to beat the world's record of re-installing Windows to fix problems with their friends and families' computers". Sad.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re: Sad? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Auto mis-correct changed "nerds" to "neads" .... Very sad. Terrible.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re: Sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use Windows?

      Sad.

    8. Re: Sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a douchbag? No big surprise there.

    9. Re:Sad? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      yes we have.

  8. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad!

  9. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Gay+Boner+Sex · · Score: 1

    Hey, they have to get the ratio of anti-Trump to non-anti-Trump stories to at least 1:1. That goes for the posts as well. Why they are focusing purely on bashing Trump and not bashing the DNC for getting things together is entirely beyond me. First election in a while that I couldn't even vote for the Democratic nominee. :\

  10. "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Sad!" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Funny

    "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Sad!" - CmdrTrumpo

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  11. Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe is was like this:

    1) Corrupt politicians want to move stolen money from their country. The U.S. seems like a safe place for money.

    2) Corrupt Russian politicians invested in Trump real estate.

    3) The politicians were afraid of Hillary discovering what they had done.

    4) They arranged to interfere with the U.S. election system, so Trump would win.

    5) Trump makes money from their investments.

    1. Re:Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace Trump with Hillary and Russians with Saudis, and you get the same thing.

    2. Re: Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except Hillary didn't win, so we know it either didn't happen, or the Saudis are so inept that it wouldn't have mattered even if they'd succeeded.
      Trump + Russia on the other hand...

    3. Re: Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary didn't win despite having so much money poured into her "foundation" and election.
      She's as inept as her Wahhabi friends.
      At least Trump's relation with Saudis is business related, and not political like Hillary, which is why Hillary lost.
      Also these:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yMmG5p0Ll8
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vczoazK1mxU

    4. Re: Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike trump the Clinton foundation isn't a self dealing slush fund.

    5. Re:Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You realize that CNN's producer John Bonifield has been caught on tape admitting that the Russia story is "bullshit" and "for the ratings" right? Here's the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Please check before it gets taken down.

    6. Re: Russians invented in Trump real estate? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Well, except for that 2.86 milion MORE VOTES!

    7. Re: Russians invented in Trump real estate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it pretty much is.

  12. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just read those tweets as pseudo-manipulative grade school behavior. Who says stuff like that anymore? Really, the last time I remember hearing stupid stuff like "xxxx Sad!" is in elementary school or maybe high school.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you were a loser in elementary school and high school? Sad.

  13. Why it is effective: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His followers are idiots. Sad!

  14. Re:President Bartlett could have told you about th by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Funny

    In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.

    So you're saying the most viral possible right-wing tweet would be:

    SJWs :-( Sad!

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  15. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fair and balanced. Gotta put up opposing viewpoints, even if they are fucking morons.

  16. We recently lost 3 prominent CNN news reporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who were forced to resign. Sad!

  17. When has mockery not been effective by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    "Sad" is a gentle but really provoking form of mocking that seems especially able to get people to react...

    The only say it is "effective" for supporters, but they are ignoring a message also being "effective" if it makes a target group very angry.

    It has allowed Trump to greatly distract the press and other opponents from mountain effective opposition, because they spent a great deal of time in a state of rage, where they are unable to make rational choices and are therefore rendered mostly powerless.

    It's also an effective style because it's really easy for others to pick up and use as well, with increases the power of the term...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:When has mockery not been effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there was the time that a guy tried to razz Adan West for his portrayal of Batman, and he replied that that was the point. Then he used his poison-squirting flower.

      But the term you're looking for is "Gish Gallop" from said creationist nutbar.

      Too bad for Trump he fell into that trap, but most likely that was what his Russian masters intended for him. They know that pawns exist to be sacrificed.

    2. Re:When has mockery not been effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has allowed Trump to greatly distract the press and other opponents from mountain effective opposition, because they spent a great deal of time in a state of rage, where they are unable to make rational choices and are therefore rendered mostly powerless.

      Only the truly delusional would claim that opposition came from the mountains.

      Other locations can just as easly mount an effective oppososition.

    3. Re:When has mockery not been effective by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      or it could have been autocorrect/autocomplete mangling mounting?

    4. Re:When has mockery not been effective by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It's also an effective style because it's really easy for others to pick up and use as well, with increases the power of the term...

      How so? According to the study / theory, it is not so. "Sad" distinguishes from the hyper ventilation that is found everywhere else on the internet.

      Do you have another theory where if many newspaper headlines , articles, tweets, facebook posts end with ", sad.", it will increase the power of the term? My guess is that the audience would stop noticing "sad" soon, or at least stop paying much attention to it. Thereby reducing its power.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    5. Re:When has mockery not been effective by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      How so? According to the study / theory, it is not so.

      But according to reality, I have seen many other people using "Sad" in the same way, and it is just as effective in messaging (and provoking).

      Do you have another theory where if many newspaper headlines , articles, tweets, facebook posts end with ", sad.", it will increase the power of the term?

      Sure at some point use gets overloaded. But long before that point, repetition increases the immediate hook - that's literally how memes work. Do you deny that the more a meme is used the more powerful it becomes?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:When has mockery not been effective by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Do you deny that the more a meme is used the more powerful it becomes?

      I see the power of a meme as helping build a clique. The fun is in a particular group using it (maybe a lot), and others, let's call them muggles, don't understand the memes much.

      But are you saying memes are actually "effective" the way these people are believing about "sad" ? That would be a different take on memes altogether.

      The pleasure I see in memes is similar to meeting someone speaking your language in a far-off land. Say when a Belgian an Rwandan both speaking French meet in Sri Lanka, they hit it off quite nicely in spite of the difference in dialect. If everyone in Sri Lanka were speaking French well, that hit off would reduce drastically wouldn't it ?

      If the same meme is used by everyone, it becomes an idiom. At this point occasionally it may become an interesting way of making a point, but nowhere as influential as something "kind of scientifically" called "effective".

      Used by even more people even more frequently, and it becomes a language peculiarity like "it is raining". There is no "it" that is raining, but we English speaking fools just say it. Far from effective, people find no other way of communicating than using the peculiarity.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  18. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses without any kind of feedback.

    In short he knows the shit he is shovelling doesn't hold up to questioning, so he avoids all those pesky hard questions. He does this through twitter, surrogates, and Fox News, and probably other ways. Hell he is currently cutting video from daily briefings and even cutting making them live. Basically that is an indirect way to prevent negative information (truth) from spreading quite so quickly.

    He is a con man in the middle of the biggest long con of his life, just hoping he can keep fooling enough of the populace to keep on keeping on. He will say anything to keep up the con, and he doesn't appear to care about the consequences.

    Why is it we as a country accept politicians without any sort of moral center? Sure a few of them will stand up for what is right, but even then a lot of them shut up if talking might cost them an election. A good man does what is right not just when it benefits him.

    I'll end with a quote from Babylon 5:

    "How do you know the chosen ones? No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame; for one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see. I have been in the service of the Vorlons for centuries, looking for you. Diogenes with his lamp, looking for an honest man willing to die for all the wrong reasons. At last my job is finished. Yours is just beginning. When the darkness comes, know this: You are the right people, in the right place, at the right time."

    1. Re:FTFY by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Sad.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re: FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! That sounds like how Putin does his Town Hall meetings. Are we trapped in world of repetitive screenplays and crummy plot holes?

  19. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumpz! Trumpy! Trumpx! Trumpw! Trumpv! Trumpu! Trumpt! Trumps! Trumpr!

  20. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    conservative america consists largely of knee-jerk reactionaries?

  21. The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by bigwheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An other article from today calls Trump a genius.

    https://townhall.com/columnist...

    "He is able to speak directly to the American people without going through the biased mainstream media filter. The media doesn’t get to ask him slanted questions or pick and choose parts of his press releases to publish. Instead, Trump gets immense control over every single sentence he issues, which are then read by millions of Americans. "

    Regardless whether you love or hate the man, you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media.

    1. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by nasch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the media have been unfriendly to Trump then they must be really really stupid, because they gave him billions of dollars worth of free coverage during the campaign.

    2. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Genius is a strong word, by which I mean an incorrect one. But it is a clever strategy, which he stumbled upon quite conveniently. If he were the first big personality to discover Twitter, that would have been one thing. This is another thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media. " Not really... he's basically made an 'us vs them' situation that is untenable and ends in his impeachment or worse...

    4. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure what your point is. But, yes, the media is unfriendly towards Trump.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But it is a clever strategy

      It's also an amoral strategy..

      which he stumbled upon quite conveniently

      Manipulating the feeble-minded has always been his business model; it's no accident he uses tricks like these.
      Just look at his university and other businesses. He even owned a casino at one point.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by bongey · · Score: 2

      Yep billions worth of ATTACK ads

    7. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Regardless whether you love or hate the man, you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media.

      Isn't a funny that Assange got called an attention seeking media whore by about half of the people here for doing something similar a couple of times instead of nearly every single day.

    8. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an effective way to deal with the media when you're incapable of having genuine dialog. I'd be happy to see him discuss a single topic for two minutes even on a friendly media. I don't think he can do it.

      It's a great way to hide ignorance.

    9. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The media is failing out democracies. A similar thing happened in the UK recently. The media largely ignored Jeremy Corbyn until they were forced to pay attention when an election was called. From that moment on he became wildly popular and make up a 25 point deficit in the polls.

      The person they were listening to, Theresa May, turned out to be some kind of robot that was only pre-programmed with a few simple phrases and she quickly became unpopular and disliked once people were able to see that. Previously she was popular because the media didn't show the alternative.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's to be expected when the dividends pay higher.

    11. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by nasch · · Score: 1

      You know how ads work right? That isn't the TV network attacking Trump, someone bought the air time.

    12. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      when trump first announced his run for president, the only media he was attacked by was conservative media. Other media outlets with a more D slant treated him like a media darling. Trump ate this up and sucked all the air out of the room. after a week or two Fox and other larger R slanted media groups joined in. At the time I knew what was happening, it was an attempt to play havoc w/ the primaries. a year later internal memos confirmed hillary and the dnc was pushing such an agenda.

      Today's tip; never give a demagogue a platform, they will seize it and then sprint down a very bumpy road leaving you bouncing on the cobble stones. It was stoopid 840 years ago, 100 years ago, and still stoopid today.

    13. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hundreds, if not thousands, of hours spent covering BS after BS slam story on Trump are equivalent. The CNN journalists who resigned is just the tip of the ice berg. When Trump called them fake news, he was exactly right.

    14. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2016 Campaign Television Tracker

      http://television.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016

      RRK

    15. Re:The Genius of Trump’s Tweets by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 0

      That is when they thought he was an easy opponent for Hillary.

      They pumped him up to get rid of Jeb, Ben and Paul.

      Big mistake... Sad!

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  22. Trump's effective by rsilvergun · · Score: 3

    because he's the only populist. Everyone else is either like the Republicans and busy telling us why we can't have nice things (austerity) or the Dems and just shouting about how bad the other side is because they're in deep with the same mega corps that bought off the Right. There's an itty bitty tinsy tiny group that rally around Bernie Sanders and that's about it. So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because he's the only populist. Everyone else is either like the Republicans and busy telling us why we can't have nice things (austerity) or the Dems and just shouting about how bad the other side is because they're in deep with the same mega corps that bought off the Right. There's an itty bitty tinsy tiny group that rally around Bernie Sanders and that's about it. So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?

      Trump is not a populist. He is a con man, pure and simple. I'm not sure he cares about much but winning, not even what he wins. Bernie had a fair amount of support. Trump is technically correct in that he didn't really quite get a completely fair shot, but then Trump said that, not to be fair, but to attack Hillary and all the rest. As far as Trump's healthcare for all and what do you have to lose, well 22 million people could find out soon.

      Simply put, the republicans demonized Obamacare beyond all reason. They did that for two reasons. First, it worked. That was the main reason. It got them votes. Second, some of them hated it for ideological reasons, though I suspect the actual number is smaller than expected. That all being said, the books gotta balance folks. To save some money, those people either have to get less service, or you have to increase the pay in from others. Also once you fracture everything into crappier plans, you make the useful plans dramatically more expensive.

      So we can break the what do you have to lose question down.

      What do sick people have to lose? Their lives, or their quality of live, or time on earth, etc, depending on the details of what happens. In short their is likely to be a correlation between their remaining life spans and what gets signed into law.

      What do healthy young people have to lose? Not much, as long as they can stay young. They will probably even save a bit, though you might want to warn them that aging is a preexisiting condition.

      What do older people have to lose? Pretty much everything, up to including everything they own, if they aren't careful,l and of course their lives. If their bills double and triple, do you think they can pay them?

      Can obamacare be fixed? Sure first stop trying to kill it. Second, maybe add in the republican ideas to make just buying health care after you get sick impractical, and then maybe the across state lines stuff, and leave all the taxes in place.

      Do republicans know obamacare can be fixed? Well, as Sarah Palin might say, "You betcha." There is a reason they don't have the CBO score ideas like I just gave. They don't want those kind of results made public. Not long ago one of them mocked the democrats by saying all they would do is offer endless single payer amendments, as if they would automatically be bad. Why not just have the CBO score all the ideas and see which one is best? Their best guess is a heck of a lot better than not having any estimate at all.

    2. Re:Trump's effective by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?

      I think you have Trump confused with Bernie. Trump told 'merica that he has a really great healthcare plan, the best. So good, in fact, even he isn't sure of the details - but it will be great! On jobs, Trump claimed he'd bring them back. He wasn't very clear on this one either; perhaps he meant reanimating the corpse of the late Steve Jobs. Maybe he wants to build one of those sarcophagus things from Stargate SG1. That would take care of healthcare and bringing back Jobs. Of course, there were also hellish naquadah mines on SG1, so bringing back mining is also a possibility.

      As for education, your highschool participation award is good enough to work in our naquadah mines or build air conditioners. You don't have to go to college to MAGA. You're entitled to the American Dream(TM) by mere virtue of American exceptionalism!

       

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    3. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 4, Informative

      Under Obamacare my premiums have gone through the roof. Two years ago, if I would have been able to afford it, my premiums would have been $257/month with a $3500 deductible. That is basically $6600/yr. On top of that my medications would have cost me another $500/month over and above the copays and what the insurance would cover. That is $12,600/yr on less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.

      This year, if I had actually puchased a plan my monthly payment would have been $450/month, with a $6000/yr deductible. Add to that the costs of my medications over and above the copays and insurance coverage of $600/month and it comes to a right tidy percentage of our yearly income. Our yearly costs would have been a minimum of $18,600. That doesn't cost any possible hospitalization costs or what I have to pay for specialists visits which have a copay of $100/visit. I'm supposed to buy that on a total income of less than $30000/yr. In fact, the government will fine me for not having spent 62% of our total income on health insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays.

      Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.
      Let's just say Caliifornia has 40 milllion residents to make a nice round number. And let's figure that the US has 320 million citizens. One is over estimated slightly and the other under estimated slightly. That makes the California population 1/8 of the US population. That means that a conservative estimate of single payer insurance costs for the entire us to $3.2 trillion dollars. That's approximately 75% of current total federal government spending.

      Since the federal government already borrows $4 out of ever $10 it spends just where do you see the money to pay for a single payer system coming from? And just how sustainable are the federal government's current spending habits, let alone with a 75% increase in federal spending?

      Also, do you understand that the current published federal debt of around $20 trillion is peanuts compared to what it owes in unfunded liabilities such as pension plans, future payments for current entitlement programs, etc...? In 2010 our unfunded liabilities were around $120-$140 trillion. Meaning if the feds had cut spending enough to begin paying that down at $1 trillion/yr it would have taken us well over a century to pay our debts? Our current unfunded liabilities have been estimated in the $200 trillion range. In other words paying them off with a federal budget that is $1 trillion in the black ever year would take us two centuries to pay the debt.

      The US is flat out bankrupt.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    4. Re: Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree we are bankrupt. The groups that have the vast majority of wealth are in charge, and they don't seem to keen on doing anything but creating more profit.

    5. Re:Trump's effective by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.

      $25k/yr is around the median personal income (double it for the average two-person household to get the median household income of around $50k), so if you're pulling that all by yourself and not splitting it with the statistically probable one other person in your household, that's not statistically very low.

      (Compared to cost of living it is, certainly, but that's just because almost everybody is shit poor compared to cost of living).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    6. Re:Trump's effective by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?

      Uh, the planet.

    7. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I'm married. My wife lost her job a few years back due to the badly slumping economy and hasn't been able to find a job that pays anything close to what she used to make. She makes less than 50% of her former salary.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    8. Re: Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That isn't really the problem.

      The government has so tied up business with regulation that it sucks trillions of dollars a year out of the economy. Since Obamacare went into effect the vast majority of jobs created have been part time and temporary jobs so the employer wouldn't get hit with the costs of Obamacare. The other problem is the QE that the Fed started under Obama. They have been printing over $80 billion/month and sending it straight to the stock market. One of the laws of economics is that the more currency there is floating around the higher prices will go--inflation. In other words, the Obama administration and Fed have been stealing from us through inflation at a fantastic rate as every time the dollar is devalued what its purchasing power drops. And who gets stuck with that? All of us.

      Oh, the government tells us inflation is low, but who really believes that? My food costs have risen from less than $300/month to more than $500/month in less than 3 years and my food buying habits haven't changed at all.. Much of this is hidden price increases. Take cottage cheese for instance. It used to be sold by the quart--32 ounces. Now it is in a 24 ounce container. That alone is a 25% increase in cost. It doesn't even take account of how much the price/container has risen. Many other products have had the same thing happen. I used to buy grapfruit juice for $3.25/half gallon. Now its a few pennies higher, but the carton has been reduced in size 9%. Noticed the reduction in size of potato chip bags? Candy bar sizes and prices? The rise in meat prices? However, when the government figures food price inflation they count only the cost of the container. They ignore the size of the container. Easy way to lie about inflation.

      A week or two ago Trump rolled back a bunch of regulations Obama had put in place just before he left office. The Democrats screamed about it, but those regulations alone would have drained about $2 trillion/yr out of the economy. He also rolled back the permitting process for things like road and bridge building/reconstruction. He had a report that a road contractor had given him that had cost the contractor 5 years and $24 million to make. The cost of the report was in the neighborhood of $7000/page. And the contractor still couldn't build his 18 miles of road under our current regulatory structure.

      The MSM didn't cover these things at all that I know of. Why? Because these are things that Trump is doing that will start the economy to move again. If they did cover it they did it in a way to ignore how this will affect job creation in a positive way.

      I don't know if you have ever seen the shadowstats.com website. The guy who is the brains behind it looks at the US economy the way the government used to look at it 30 to 40 years ago. He figures inflation, unemployment, the value of the dollar, the gdp, etc... the same way the federal government used to before they began manipulating the numbers. You ought to take a look at the site. It's a real education. We are at, financially speaking, the same point we were in the 1930's economically, only we have been in a negative growth period, depression in other words, since 2001. He has publicly available charts on our economy on the site that anyone can look at for free..

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    9. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Paris Accord was a symbolic gesture and a shitty deal for the United States. Trump displayed leadership by refusing to bow to the marketing and pressure to support it.

    10. Re: Trump's effective by dbIII · · Score: 2

      You ought to take a look at the site. It's a real education. We are at, financially speaking, the same point we were in the 1930's economically, only we have been in a negative growth period, depression in other words, since 2001.

      Doesn't everyone over 40 already know that?

    11. Re:Trump's effective by trawg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.

      For reference - the UK NHS budget is £120m (USD$153m) for 65m people.

      I can definitely see a US single payer programme costing way more per capita for many years (possibly decades) as the "old way of doing things" is unwound though.

      Since the federal government already borrows $4 out of ever $10 it spends just where do you see the money to pay for a single payer system coming from?

      I mean the obvious place is from the budget of the Department of Defense, right?! Most of the Americans I know (I lived in Ohio for two years) would happily stop exporting shrapnel and high explosives to the middle east if it meant they could get more efficient healthcare services.

    12. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still sore about the election? Then you need quick pain relief.

    13. Re:Trump's effective by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that healthcare is too expensive in the US. In other countries the costs are kept much lower, and government run insurance schemes that don't seek to make a profit help too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's good value - $2 per person per year!

      I think you meant £120 billion, not million.

    15. Re:Trump's effective by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do have some sympathy for you, but your situation is unusual. You're pretty much at the poverty line with your yearly income due to disability and that does mean that you don't have a lot of choices for health insurance. And I hate to break it to you, but your premiums were still going up without Obamacare. Premiums went up constantly before it. They've gone up with it. They'll go up when AHCA gets passed. There's nothing in AHCA that's going to be of benefit to you.

      I'm not accepting your numbers for US single payer insurance costs, which were no doubt pulled out of some biased right wing article you found. I also hate to break this to you, but single payer insurance is inevitable. It's the only thing that can ever bring costs down other than providing catastrophic only coverage that pays for nothing else, which would be a big problem for you. And even providing catastrophic only coverage is likely to see premiums go through the roof because the insurance companies will get less money that way in premiums, so they'll make it up by raising costs.

      Your argument about the government paying pension plans is bogus because the US government back in the 1980s moved away from a pension plan system for federal employees and for over 30 years now all federal employees have had to have 401K plans. They have no choice.

    16. Re:Trump's effective by Waccoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personal anecdote, but my coverage through MassHealth is the best coverage I've ever had. Coverage and premiums vary tremendously from state to state. Compared to Mass, the ACA health care available in New Hampshire is a disaster, I hear. That's not the case in my neck of the woods.

      Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.

      Well, duh. Our health care system is purely for-profit, which means taking advantage of sick people... people in duress who are desperate to get better and know that if they don't, they can't work and are basically fucked. No insurance plan will help if a US medical procedure costs 15-20 times as much as the same procedure in Germany. Most nations in the world have aggressive price control for their health care specifically to prevent profiteering. But here in the US, that's called punishing success, so of course we can't do that, and pharmaceutical companies rank among the most profitable companies in the world because it's a comfortable racket if you can get your foot in the door.

      Sad!

    17. Re:Trump's effective by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      The economy is doing great. Maybe you are just old and unskilled.

    18. Re:Trump's effective by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I mean the obvious place is from the budget of the Department of Defense, right?!

      Or the pockets of billionaires.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:Trump's effective by trawg · · Score: 1

      Shit! I did. I got frustrated trying to get the pound symbol working on Slashdot and ended up editing it a bunch of times before finally giving up.

      Please mod parent up - I wasn't trying to dissemble, 120m is obviously way way way too small.

    20. Re:Trump's effective by swillden · · Score: 1

      Let's look at single payer insurance. California has 39 million residents. They figured single payer costs of $400 billion/yr. That is twice California's current total yearly revenue.

      For reference - the UK NHS budget is £120m (USD$153m) for 65m people.

      Wow, healthcare for $2 per person per year? That figure cannot be correct. I suspect you need to multiply those numbers by 1000, and even then I'll bet that's not the full cost. £120B would make sense for operational expenses (salaries, supplies, etc.), with capital expenditures (buildings, durable equipment, etc.) accounted for separately.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the 401K (called TSP) for government employees did NOT replace pensions. It was added as another perk for federal employees. For now at least, federal employees who are eligible fore retirement get Social Security, TSP, and their federal pension.

    22. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is more expensive, in large part BECAUSE of insurance companies. Yet, both sides of the political spectrum seem to view insurance companies as some kind of fix for the problem of paying for health.

    23. Re: Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Apparently not. If they did they you wouldn't see all the Trump hating going on for they would realize that Trump is doing some good things. He is trying to restart our economy in an economically viable way. He is creating jobs, only it will take a while for all of this to show up. And he is doing it without big expenditures of our money.... You know, big "stimulus packages" that only create inflation because they are nothing more than printing money that has no basis other than more debt.

      All that said, I didn't vote for Trump. I still do not trust the man. But, credit is due where credit is due. He is doing some good things to help the little guy.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    24. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      LOL. Am I old? Yup. No doubt about it. I've seen a lot of water go under the bridge. However, my situation isn't my gripe. My gripe is what is being done to this great nation of ours, how it is being torn apart at the seams.

      The economy is doing great? Really? shadowstats.com proves we have 22% unemployment, 10% inflation, and have been in a contracting, not expanding, economy since 2001. Yup. A very good economy. Or do you just accept at face value everything the government tells you? You know, all those virtuous honest politicians who would never promise what they cannot deliver or say one thing and do another. Not a politician in the US who would ever do that, is there?

      BTW, shadowstats.com is not the only economist/financial expert who has shown we are no better off economically than we were in the middle of the Great Depression. Guess you're just so young you've never actually experienced a truly prosperous America....

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    25. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Well, if you cut 100% of the defense budget and applied it to the costs of single payer health care there would still be, conservatively, $2.6 trillion over and above current federal spending and we would still be borrowing far more than 4 out of ever 10 dollars the federal government spends. The numbers don't lie. It isn't economically feasible.

      And, to tell the truth, I think Britain's health care system is lousy. Surgeons going to lunch with an anesthetized patient still lying on the operating table, nurses rolling dying patients out into the hallway to die because there is no place to put them, etc.... That is unacceptable to me, but that is what always comes from the government sticking its inefficient nose in places it doesn't belong. What we would have is very much like the massively corrupt VA hospital system where people would die and administrators would simply lie about it and cover it up. No thanks.

      Everything associated with health care that the federal government is involved in has massive problems with fraud. Medicare and Medicaid both knowingly pay out hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fraudulent claims. Think how much that would grow if 100% of health care was government controlled. And don't tell me that would not happen, for it is a historical fact that this always happens in government run programs and I see no reason to think that human behavior will suddenly change.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    26. Re:Trump's effective by Smid · · Score: 1

      For reference - the UK NHS budget is £120m (USD$153m) for 65m people.

      I can definitely see a US single payer programme costing way more per capita for many years (possibly decades) as the "old way of doing things" is unwound though.

      £123 BILLION pounds.

    27. Re:Trump's effective by trawg · · Score: 1

      Yep I typo'ed, sorry :( See my other comments but the correct figure (in the link) is 120b.

    28. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      You could take every penny every billionaire in the US has and it wouldn't make a dent in our debt. Anyone who really believes this idea that taxing the rich will solve our financial woes is pretty much living in fantasy land.

      You add up all the wealth of all the billionaires in the US and what do you have? $100 billion? That isn't even a tiny patch on our debt, or our yearly spending. We spend 3-400 times that in federal spending every year. Trump's proposed budget is $4.2 trillion including both discretionary and non-discretionary spending. And what is that $100 billion against our published national debt? It's .5% of our national debt, not counting our unpaid liabilities. Then its an even far more miniscule percentage: .05% of our total debt.

      Taxing the rich into oblivion will never fix our economic issues. The only thing that will fix them is reducing government spending, reducing business regulation by the government so that business can actually grow and create jobs again. No economic growth means no solving of our economic problems, and futher growth of the income disparity and the number of people living below the poverty line.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    29. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get $700/month in subsidy at that income. WTF are you complaining about?

    30. Re:Trump's effective by mesterha · · Score: 1

      So why can the governments of other countries pay for single payer? (The British are pretty happy with their health care, and your anecdotes on the British health care system make you sound like an astroturfer.) Also, why don't the ACA subsidies lower your costs? A simple search online suggest you should be paying around $100 a month for a silver plan.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    31. Re:Trump's effective by mesterha · · Score: 1

      Since the federal government already borrows $4 out of ever $10 it spends just where do you see the money to pay for a single payer system coming from? And just how sustainable are the federal government's current spending habits, let alone with a 75% increase in federal spending?

      So what happens to all the money that is currently spent on health care? Maybe we use that money...

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    32. Re: Trump's effective by dbIII · · Score: 1

      they would realize that Trump is doing some good things

      Seriously? Where do you get that fantasy from?
      Trump's an outsider who came in to game a Party, not a real R, so even if you are a rusted on Party supporter you don't actually need to kiss his backchannel after Putin has pulled out of it.

    33. Re:Trump's effective by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You add up all the wealth of all the billionaires in the US and what do you have? $100 billion?

      Well Bill Gates alone clocks in at $90 billion. So I think that it would be worth quite a bit more. And being a billionaire doesn't even guarantee you a spot on the Forbes 400 list, so trivially the number is significantly higher than $400 billion calculated two different ways.

      Trump's proposed budget is $4.2 trillion including both discretionary and non-discretionary spending

      Yeah, billionaires combined are worth $7.71 trillion. So, you know, by themselves they could pay for the US for almost two years.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    34. Re:Trump's effective by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      He could have rejected it diplomatically at least. He's a bull in a china shop.

    35. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your sympathy away. GP is either a moron, or (more likely) flat-out lying. If their circumstances were actually as described, they should know they were entitled to subsidies that would substantially reduce those costs.

    36. Re: Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats their total net worth, which was accumulated over a lifetime. It would be more appropriate to look at their income, not net worth. Wiping out their net worth would require liquidating huge chunks of our fortune 500 companies. (Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, GE, Exxon, Tesla, etc, etc.)

    37. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is more expensive, in large part BECAUSE of insurance companies. Yet, both sides of the political spectrum seem to view insurance companies as some kind of fix for the problem of paying for health.

      Obamacare has some limits on insurance company profits, which is probably a good thing since they weren't all that unreasonable. FWIW, here is my plan:

      1.) Survey the top 100 health care systems in the world.
      2.) Establish metrics so as to rate them on a scale based on agreed upon relative weightings making sure to exclude ones that can't realistically be applied.
      3.) Pick the winner.
      4.) Patch as necessary.

      Seriously, obamacare was an improvement, but it is not as if we need to invent the wheel here folks. There is a lot of places doing a lot better job than us and it is okay to copy.

    38. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody's premiums were going up before Obamacare, too. Also, are you in a state that decided not to increase Medicaid? That was the Republicans trying to mak Obamacare fail. Remember, they literally said their top priority was making Obama a one-term president. Not fixing the economy, not making an effort to fix entitlements, not reigning in government spending. Just doing whatever they could to make that scary black man go away.

    39. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      And after their wealth, companies, and probably 10's of thousands of jobs have been destroyed? Then what? What next? Go after the next level of wealth and destroy it along with jobs, companies, and the economy? It's what I would call cutting off your nose to spite your face.

      I have never gotten a job working for a poor man. Never has happened. I started my first job in 1967 and worked until 1999 when I got hurt and could no longer work. In those 32 years not a single poor man ever hired me. But then not a single poor man that I know/have_known, has ever owned a business that hires people to work for it.

      When you destroy wealth, you destroy all opportunity for people to lift themselves out of poverty by having a job. As someone who is now forced to live off social security I can tell you it is NOT a way to get out of poverty. It is enforced poverty.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    40. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      The subsidies for my wife and I are close to $800/month. At that my premium is still way out of my ability to pay for it. Just to pay premiums alone would mean no grocery money. It is like that for millions of people. I know people who pay more than $1000/month even with their subsidies. Obamacare is no panacea.

      If you're a diabetic you pay all that money per month and insurance will cover less than half the cost of your insulin. An medication that requires injection has extremely high copays. Even a gold plan would leave me with more than $500/month in insulin costs. You do not see these things until you research these plans in depth.

      Leaving British healthcare out of it, and which I have done a lot of research into, the VA is a typical US government intrusion into healthcare. It is inefficient, corrupt, and next to impossible to change. The Republicans just voted a bill through that is supposed to allow VA management to be able to fire lousy managers and employees, but I doubt much will come from it. I worked for the VA for 2 years back in the 90's, and it was culture shock for me. I had spent all my working life in the private sector and what I saw there left me extremely skeptical of government institutions. The corruption was unbelievable. They routinely paid two or three times for companies to build the same parts because the first parts they got were out of spec. They just wouldn't work,. So instead of telling the company the part was unusable and they wouldn't pay for it they would ask them to build another at full price once again. Who was getting the kickbacks I don't know. But it was fraudulent as all get out.

      Their technician who was supposed to be doing the job I did was useless. He could not do his job. The VA, before I went to work there, routinely had to call in outside contractors to fix his screwups. They were paying tens of thousands a year to outside contractors while this guy walked around the hospital campus carrying his tool belt and doing nothing. He spent at least half his day in the library reading while I was doing the jobs he said he had already done.

      Some of his failures could have been deadly to patients. He would be given work orders to clean the condensate drain pans in the walk-in meat cooler for the hospital's kitchen, and he would faithfully fill them out as being done and having taken so much time every time he did them. I got sent to do that job one time and he hadn't actually done the work in years. That drain pan had 2" sidewalls, and it was ready to overflow with mold and slime. It hadn't been cleaned for so long, and the slime was so toxic, that the slime had actually eaten through the stainless steel pan in 10 or 15 places. The pan didn't leak until after i cleaned it because the slime was so deep and so dense the water never touched the pan. What did management do when I showed them they had to buy a new drain pan because it had never actually been cleaned for years? They laughed, and yet all that mold and slime could easily have contaminated all the meat in that locker and sickened a whole lot of patients.

      The guy whose job I had to do was not the only one not doing his job on campus. There were a lot of drones there that did absolutely nothing, and were proud of it. Management knew they did nothing because they had to hire extra people to do the work they were supposed to be doing, and management never did a thing about it. They said it was "too hard" to fire anyone.

      I went to the chief engineer one time and asked him why they kept the drone on whose job I was doing. I told him, I'm not out to try to cause trouble, but I simply do not understand how you can keep on paying this guy's wages. If he was in private industry he wouldn't last a week as everything he touched would be a call-back. The chief engineer's mouth opened and closed a few times with no sound coming out of it, and he finally said, Well, I guess we've never actually had anyone who knew what they were doing before you came. He never actual

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    41. Re:Trump's effective by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's amazing the different products they can make with snake oil.

    42. Re:Trump's effective by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      And after their wealth, companies, and probably 10's of thousands of jobs have been destroyed?

      Why would companies be liquidated?? The wealth is the relationships between employees, corporate assets, etc. There is a way to transfer ownership of parts of a company without hurting the company, it's called stock.

      I have never gotten a job working for a poor man.

      Of course poor people employ other people. This happens individually (poor people paying a kid to mow their lawn). This happens in aggregate (poor people buying stock, crowdsourcing). But, far more importantly, most small business owners (those who generate most new jobs) found their companies on debt, not savings. Now, if they do their job well, they will not remain poor. But the vast majority start poor.

      It's also bullshit in that many companies are built on poor people as a customer base. E.g. Walmart. So, while the owners of Walmart may be rich, they are not personally pumping money into Walmart as a charity. The people pumping money into Walmart are poor people. The Waltons taking money out is another cost center for Walmart, not funding.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    43. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that will fix them is reducing government spending, reducing business regulation by the government so that business can actually grow and create jobs again.

      LMAO. Which regulations are stopping businesses growing? Paying people a decent wage for their labor? Not dumping waste products into the rivers used for drinking water? Not creating untested medical equipment and drugs? Go ahead and name a few.

    44. Re:Trump's effective by mesterha · · Score: 1
      Thanks for you informative reply.

      Obamacare is no panacea.

      Agreed. Here is an interesting article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/27/...

      Still I have to think your cost would be even higher without Obamacare. Do you have a death wish?

      Even a gold plan would leave me with more than $500/month in insulin costs.

      Don't you hit your maximum out of pocket expense limit.

      the VA is a typical US government intrusion into healthcare. It is inefficient, corrupt, and next to impossible to change.

      As can be seen in the above article, private healthcare also has problems. I believe that single payer works in many countries. I don't believe we can dismiss all US government run programs.

      He worked for the VA for more than 15 years and never once did he actually earn his wages.

      I've heard this about some government jobs. Is it also true for contractors? What about medicare? (Yes there is fraud, but you can't compare against Utopia.)

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    45. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I don't agree with you about the foolishness of thinking you can pay the debt by taking from the wealthy, but you're an order of magnitude off on the wealth of U.S. billionaires. Forbes list total wealth of billionaires in U.S. as $2.4 trillion, a fraction of the $14 trillion in debt the U.S. has (not even mentioning those unfunded mandate debts cited above of $140 trillion.
      Reducing government spending will never fix things either, because the U.S. is in too deep. The kinds of austerity that would allow payback of all that is owed is beyond what the electorate will stand for.
      Eventually the U.S. will default, or rather they will have to default. The government will fall. I suspect that because of our federal structure some states will be able to keep political cohesion and survive at some level, at a lower level of international influence and local level of financial stability. In other words they will be much more inward looking and the citizen will be living at a lower income level.

    46. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I don't have the money to "hit my maximum out of pocket". Deductibles and premiums alone are far more than I can pay.

      What I do right now is get my insulin from the manufacturer on their low income plan. If your income is above medicaid elgible yet below $40K for a married couple they will supply you for free. I go to the doctor twice a year so they can keep on writing my prescriptions. It's all I can afford. I don't want anyone else's interference.

      If I die, I die. We all have to go sometime. What I don't want is the rest of the country paying for me. In my book you make your own way or else. No one is responsible for me but me. If I fail, I fail. My problem, my consequences. That's the way life has always been. And the reverse is true too. When I suceed I don't want the government taking from me to give to someone else who may or may not give a rip about standing on their own two feet and supporting themselves. When I worked I helped others out of my love for people. I didn't tell them to go to the government. I took personal responsibility for what I could afford to do. I have given entire paychecks to help those who were worse off than I was, and it was no big deal to me to give someone the last money I had to someone who needed it more than I did. But, and it is a huge but, I would not help the guy that didn't want to work but could. He was on his own. If all he wanted to do was get drunk and get high, let him get that way, but I was never going to help him finance his self-destruction. I would feed a hungry man but I wouldn't just stick money in his hand to go waste on something other than food.

      It's a soul destroying idea that everyone else, the government, is responsible for the success or failure of the individual. To make people dependent upon government destroys ambition, drive, self-respect, and much more. You might want to read the autobiographies of me such as Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. They came out of slavery to succeed. They understood that someone else paying their bills, supporting them, was the anathema of self respect. Those guys were men in the highest sense of the word.

      I'll quote Frederick Douglass on this idea and I agree with him fully. I apply the same to myself. Let me alone. Let me stand on my own two feet. Keep the government out of my life. I don't want its intrusion and "help".

        "Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!"

              --Frederick Douglass

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    47. Re:Trump's effective by mesterha · · Score: 1

      What I do right now is get my insulin from the manufacturer on their low income plan. If your income is above medicaid elgible yet below $40K for a married couple they will supply you for free.

      So you survive based on the generosity of a corporation. Not a position I would want to be in.

      When I suceed I don't want the government taking from me to give to someone else who may or may not give a rip about standing on their own two feet and supporting themselves.

      While you have many legitimate grievances, I would say this is your core issue. Personally, I want the government to do some wealth redistribution. For a range of reasons, I believe our current system is unfair. Of course this is a democracy, and I respect your right to fight for your beliefs and argue for the government you want.

      It's a soul destroying idea that everyone else, the government, is responsible for the success or failure of the individual. To make people dependent upon government destroys ambition, drive, self-respect, and much more.

      Almost everyone is dependent on the government. At a minimum, the government needs to do things like create a market, setup a system of courts, protect the nation from hostile governments, ... Of course, this is not what you mean, but I want to stress that the debate is not about the government being involved it's about where and how much.

      But, and it is a huge but, I would not help the guy that didn't want to work but could. He was on his own. If all he wanted to do was get drunk and get high, let him get that way, but I was never going to help him finance his self-destruction. I would feed a hungry man but I wouldn't just stick money in his hand to go waste on something other than food.

      Again, I think this is the key issue. I see right leaning people who feel so strongly about this that they are willing to pay more to punish people than the cost of "successfully" subsidizing their behavior. At some level this make sense; you do not want your money to be used in a way that you feel is harming these people.

      This is a complex issue, but I don't think it strongly relates to healthcare. Affordable access to healthcare is not going to finance someone's self-destruction. Perhaps it will not make him get a job, but for an individual in this position, lack of healthcare is also unlikely to make him get a job. As in the rest of the first world, I would suspect it will just become part of society and not have much effect on ambition or drive. In fact, it might have the opposite effect. If workers were not reliant on jobs for health insurance then they might be more willing to go into business for themselves and become true capitalists.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    48. Re:Trump's effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suicide is painless

      It brings on many changes

      And you can take or leave it if you please...

      Johnny Mandel

    49. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Being dependent upon anyone is not a position I would willingly choose to be in.

      I would much rather get my insulin from the people who make profit off of it than I would be to have the government force society to pay for it. There is a huge philosophical issue here. When the government takes the money from the taxpayer it takes it at what is ultimately the point of the government's gun. When the company that makes the product gives it away to those who cannot afford it it harms no one and no one is coerced into anything. That lack of coercion is a very big deal to me.

      I am not an anarchist. There is a role for government to play. It needs to make sure that the rights of all of its citizens are respected. As an example, the federal government needs to protect the country from outside aggression. The founding fathers set us up to have a very limited federal government. It's role was clearly defined, and all other necessary governance issues and powers were left at the state level. I would recommend Alexis de Toqueville's books as a very good primer on the history of how our government was set up and how it operated in the very early 1800's. "American Institutions and Their Influence" is a pretty good summary of Democracy in America vols 1 and 2.

      Government redistribution of wealth is the antithesis of liberty. When the government can come in and say, we don't like how much money you made so we are going to take it away from you by force, that is blatant coercion by the state. That is well down the road to totalitarianism. I totally reject the idea that anyone has a right to reach into another person's pockets and take their property away from them, other than in cases of blatant theft or fraud. To do it just for political ideals is authoritarianism at its worst. It is the destruction of personal liberty for it removes economic liberty from the populace.

      I would say that right here we ought to discuss what liberty actually means for there is a lot of sophistry floating around in the name of liberty that is not actually liberty. These sophistries were introduced back in the early to mid 20th century.

      To understand my point of view on liberty I would recommend Freiderich Hayek's book "The Constitution of Liberty", as a format like this is probably the worst possible place to have a real discussion of such complex issues.

      The healthcare issue is the issue that is at the very heart of the matter right now, at least for me. Why? Because Obamacare and single payer healthcare both require government coercion to work. You take away coercion and it all falls flat on its face.

      I must congratulate you on your attitude.. We disagree on some pretty big issues, but you have not been disagreeable. This is pretty rare in my experience online. Thank you for your good attitude.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    50. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Why would the companies be destroyed? That ought to be obvious. To take wealth away from someone you need to take all their assets away and to do that you need to sell off their assents. How much do people pay at a fire sale? Not much. Do you know what a massive dumping of stock would do to the price of those stocks? It would send them into the toilet. And in an economy as fragile as ours is right now that can destroy companies and jobs. And what about those investments that are not made through a public venue? Where someone invests in a small company? How do you manage that? How do you guarantee to the business owner who the wealthy man invested in that the terms of the investment will not change? What if he was given very favorable terms because the investor really belived in the owner? Is someone else likely to do exactly the same thing? I doubt it.

      I've known quite a few small businessmen in my life. Very few, if any, of them built their companies on debt. They built their businesses slowly and avoided debt like the plague. Debt is a sure way to destroy a startup company because it automatically increases the expenses the company has, and until that company is in a profitable and stable condition debt will kill it. A lot of startups go belly up and debt is a big reason they do. Do not believe all the ads you see from credit card companies as debt being the way out and the only way to expand. They, the credit card companies, want to get their hands on as much of that business owners money as they can, and they are pretty much assured of getting their money back if the business fails because of the assets the business owns. They could care less how many small businesses they run into the ground. Large corporations are not the friend of the small business owner.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    51. Re:Trump's effective by mesterha · · Score: 1

      That lack of coercion is a very big deal to me.

      That seems a reasonable first principle.

      There is a role for government to play. It needs to make sure that the rights of all of its citizens are respected. As an example, the federal government needs to protect the country from outside aggression

      But doesn't the government have to coerce people to do some of these things. I think you would agree that it boils down a thoughtful selection of what the government is allowed to do.

      Government redistribution of wealth is the antithesis of liberty.

      I can see your point, but you do realize that it's always going to happen. Some people will benefit more from "essential" government services then others. Of course, that doesn't mean one can't try to minimize this redistribution.

      I would also like to make a bit of a retraction. I don't think the current taxation system is fair under any reasonable definition of the word, but I do think this redistribution might be necessary. Even a flat tax is probably not fair. Why should people pay a percentage of their income when they receive a fixed set of benefits? (I can argue this a bit in terms of the many disproportionate benefits of the wealthy, but this still doesn't cover many aspects of wealth redistribution to the poor.) However, I would argue that a fair system would lead to a very bad social outcome.

      I don't think it would be hard to justify a reasonable economic simulation that would show that true economic freedom would lead to an extreme concentration of wealth. (Even more extreme then what we are currently seeing.) Is this good? I would claim it is bad for a range of reasons. I would also claim that a modern economy is an engineering problem. Perhaps we could modify the economy is ways that get a better social outcome without restricting liberty, but I'm OK with the government imposing some restrictions, just like they do in other "essential" areas.

      To understand my point of view on liberty I would recommend Freiderich Hayek's book "The Constitution of Liberty", as a format like this is probably the worst possible place to have a real discussion of such complex issues.

      It's a bit long for me. (Lots of other things in the pipeline.) I do remember reading a short Libertarian book many years ago that I found very enlightening. It was around 50 pages. Do you have a reference in the 20-50 page range?

      The healthcare issue is the issue that is at the very heart of the matter right now, at least for me. Why? Because Obamacare and single payer healthcare both require government coercion to work. You take away coercion and it all falls flat on its face.

      Yes it does involve coercion, but I'm OK with that in essential areas where the market fails. For example, the only reasonable type of health insurance is one that covers chronic conditions. Before Obamacare, in many states there was no way to get those types of guarantees, so I consider this a market failure. For this, and other reasons, the government needs to step in.

      I must congratulate you on your attitude.. We disagree on some pretty big issues, but you have not been disagreeable. This is pretty rare in my experience online. Thank you for your good attitude.

      I do think you have a reasonable position based on your main principle, and you seem to live by that principle. A reasonable reading of the Constitution might also be on your side. However, I'm pretty stubborn, and I'm going to stick with an, as yet undefined, notion of social good over individual liberty.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    52. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      The more a government interferes with the marketplace the worse economies become. Evidence for this are the countries such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, Red China, North Korea, etc.... These countries absolutely tied the hands of business men. These governments made all decisions of an economic nature. What was the result? Their citizens died of starvation by the millions, and when they didn't absolutely starve they lived in 3rd world conditions.

      The reason for this is that no one person, and no small group of people, can understand all the economic factors involved, nor the economic desires and needs of people that they cannot know personally, nor can they respond to conditions at the speed that millions of people making their own decisions can respond. That means things get out of whack in a hurry in a centrally managed economy. And it means that the collective knowledge involved from the millions of people making individual decions in a lassez faire economy is far, far greater than the knowledge of a small group of people making decisions for everyone in the so-called managed capitalism. What happens then in an attempt to manage even moderate parts of an economy? Things slow down. Fewer jobs are created. The central banks and the governments can't figure out what is going wrong so they do things like increased deficit spending. huge stimulus packages based entirely on debt, and manipulation of the currency by printing money and very loose credit policies. A good small book on central banks and the harm they do, in the page range you were asking for, is "A History of Money and Banking in the United States". Google it and you can find it for free in ebook form.

      Also, the countries in my first paragraph were very involved in the redistribution of wealth in their societies. Think about that for a while and what kind of economic condition they ended up in. Their dislike of the wealthy business owner destroyed their own economies, and plunged their citizens into untold economic misery. Also, notice that when economic freedom disappeared so did civil and religious liberty. Economic freedom is the foundation upon which all other freedoms are built, even Karl Marx acknowledged this. What he didn't understand is that when you remove economic liberty you destroy the other liberties too.

      I don't know if I can give you a recommendation that exactly covers what the Constitution of Liberty covers, but maybe a good intro to it might be "Individualism and Economic Order", once again by Hayek. It's another free resource and you can find it through Google in pdf or epub format.

      Mises.org is a very good resource for understanding libertarian thought. They have a ton of free resources on economic issues. That said I wouldn't classify myself as libertarian. I'm more of a libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative mish mash. I read a lot, and have been studying these issues for a decade now. I take a little here, a little there, some more from another place, etc... in forming my own conclusions.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    53. Re:Trump's effective by mesterha · · Score: 1

      The more a government interferes with the marketplace the worse economies become. Evidence for this are the countries such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, Red China, North Korea, etc.... These countries absolutely tied the hands of business men. These governments made all decisions of an economic nature. What was the result? Their citizens died of starvation by the millions, and when they didn't absolutely starve they lived in 3rd world conditions.

      As I mentioned, the government creates the marketplace, so its got to do some "interfering". Where does one draw the line? This is where your first principle against coercion breaks down. You need to add some other principle or else you become an anarchist. In other words, the government needs to coerce, so you need some principle to tell it when to stop. Clearly those dictatorships went too far (though it's really not one-dimensional and there are other issues besides their economies). Currently Scandinavian countries have more coercion than the US and they do well in "happiness" metrics...

      The reason for this is that no one person, and no small group of people, can understand all the economic factors involved, nor the economic desires and needs of people that they cannot know personally, nor can they respond to conditions at the speed that millions of people making their own decisions can respond. That means things get out of whack in a hurry in a centrally managed economy.

      Just because an economy must be engineered does not mean it needs to be centrally managed. Engineering can include controlling a fiat currency, patents, monopoly rules, ...

      The central banks and the governments can't figure out what is going wrong so they do things like increased deficit spending. huge stimulus packages based entirely on debt, and manipulation of the currency by printing money and very loose credit policies.

      I agree that economics is a poor science. Currently, it's a difficult system to model, but this applies to both the removal of controls as well as the application of controls. Also, in anticipation, I would disagree to the claim that a "simpler" economic system is easier to understand. In principle, various controls can be put in place to stabilize the system (probably at some cost, but this is an expected trade-off).

      A good small book on central banks and the harm they do, in the page range you were asking for, is "A History of Money and Banking in the United States". Google it and you can find it for free in ebook form.

      This clocks in at 510 pages, so it's not small. It looks good since I do have some interests in the history of the fractional banking system and central banks. Still, I doubt he has much in the way of empirically justified solutions as he seems pretty extreme free market and those extreme ideas have never been tested.

      Also, the countries in my first paragraph were very involved in the redistribution of wealth in their societies. Think about that for a while and what kind of economic condition they ended up in. Their dislike of the wealthy business owner destroyed their own economies, and plunged their citizens into untold economic misery.

      Yes, it is interesting to look at the failures and successes of various countries and try to determine causes.

      Also, notice that when economic freedom disappeared so did civil and religious liberty. Economic freedom is the foundation upon which all other freedoms are built, even Karl Marx acknowledged this. What he didn't understand is that when you remove economic liberty you destroy the other liberties too.

      This gets back to the libertarian book I read. They claimed economic and social freedom were orthogonal. Typically this is used to contrast the Republican versus Democratic party. As for your examples,

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    54. Re:Trump's effective by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      You have a couple of fallacies in your thinking. The first one? Governments create the marketplace. Governments do not create the marketplace. It exists because people need to live. They produce, buy, sell, barter, etc... because it is how one gets what one needs to survive. Government has nothing to do with that. Government only gets involved because it wants to control what people do. ln other words, the marketplace is a result of human behavior and is a reflection of it. If you have a group of 2 or more people living outside of a government structure there will be, not may be, a marketplace. Why? Because a single person cannot do everything needed to survive. He needs to trade skills, produce, labor, etc... with his neighbors to survive. Economics is, in all reality, the study of human action. Not human motivation, but what people actually do because actual events can be studied and quatified, motivations are much more obscure and subjective. Ludwig von Mises calls it praexology, at least I think that is the correct spelling.

      The book I recommended to you on money and banking in the US is a compilation of studies. The first section is on early US history of money and banking which is the section I recommended as it has the same title as the entire compilation. Then a section on the formation of the Federal Reserve. Then other sections on different topics. While they are all related you can read one part and get a complete understanding of that part all by itself.

      The fact that you reject ideas just because they do not fit your ideology is not good. Sorry to have to say it, but it does reflect a degree of closemindedness. The only way to really learn is to open your mind to all ideas. You end up with a much greater understanding of issues and much greater wisdom. That said, you still disagree agreeably. I like having this conversation with you, and I cannot say I enjoy very many of my conversations with people from the political left. They often turn into nothing but ad hominen attacks from those who disagree with me. This, you have not done.

      I would also recommend "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. This is probably one of the most important books of the 20th century as it lays out in clear, concise detail why socialism ends up in what it does. Hayek does a masterful job of documenting what he says. And what he says is the opposite of what you have heard all the way through your academic years, and the opposite of what you will hear from the media. This book has had a profound effect on my understanding of political and economic issues. Even if it doesn't change your mind it will challenge your political beliefs and understandings.

      I thought much the same way you do when I was your age. The reason for it was that I had not really studied ecomomics or political philosophy from all sides. Thus I was pretty limited in my understanding of the issues as I had not been exposed to competing ideas. I accepted what I knew because I had not studied anything else. I started reading all sides of the issues at least a decade ago. I've read Marxist thought, libertarian thought, conservative thought, Keynesian (Marxist) economics, and Austrian school economics. I have yet to read Friedman, but only because I haven't been able to afford any of his books as yet.

      What is your second fallacy? That the economic principles I'm talking about have never been used successfully. Study the depression of 1920 and 1921. Never heard of it? There is a reason for that. What reason? It was over so fast it was breathtaking and it violates all of what academia says must happen so they do not point to it other than to puzzle why something other than what they think actually worked. Then they conclude some pretty off-the-wall things about that. Why was it so short lived even though the stock market dropped more than it did in 1929? Because Warren G. Harding did the opposite of what all the Keynesian "experts" say the government has to do during economic downturns. His actions, o

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
  23. When he's out of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should revoke his supporters' citizenship.

  24. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sooo SAD :)

  25. I warned you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump is satan.

    You were warned.

    Vword: liable

  26. Because they are true.... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 0

    easy.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  27. Neither effective nor popularist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Effective? Remember his tax plan? The one page which reduced the number of tax bands and a bunch of other major changes. No? Don't remember it? Because he was laughed at. He did a diversion on his twitter, and nobody mentioned how clueless he is.

    He's done it so so so often, that his whiney needy Tweets are no longer listed in the mainstream media. Do you know what he tweeted this weekend? Some sort of conspiracy theory involving Clinton and Sanders and Obama and their collective failure to tackle Russian healthcare or something. Ooo who cares, give him his passifier quick!

    Popularist? Well he might *want* to make popular decisions, but his view of popular is based on Hannity, and Hannity says whatever he's paid to by sponsors, usualy big corps wanting a handout. He also seems to parrot Tweets from Russia military posing as voters. He has no idea what popular is, popular is whatever line people feed him as popular is.

    e.g. Trumpcare? How dumb is it to shift all the healthcare costs from young+rich to older people. Older people are Republican core voting block! Republicans, were promised $15/month healthcare, instead they'll pay 5 times as much, plus extra for cancer cover (cancer more common in older = Republicans), plus extra for every precondition (preconditions = older = Republican). All so that Koch brothers can strip healthcare from their companies? Popularist?

    "Right. There's an itty bitty tinsy tiny group that rally around Bernie Sanders"
    Ahh, I gave your answer a proper response, now I re-read it, you were simply doing a Sanders talking point. Good luck with that Trump fluffing, he undercuts everyone who lies for him so they turn into his lie-bitch. There's a no-win in repeating Trump lies, you'll need to repeat every bigger and bigger lies and look ridiculous.

  28. Sorry, what I meant was by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    he's an effective Politician. As a Governor and a Leader he's terrible. But neither of those things win elections.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  29. Yep - it's a theory by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.

    Yep. Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory".

    I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.

    People are tired of being told what to think, the outlets have been telling people what to think in the strongest possible terms, and as a result the strength of the words has declined.

    Calling someone a liar, fascist, racist, islamophobe, Hitler, Cthulhu, and everything else was so completely over the top(*) that many people simply got used to the terms, thinking that exaggeration was the new normal they applied an internal reverse bias to compensate.

    The term "sad" is mild, so when you encounter it you might think the person saying it *isn't* exaggerating, and may be choosing their words carefully. It's the difference between someone saying "I'm uncomfortable" versus "I'm too hot!". Literally, the 2nd phrase implies required action, which isn't usually true (that the action is required), and is taken as exaggeration. The 1st phrase sounds more accurate and reasonable, and gives the impression of truthfulness.

    So when Trump says something is "sad", it's in lieu of calling something bad, nasty, stupid, or unconscionable. It comes off as more nuanced, non-exaggerated, and more trustworthy.

    That's my theory, and it also fits the data.

    Can someone propose a test to distinguish between the two theories?

    (*) If you don't think that the recent media coverage was over the top, consider Breitbart's enormous jump in readership in recent months, [Democrat minority leader] Nancy Pelosi is desperately trying to shore up support, and CNN is now literally synonymous with the term "fake news". That doesn't happen overnight, nor from isolated events, nor does it happen for no good reason.

    1. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      I think there's a slight flaw in your theory: nobody, not even his supporters, would call Trump "nuanced". Trustworthy is debatable (though his trustworthiness is eroding at a fairly alarming rate).

    2. Re:Yep - it's a theory by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Clearly, he's nuanced when he wants to be. That's meta-nuancing.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Yep - it's a theory by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trustworthy is debatable

      Nothing to debate - he's a serial liar:
      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories&_r=0&utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Worm-Subscribe-270617

    4. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's as nuanced as a truck driving through a china shop... I mean Jyna shop.

    5. Re:Yep - it's a theory by guises · · Score: 1

      Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory". I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.

      You're doing this backwards. You start with a hypothesis, then you conduct your experiment. The order is very important. Making a baseless assumption about how the researchers did it is bad enough, but then you just turn around and do the same thing yourself. If you're going to slander these people then you could at least make an effort to set a good example.

    6. Re:Yep - it's a theory by swb · · Score: 2

      People are tired of being told what to think, the outlets have been telling people what to think in the strongest possible terms, and as a result the strength of the words has declined.

      I think there is a gap between what people are being told in the media and what they experience on the ground in their every day lives and this gap has reached ridiculous proportions.

      Trump's genius, if you want to call it that, seems to be providing a message that aligns with people's actual experiences. They think Trump is more honest.

      Now, none of this is to say that people's experiences are necessarily accurate or that Trump doesn't spin lies, either (the wall, his so-called healthcare plan, etc), but I still think he's more willing to "say it like it is" than push an agenda than Clinton was.

    7. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You should stop acting like such a yuge jyna.

    8. Re: Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunce

    9. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't swing that dead cat so hard -- you might hit yourself. Or Obama ;)

    10. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to debate - he's a serial liar

      Disagree.

      He's a fully parallel liar with a high thread count and an embarrassing number of race conditions.

    11. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      consider Breitbart's enormous jump in readership in recent months

      In case anyone misses the subtly of what your are saying, you should have made clear that Breitbart's readership has plummeted

    12. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, but . . . I thought is was "lyin' Hillary Clinton?!?

    13. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooo toxic masculinity.

    14. Re:Yep - it's a theory by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people would think Cthulhu would be better, at least with Cthulhu you'd just be consumed outright.

    15. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Oh I know, but his supporters may not necessarily, whereas even they agree he's not nuanced (and they like it).

    16. Re:Yep - it's a theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories&_r=0&utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Worm-Subscribe-270617

      Nice fucking tracking codes. Sad!

    17. Re:Yep - it's a theory by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, I realised two seconds after I posted that I could have just truncated it all - my mistake.

  30. AG Lynch obstructed justice. Prison!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reopen the investigation now!!

  31. Like the Comey Tape tweets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you seriously pretending his tweets are crafted? They're barely coherent, usually written first thing in the morning before coffee and briefing.

    e.g. “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

    Dumb, of course Congress would ask for the tapes, and he'd have to admit he's a fantasist or a snoop.

    So then he has to go on Fox and look like an idiot.

    "Well, I didn't tape him," he said in an interview with Fox News' "Fox and Friends" when asked why he wanted Comey to believe that tapes existed. "But I didn't tape. And I don't have any tape and I didn't tape....But when he found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it's governmental tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed,"

    So is Trump, the head of the government or not? His comments paint a government not under his control. He's clearly not the commander in chief, more the ranting guy on the sidelines about bad government.

    Worse, he's replying to a Senate demand via Fox and Friends, and Twitter. Like he's afraid of Senators.

    aka "Tell the Senators I didn't tape him, but maybe that nasty Obama's government did tape him, like Obama taped me".

    Genius? Seriously, you want to feed that talking point?

  32. mostly unintentional by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Informative

    As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
    On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House
    will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.

    ~H.L. Mencken

    1. Re:mostly unintentional by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why are you talking about Obama now? He's history.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:mostly unintentional by wildstoo · · Score: 2

      *sigh*

      Your Trump-bashing is laudable, but could you at least get the quote correct?

      "All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

      ~H.L. Mencken

      You should probably also admit that Mencken was deeply predjudiced, even for his time.

      "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."

      ~H.L. Mencken

    3. Re:mostly unintentional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're the only one talking about Obama, dipshit.

    4. Re: mostly unintentional by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      You should probably also admit that Mencken was deeply predjudiced, even for his time.

      Why? It's completely irrelevant to the point.

    5. Re: mostly unintentional by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      You're right. We should never bring up anything from the past that calls into question the integrity of the people we're quoting. After all, if you say something that a lot of people agree with, and then spend the rest of your life saying awful things, people should just forget about the awful things and focus on the one good thing you did say.

      ~Donald Trump

  33. Probably an actual genius by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Genius is a strong word, by which I mean an incorrect one. But it is a clever strategy, which he stumbled upon quite conveniently. If he were the first big personality to discover Twitter, that would have been one thing. This is another thing.

    Genius is probably accurate.

    No one knows with any certainty, but there were studies during the election about who was smarter. Trump came out somewhere North of 150 in estimated intelligence, as did Hillary Clinton. Both candidates were rated at roughly the same level based on their achievements, scholarship, and writing ability (Trump has a Bachelor of Science).

    Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star, and the current president of the US. On top of that he has a strong family, raised good kids, and has a smart and lovely wife.

    ...any one of which is rather difficult to do if you're not smart.

    Mensa generally accepts an IQ of 140 as genius level, so it seems that both Donald *and* Hillary are well above the genius level.

    1. Re:Probably an actual genius by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star

      A self-reported billionaire, who started up with a "small loan" from his father, that has a track record of enriching himself by not upholding his part of contracts and screwing over his contractors. For the second part of your statement, do you also consider the Kardashians to be Mensa-grade?

    2. Re:Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump came out somewhere North of 150 in estimated intelligence

      Citation?

    3. Re:Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald is no genius lol.

    4. Re:Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump with a 150 IQ? Fact check: false.

    5. Re: Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake "facts" from a well known partisan, unreliable source.

      Sad.

    6. Re:Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. There's no way Trump is a genius. None. And that's not based on the media's reports. That's based on him.

      He rambles like a complete idiot and his strategies generally don't make much sense.

      He also received A LOT of help building his business.

      I would also add that if you haven't seen a total dumbass manage to be successful then you don't have worldly experience. I've seen people stumble around literally in a totally hap hazard and random fashion. Setting off every "Trap" and "Disaster" they can with no plan on how to deal with or any means to do so. Manage to stagger forward and fall down across the "finish line".

      I'm a big believer in skill and intelligence, etc... But not all successful people have these attributes. A lot are just plain lucky as hell.

    7. Re: Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that he has a strong family, raised good kids, and has a smart and lovely wife.

      His first wife, Ivana, accused him of throwing her around by the hair and raping her. He trades in his supermodel wives for younger ones when they get worn out. Complimenting him for having a "smart and lovely wife" is odd, considering she is the perfect example of a trophy wife.
      And as for his kids, you do realize he didn't raise them, right?

    8. Re:Probably an actual genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet he could at least figure out how to use the quote tag

    9. Re:Probably an actual genius by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      I'm not that sure, seeing that he apparently either couldn't figure out how to generate a profit from a money printing press (the Taj), was running a very visible money laundering operation for Russian mobsters or both (in that order).

      Also, that will teach me to comment without previewing while in a hurry.

  34. covfefe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said.

  35. CNN is ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star, and the current president of the US. On top of that he has a strong family, raised good kids, and has a smart and lovely wife.

    You can't blame them, it's part of a cognitive dissonance trap that was set for them decades ago. The media has been promoting (and even manufacturing) every little "stupid" thing done by anyone vaguely Republican and has used it as part of their branding. So they'll find as many polls as they can saying that smart people are Democrats and denigrating anyone in "fly over" states, etc. Well, that last part finally bit them pretty hard, but the conditioning is still quite effective and they literally cannot see the brainwashing at this point.

    Trump knows this and used it against them in a master-stroke, by deliberately making them underestimate him at every turn. Heck, the DNC even promoted him in the Pied Piper campaign of theirs (go look up the emails, and be sure to validate the DKIM key) to give him the initial boost he used to run away with this. Even though they're being led around by the covfefe they don't get it, and it's hilarious to everyone outside the brainwashing.

    P.S. Here's a story you probably won't see today elsewhere. Yet another page 99 retraction. Fun times.

    1. Re: CNN is ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About how many people would you say are brain washed? My experience is everybody looks or acts brainwashed depending on who you ask.

    2. Re:CNN is ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference: CNN writers apologise, and even resign. But when Fox is forced to retract a conspiracy theory they had zero evidence for, does Hannity apologise or resign? No, he does not - instead he doubles down and "retracts nothing". Classy as always.

  36. You Can Do Something About It by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it. That's especially true when they're saying things you agree with, because that's when you're most vulnerable to manipulation. We each have the responsibility to reject people who try to manipulate our emotions and tell them that's not acceptable. We also have the responsibility not to stoop to doing it ourselves. If your arguments are sound, they can stand on their own without emotionally manipulative language. If you find you can't make your arguments sound convincing without it, that's a pretty good clue there's something wrong with them.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    1. Re:You Can Do Something About It by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.

      They ought to be teaching this to school kids.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:You Can Do Something About It by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it.

      But Right-Wingers won't do it. Sad!

    3. Re:You Can Do Something About It by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.

      They ought to be teaching this to school kids.

      Right on! They should teach this right alongside money management and debt which is also missing from the school system oddly.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    4. Re:You Can Do Something About It by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it.

      Better yet, learn the mechanics of it and out-play your opponent strategically at every turn without them knowing you're doing it until they are frustrated to no end. Nothing produces more butt hurt than that. It's quite satisfying too.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    5. Re:You Can Do Something About It by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      If your arguments are sound, they can stand on their own without emotionally manipulative language.

      They'll stand on their own and not do anything. If you want to actually persuade people you need to connect to emotion. Psychologists have known for decades that people decide in seconds based on emotion, then find reasons to justify their decisions to themselves.

      The only time pure reason wins is when you have no emotional investment. For instance choosing the right hard drive upgrade: What's the capacity, performance and price? That's all you need to know. But choosing a car? Most people (in America at least) have self-image about what kind of cars they'll even consider. That's why there are millions of "4x4 offroad" pickup trucks that have never been off pavement.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    6. Re:You Can Do Something About It by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Depends what your goal is. If you're trying to "beat" your "enemy" by any means necessary, preferably causing them pain along the way, that might work. Unless it turns out they're better at it than you. But if you're more interested in promoting rationality, encouraging intelligent discourse, and getting people to work together to solve problems, that's not a very good strategy.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    7. Re:You Can Do Something About It by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      If you want to actually persuade people you need to connect to emotion.

      The only thing I'm trying to persuade people of is to be more rational and reject arguments based on emotion. If I tried to do that by manipulating their emotions, I would already have failed before I even started. Sure, emotional manipulation is effective. I also view it as very destructive. And we can learn to be more rational. But you aren't going to even try unless you view rationality as a good in itself, not just as a tool to be used or discarded at your convenience.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    8. Re:You Can Do Something About It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly?

      It's by design. Don't think so? Try to work with your local public school officials to make it part of the curriculum. Take copious notes and record conversations and meetings so you have data to write a book and your time won't be a total waste.

      Want to be really sick? Talk to a private school about it and compare the responses.

    9. Re:You Can Do Something About It by zifn4b · · Score: 2

      Oddly?

      It's by design. Don't think so? Try to work with your local public school officials to make it part of the curriculum. Take copious notes and record conversations and meetings so you have data to write a book and your time won't be a total waste.

      Want to be really sick? Talk to a private school about it and compare the responses.

      It sounds you already are familiar with the "data" otherwise you wouldn't know the details about the means to collect it. Why don't you just share the data you are already aware of and your interpretation of the findings?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    10. Re:You Can Do Something About It by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Depends what your goal is. If you're trying to "beat" your "enemy" by any means necessary, preferably causing them pain along the way, that might work. Unless it turns out they're better at it than you. But if you're more interested in promoting rationality, encouraging intelligent discourse, and getting people to work together to solve problems, that's not a very good strategy.

      I appreciate your sentiment, it doesn't make it any less wishful thinking. Rational discourse only works if all parties involved are engaged solely in rational discourse as a means for conflict resolution. If another player in the game is not engaged in rational discourse they will take advantage of the other players solely relying on rational discourse. The rational discourse exclusive players are assuming this sort of ideological high ground but they tend to get demolished by refusing to engage in the other player's tactics on a matter of principle. Do you really think you personally are better off by "falling on your sword" on matters of principle? That's real rational thinking. Real rational thinking involves a true acceptance of circumstances and basing one's actions on those circumstances AND their principles and morals attempting to achieve a balance. You do care about survival don't you? If you were employed by someone that you disagreed with based on their values and it was the only job available, would you make your family starve by quitting if there were no other job to go to? That choice would be irrational.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    11. Re:You Can Do Something About It by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      You're making some wrong assumptions about me based on things I didn't say. I want to encourage people to be more rational. I think that's a good goal to have, and I'm willing to work hard for it. I'm not worried about getting killed or my family starving as a result. Thankfully, I live in a country where that isn't a big concern. I do take the risk of finding I've wasted my time and failed to convince someone, and I'm fine with that risk.

      But that's all irrelevant to what I was saying. Do you go into a discussion viewing the other people as enemies or opponents, people you are trying to "defeat"? That's what you indicated in your first post. You called them "opponents" and talked about wanting to hurt them. I don't see things that way. I'd much rather have an interesting conversation with them, one where we both learn something we didn't know before. I assume I might be wrong about some things, and I want to find out what those are. If I manipulate someone's emotions, I might convince them to agree with one of my false beliefs, and I might lose an opportunity to learn something. Both bad outcomes. I also lose a chance to encourage someone to be more rational. That's also a bad outcome. I think the world needs more rationality.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    12. Re:You Can Do Something About It by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      But that's all irrelevant to what I was saying. Do you go into a discussion viewing the other people as enemies or opponents, people you are trying to "defeat"?

      Now you're making assumptions about me based on things I didn't say and therefore are not being rational and thus we cannot have a rational conversation. Cheers!

      --
      We'll make great pets
    13. Re:You Can Do Something About It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true.
      Many years ago read an article be a professional arbitrator. Their job was to negotiate deals between people. Best example is the old cake metaphor. You let one person cut the cake and the other person pick who get which piece. So the person cutting the cake works to make both pieces as equal as possible so that it doesn't matter which piece the other person picks. Both get maximum benefit. Win-win.
      That doesn't work when dealing with divorcing couples. In the same metaphor the person cutting the cake will take the knife and scrape all the frosting on to a tenth of the cake and cuts a really narrow piece so that the other person either gets a thin piece of cake with way to much frosting or a bunch of dry cake with no frosting.
      The point is that the parties are so anxious to make the other side lose that they don't care if they win. This is where we've gotten in political debate in the U.S. Both sides are willing to let everything go to hell as long as the other side loses.

  37. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do fucking morons think "Fair and balanced" means putting up opposing viewpoints.

    This idiocy is why western civilization is totally fucked.

  38. The idiots who wrote this study... by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    The idiots who wrote this study are just regurgitating an obvious fact while making fun of Trump to whore for grant money. Sad.

  39. What a fucken load of shite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see subject

  40. Re:The Genius of Trump's Tweets by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Not to mention bigly ratings, even after the election. Trump is a goose who lays golden media/news ratings eggs for them.

  41. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand where fair an balanced comes from. It's a bunch of BS. Trump commits a new atrocity ever day of the week, but for some reason we have to trawl the bottom of the barrel to find a Democrat snafu to keep it fair. Oh hey guyz, remember that tiem dat Obummer wore tennis shoes and dress pants. OMG so unprofessional. Fair an balanced is how we end up with morons like Alex Jones getting air time. The guy should be sitting in a padded cell, not making six figures telling people there's a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza place that doesn't even have a basement.

  42. So most Americans agree with Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "further among those with a similar political outlook, and they spread less with those who held opposing views"

    If they [Trump's tweets] had such an impact then one can only conclude that the American People got the president they wanted.

  43. Effective to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have this study which explains why New York University research sucks ass.

  44. You can't fuckin' spell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

    1. Re:You can't fuckin' spell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u fucken wot m8

    2. Re:You can't fuckin' spell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been internet days as the institution where APK is kept so you will have to excuse his shit posts until they take away that privilege from him.

  45. It's not all free by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Rupert Murdoch with Fox etc gave him a lot of coverage.
    By his past actions with other political leaders he's not likely to have done it for free and will come and collect.

    1. Re:It's not all free by nasch · · Score: 1

      Many major news networks gave him a lot of coverage, not just Fox. CNN in particular covered him extensively.

    2. Re:It's not all free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had to ensure Hillary didn't have any competition.

  46. a case of sad tweets from a sad twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a case of sad tweets from a sad twat. enough said

  47. Effective? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    But are they effective? I suppose it depends on what the aim is - the way I read it, the study shows that they are only effective if he wants to sow discord and create division - his supporters become a bit more sycophantic, the rest of us are sickened even more. But didn't he talk about uniting all Americans and making America great again? Division only diminishes the nation.

    1. Re:Effective? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      He sure talks a lot....

  48. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Effective! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    The tweets are effective because they push the right buttons of the chronically naive right-wingers who still sit in their cabin waiting for the mine to open that Reagan's flawed policies closed (ironically, Trump proposes the same dimshit). Add to that all the children that were left behind by Bush's flopped education legislation and we end up with many who have only an attention span of 144 characters paired with a sixth grade education level. Sadly, same seems to apply to Trump. That guy is just ridiculously dumb!

    1. Re:Effective! by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Yes because there are no stupid democrats anywhere, and I forgot that every democratic president has been a perfect Saint and has done no wrong. This my team go shit is getting sickening. It WILL be the demise of the United States of America. Mark my words.

    2. Re:Effective! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Sadly, same seems to apply to Trump.

      Sad!

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  51. Subsidies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why aren't you taking advantage of the subsidy? You're earning under 200% of the federal poverty level for a household of two, so you should qualify for a subsidy equal to whatever it takes to reduce the second cheapest silver plan to 6.3% of your income. (Yes, there is still the matter of deductibles and copayments, but at least the premiums would be much more reasonable at around $150/month.)

    Better still, in some states you should qualify for Medicaid on the basis of being disabled. I take it your state is not one of those?

  52. Some explanation is needed by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Can someone please tell me who this Trump guy is, why he's important and WTF are "tweets"?

    Thank you.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  53. Bad data set by AlanObject · · Score: 2

    Trump's tweets are so "effective" because he was running for and then held the most powerful office on the planet and he is totally incompetent in every way except for media manipulation. And even there he routinely shoots himself into the foot.

    The very fact that he is anywhere near this office much less in it is totally appalling to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the facts. That group will re-tweet because of the seriousness of the consequences of the election are quite real to them. Add to that his base that loves him will retweet him no matter what. The "effectiveness" has little to do with the structure of his utterances.

    Comparing this to anything else for any purpose other than point out how outrageous it is is meaningless.

  54. This is how sociopathy works by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    Did you ever get spanked by a parent and have them say "It hurts me more than you" with a genuine facial expression of empathy? It's kind of the same construct. Humans, especially Americans, do this all the time. For those of you coming late to the party, wait until realize how many people have learned this skill to turn negotiating tables effectively as the expense of you, the uninitiated. Ever wonder why Jordan Belfort was so successful in business? We are all slimy to one degree or another because we are primarily motivated by self interest. Those who don't eventually come to understand that become the fodder of those that do. There is no way to fix "the game". You just have to play.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  55. Covfefe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many days did this last in the news cycle? Sad!

    RRK

  56. Emotional vs Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tweets with moral-emotional words spread further among those with a similar political outlook, and they spread less with those who held opposing views

    Or put another way, people with opposing viewpoints are more likely to respond to logical arguments against their viewpoint than they are to emotional ones. Since we should be making decisions based on logic and not emotion, I see nothing wrong with this.

  57. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do fucking morons think "Fair and balanced" means putting up opposing viewpoints.

    The same reason "sad!" triggers them: they're idiots.

  58. And regardless of the scandals and ineptitude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is still our president. Sad!

  59. Sad...lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Personally when I see him say "Sad" I think to myself how true! We have an idiot as POTUS and how did we ever lower the bar to allow this to happen?

  60. WRONG UNITS - should be £120b by trawg · · Score: 1

    I screwed up the amount; it was supposed to be £120b per the linked reference. That'll teach me to try to battle Slashdot's unicode support with the pound sign.

  61. Take a tip from Mr. Paul Anka.. by gosand · · Score: 1

    Just Don't Look

    This whole "it's a train wreck, I just can't look away" or "I want to see what he'll say next" argument is growing more and more pathetic.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  62. Emotions trump reason. Sad. by erapert · · Score: 1

    One of the things I dislike about the left is that it seems like their leaders use purely emotional appeals (i.e. on gun control) rather than considering evidence and a rational and pragmatic problem solving mindset.

    And one of the things I hate most about Trump is that he's now doing the same for what should have been the conservative side.

    But we have only ourselves to blame, don't we? We keep rewarding these idiots for their fallacious reasoning and their appeals to emotion rather than rewarding principled and rational thinkers who come up with concrete solutions to real problems.

    Only when we have clear, concrete, and principled options in front of us can we make reasonable decisions. These appeals to emotion only serve to lead us like sheep. While the government gains ever more power and away more and more of our rights we fight like dogs over who's more outraged than the other.

    Vote for more rights. Vote for fewer laws. Vote for lower taxes. Vote for more for all people and less for the government.

  63. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize that you sound just as unbalanced right? pretty much leftism extremist

  64. Re:President Bartlett could have told you about th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool Story, Bro.

  65. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you know what's even going on in the country, based on the drivel you have posted. You should be embarrassed for airing junk like that. In the last 20 years, the media has only truly gone after Republican presidents. Bush gets elected and the show "That's My Bush" shows up, which has only one purpose: To ridicule the president. Obama gets elected... and there is one skit on a show where the joke is "Teehee, he's so polite and calm he needs an interpreter for anger". Wow, what a crushing zinger. Trump gets elected, and once again there is a show with no purpose other than ridiculing the president. This doesn't seem crazily one-sided to you? That was just one channel. Similar scenarios play out all across TV and the internet.

  66. Trump Enables Darkness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is an enabler for the worse angels of his followers.

    Since he is rich, handsome, successful and the President, he can serve as a role-model. Trump has also cultivated a communications style that allows him to get away with stuff.

    Bottom line, Trump effectively tells his supporters: "You don't have to change. The world has to change to suit you. Self-improvement and inclusiveness are for losers! All your worst tendencies are 100% A-OK with me, and there are others like you! Take comfort in your negativity and retrograde attitudes!"

  67. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    "Islamic radicals raping women with knives"...how do you rape a woman with a knife? She'll shorten your a$$
    You really need some grammar lessons Trumpless

  68. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Given the volume of information regarding the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania ave and his debts to the Russian Oligarchs, extremism is in your mirror

  69. Stupid comments for stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The president's tiny vocabulary and idiotic grammar help him communicate with idiots because idiots understand each other better than they understand intelligent people. And he never knows anything - it's all bull. If his presidency was a show it wouldn't be reality TV it would be "My little President, Bullshit is Magic!"

  70. Re: IMPEAXH RUSSIAN AGENT TRUMP by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    "Only gone after Republican Presidents"
    Right. 24/7 coverage of Travelgate, Filegate, IRSgate, Monicagate.
    All false. Not one crime proven against any Clinton Employee WHILE ON Clinton payroll.
    Meanwhile, not one word about Reagan's 32 felons with 129 convictions or pleas, 41's 15 Felons, and 43's 16 Felons
    Want better treatment by the media?
    Hire democrats

  71. Re:President Bartlett could have told you about th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.

    Cofveve, my friend. Cofveve...

  72. To sum it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're effective because his followers are stupid. He called them stupid to their faces AND THEY CHEERED! Remember how he loves the poorly educated? That's elitist upper east side NYer for stupid.

  73. So basically... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    So basically this confirms what we already knew.

    Trump is focused exclusively on manipulating the masses emotionally. And the masses, like the stupid opiate addicted sheep they are, suck it up completely without so much as a single thought spared to how all this nonsense is affecting them at a practical level.