American voters had been shat on for years, so they picked the biggest asshole they could find to answer that. This is why the constant narrative that Trump was an asshole didn't hurt him - feature, not a bug.
Or both: a bug that's indistinguishable from a feature or used as a feature.
And I think we should cut politicians some slack: the world is changing and they don't know how to deal with change. A lot of countries are stumped.
Perhaps they should be called out for not being honest about not knowing how to deal with the change. Here is an example what I think would be an honest response to Trump's alleged job solutions:
"I'll be honest, technology is changing the world so fast that we politicians and economists are not fully sure how to deal it yet. We don't have all the answers."
"But we do have a best guess to solutions, and this includes better education and retraining for new kinds of jobs. Mr. Trump is tying to turn back the clock by putting up walls and barriers to keep foreign competition out."
"He also wants to re-negotiate trade deals. If he succeeds, and that's a big IF, if may postpone the inevitable, but is not addressing the core problem."
"Detroit makes about the same amount cars it did a few decades. However, fewer workers are needed to make that same amount. Automation is the real culprit, NOT trade deals. China itself may face the same problem soon as robots and automation grow better over time and are competitive with low wages."
"Our plan is to help people move into new fields not affected by these forces. And for those who have difficulty making the transition, providing a safety net so that they and their families have food, shelter, and healthcare."
"Our vision is forward-looking, not backward looking. We cannot put the technology genie back in the bottle, but must adjust with it. Donald Trump does not have God-like powers to reverse time."
"Thank You, and God Bless America!" (cue clapping)
Correct. I meant in general, not Facebook. I probably should have explained the difference, and the difference between government censorship and private news-related service censorship.
Moderating of political topics on slashdot is indeed odd. Sometimes I get "-1" saying something on Story X, but saying the same thing on Story Y I get a "3". Go figure.
If the fact-checking sites report 38% of fake-stories for the alt-right and only 19% for the alt-left
I suspect a lot of that is that Democrats have been in power recently such there is much more material to criticize and spin. It's hard to criticize the GOP congress, for example, because they didn't do much of anything. You can criticize them for not doing anything, but what after that? (And there is also the long history of the Clinton's available for scrutiny, and Wikileaks.)
For example, say it's possible to put a sinister spin on 10% of all actions with creative enough editing and interpreting.
Then the person who made 1000 actions will have 100 spinnable actions, while a person who made 100 actions only has 10 spinnable actions.
Now with GOP at the wheel, we may see the ratio swap.
I have noticed a persistent pattern in recent years where the actual result is a few percent to the right of what the polls were predicting
It could be the right's growing distrust of "mainstream media" means they either don't answer pollsters, or feed them wrong answers to throw a monkey wrench into their system.
Most of the studies I've seen say that chiropractor success rates are about the same as back specialists with medical degrees. But, more expensive. (Thus, you should try a regular specialist first.)
However, rather than saying chiropractor visits are effective, it may be saying more about how bad formal doctors are at healing backs.
I compare chiropracty to analog TV "back in the days" where one had to move their furniture, bodies, and/or the antenna around in odd ways to get a satisfactory signal. One didn't know why a particular arrangement improved the signal, only that it did.
Trying different treatments on the back is similar. If you fiddle enough and have a knack for fiddling based on experience, you can reduce the pain and stiffness.
It's an ugly way to solve problems, but good alternatives haven't been invented yet.
I was bullied the old-fashioned way when I was in 2nd grade by a tenacious chubby jerk. Most kids join a social clique to help them via numbers, but I was a shy.
As painful as it was, I have to say it was a useful life lesson. Life is full of jerks and bullies and one MUST learn to deal with them one way or another. I've encountered sociopathic conniving assholes in the office also.
It's probably unrealistic to try to stop all bullies and trolls. Thus, children need to be taught how to deal with them, whether it's via eastern meditation, counseling, karate or combination. Different solutions may be better for different children.
Such lesson from my youth also help me to mostly tune out online bullies/trolls, having had a couple of nasty encounters. I just hate the practical aspect of forum text wasted on their repetition of insults and BS. It's comparable to spam on steroids. If they don't get their way, they'll try sink the entire ship via repetition and clutter.
But the ACA was SO BAD that even party loyalty could not pass
No, there were internal disputes over single-payer versus public-option versus no-public-option.
And GOP's criticism of ACA is vague. Democrats have been perfectly willing to tune it, but GOP has blocked tuning. It's like complaining about a car that sputters but not allowing one to take it to the mechanic. Every other large program in history was allowed to be tuned.
Sorry, GOP are manipulative sabotaging sacks of you know what on the ACA. If there is an evangelical Hell, they will fry extra crispy, and Satan has no ACA to cure their burns.
because we had to make room for an even greater one!
The real problem is that technology is changing the work world and GOP has no solutions other than trying to force the clock back to the 1950's. The very definition of conservatism is trying to change the clock back. They are doing what conservatives are "supposed" to do.
But you cannot but technology genie back in the bottle. Bots will kill jobs in China also eventually. The Democrats' plan of retraining and college had a better shot at making a difference in my opinion because it assumes change rather than hide from it.
An email published by WikiLeaks on Friday reveals the extent to which Democrats and their allies manipulate polls
The alleged email quote: "We are going to try to do an oversample of seniors on the poll. Sample too small otherwise..."
That can be interpreted at least in two ways. It may mean they simply don't have enough data for a given factor and so use a subset with more factors to extrapolate that factor to a general set. It's a statistical "trick" to tease more info out of a limited data set.
Perhaps one can argue that they are "over-guessing" which makes their poll bad, but that's not the same as introducing intentional bias. It could be being a cheap-skate rather than propagandist. I don't know enough about their data to say for sure.
Further, I cannot tell from that alone that they are talking about an internal poll or a public poll. If it's an internal poll for internal usage, then it's not "public manipulation". It's then for internal reports.
Without more evidence about the context, I see no reason to make a default assumption of malice. Context matters. Don't jump to conclusions.
That suggests penny-pinching at play rather than political bias. News orgs have taken a big hit in revenue due to the Internet and Craigslist ads* eating their core biz. Also, maybe in the past the cheap way was "good enough", but turned out not good enough in Trumpland.
The LA-Times, a center or left-center paper, apparently had the money to spend on a Cadillac polling model and got better answers.
* Interesting that Criagslist employs only about 60 people, compared to the possibly tens of thousands of newspaper ad jobs lost around the nation. This seems to be a common pattern of job loss now: the high-tech way employs much fewer than what it replaces. If Trump can "fix" that, I'll be as surprised as I was with the election results.
Would that advice had worked to prevent Hitler's bullshit from working? Enough of the population believed that "The Jews" were out to get them that they elected him and triggered WW II.
Why the hell would they risk that again after going through that? Somebody who has seen their ass, family, neighborhood, country, and world shot all up will have a different perspective than an Internet Warrior sitting around their mother's basement in their underwear eating stale pizza.
You are contradicting yourself. You claim he had nearly a blank check to do what he wanted, YET claim he had to use an "illegal trick" to pass ACA. If he had a blank check he wouldn't need any tricks. (I dispute your "illegal" claim, but it's a side topic.)
Surviving the Great Recession was priority of that time, and trade-pressure talk would have rattled the fragile markets.
I agree such negotiations will create some grumbling in the markets. But sometimes you have to accept a short-term hit to get longer-term benefits.
Tariffs almost always cause more damage than they help.
That has not been proven, it's just a theory based on overly-simplistic models or extreme cases.
That is a very dangerous game to play with global consequences if the Chinese don't blink
Lopsided trade is also dangerous. It can create dependencies and cash bubbles. Balanced trade carries less risk, and tariffs can be a negotiating and incentive tool to help achieve it. As things balance out, tariffs can shrink.
They hold a sizeable amount of our debt which is a danger to both China and the US.
Thanks for making my case for me! They wouldn't hold that much debt if trade weren't lopsided.
Trump's arrogant demeanor is FAR more likely to backfire than it is to help.
For the most part, he's a realist when actual pressure comes. He barks a lot, but usually works out compromises in the end. I could be wrong, but nothing is sure in life, and the status quo isn't working well either.
My observation is more that the fawning media always interpreted every poll within or near the margin of error as a win for Clinton.
I followed many of the polls also, and they indeed seemed to lean toward a Clinton win. It was a valid interpretation based on the numbers.
Overseas betting sites, such as Paddy Power, showed about a 3-to-1 advantage for Clinton. Those betting are putting their money on the line and won't generally rely on superficial interpretations of polls. And most are overseas such that political bias is reduced. They are gamblers, not partisans.
They got caught grooming their feed through an SJW filter
A good many people do not like racist and sexist comments, or comments that greatly sound like such, and feel they don't deserve airing on large privately-run news organization/service. They find them rude and offensive.
Whether that's "right" or not is a long and involved debate. A good many people feel the same way, and why it's often banned in Europe. They had to live under Hitler and his horrible racist-lead destruction, we haven't (yet).
People who believe "social justice" censorship is legitimate are not going way. Battling against it will just further inflame the culture wars. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know.
Trump: "I will make apps applier and they will be bigly* great, the best appy apps that ever apped, and you will be apply proud of them! I know more about apps than Apple and goggle, or is it google?, and I will make them pay for it. Make Apps Great Again!"
* Some claim he's saying "big league", the debate on that continues.
...reporting that HRC had the election win all sewn up?
The pollsters used the same techniques they did as before with reasonable success. McCain and Mitt's results pretty much matched them. The problem is that Trump is not a normal candidate and that surveyee's didn't react to him like they did a normal candidate. He's thrown monkey wrenches into a lot things (for good or bad).
There was no reason for DNC to manipulate the polls. A close election produces more turn-out, which is what they wanted. If anything, the bad polls hurt Hillary rather than Trump.
Outright banning them is too extreme in my opinion, in part because of the appearance of or risk of censorship.
Instead, tag the suspect stories, or all stories, with a link to lists of alternative sources, viewpoints, and fact-checking sites for the claims given.
By the way, some conservatives consider politifact.com and snopes.com to be left-leaning. Evidence of this is thin, or at least doesn't show significant bias in my inspections. (I see errors in ranking judgement more than bias.)
However, assuming it is left-leaning, where is the right's alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
Or both: a bug that's indistinguishable from a feature or used as a feature.
And I think we should cut politicians some slack: the world is changing and they don't know how to deal with change. A lot of countries are stumped.
Perhaps they should be called out for not being honest about not knowing how to deal with the change. Here is an example what I think would be an honest response to Trump's alleged job solutions:
"I'll be honest, technology is changing the world so fast that we politicians and economists are not fully sure how to deal it yet. We don't have all the answers."
"But we do have a best guess to solutions, and this includes better education and retraining for new kinds of jobs. Mr. Trump is tying to turn back the clock by putting up walls and barriers to keep foreign competition out."
"He also wants to re-negotiate trade deals. If he succeeds, and that's a big IF, if may postpone the inevitable, but is not addressing the core problem."
"Detroit makes about the same amount cars it did a few decades. However, fewer workers are needed to make that same amount. Automation is the real culprit, NOT trade deals. China itself may face the same problem soon as robots and automation grow better over time and are competitive with low wages."
"Our plan is to help people move into new fields not affected by these forces. And for those who have difficulty making the transition, providing a safety net so that they and their families have food, shelter, and healthcare."
"Our vision is forward-looking, not backward looking. We cannot put the technology genie back in the bottle, but must adjust with it. Donald Trump does not have God-like powers to reverse time."
"Thank You, and God Bless America!" (cue clapping)
Correct. I meant in general, not Facebook. I probably should have explained the difference, and the difference between government censorship and private news-related service censorship.
Trump is certainly the ultimate roulette wheel, or even Russian roulette if the wikileaks theory is true.
Trump's response: "No, I did not select myself."
Moderating of political topics on slashdot is indeed odd. Sometimes I get "-1" saying something on Story X, but saying the same thing on Story Y I get a "3". Go figure.
Conservatives also have a comedy site; it's called foxnews.com.
It's just that some haven't realized it's comedy yet.
I suspect a lot of that is that Democrats have been in power recently such there is much more material to criticize and spin. It's hard to criticize the GOP congress, for example, because they didn't do much of anything. You can criticize them for not doing anything, but what after that? (And there is also the long history of the Clinton's available for scrutiny, and Wikileaks.)
For example, say it's possible to put a sinister spin on 10% of all actions with creative enough editing and interpreting.
Then the person who made 1000 actions will have 100 spinnable actions, while a person who made 100 actions only has 10 spinnable actions.
Now with GOP at the wheel, we may see the ratio swap.
It could be the right's growing distrust of "mainstream media" means they either don't answer pollsters, or feed them wrong answers to throw a monkey wrench into their system.
That's kind of like W letting Cheney run the show, which he did, per W's father's biography.
In our case automation is doing what the Armistice Agreement did.
He couldn't do that if he didn't have sufficient popularity.
So Trump got an early start?
Most of the studies I've seen say that chiropractor success rates are about the same as back specialists with medical degrees. But, more expensive. (Thus, you should try a regular specialist first.)
However, rather than saying chiropractor visits are effective, it may be saying more about how bad formal doctors are at healing backs.
I compare chiropracty to analog TV "back in the days" where one had to move their furniture, bodies, and/or the antenna around in odd ways to get a satisfactory signal. One didn't know why a particular arrangement improved the signal, only that it did.
Trying different treatments on the back is similar. If you fiddle enough and have a knack for fiddling based on experience, you can reduce the pain and stiffness.
It's an ugly way to solve problems, but good alternatives haven't been invented yet.
So, cut chiropracty some slack.
I was bullied the old-fashioned way when I was in 2nd grade by a tenacious chubby jerk. Most kids join a social clique to help them via numbers, but I was a shy.
As painful as it was, I have to say it was a useful life lesson. Life is full of jerks and bullies and one MUST learn to deal with them one way or another. I've encountered sociopathic conniving assholes in the office also.
It's probably unrealistic to try to stop all bullies and trolls. Thus, children need to be taught how to deal with them, whether it's via eastern meditation, counseling, karate or combination. Different solutions may be better for different children.
Such lesson from my youth also help me to mostly tune out online bullies/trolls, having had a couple of nasty encounters. I just hate the practical aspect of forum text wasted on their repetition of insults and BS. It's comparable to spam on steroids. If they don't get their way, they'll try sink the entire ship via repetition and clutter.
No, there were internal disputes over single-payer versus public-option versus no-public-option.
And GOP's criticism of ACA is vague. Democrats have been perfectly willing to tune it, but GOP has blocked tuning. It's like complaining about a car that sputters but not allowing one to take it to the mechanic. Every other large program in history was allowed to be tuned.
Sorry, GOP are manipulative sabotaging sacks of you know what on the ACA. If there is an evangelical Hell, they will fry extra crispy, and Satan has no ACA to cure their burns.
The real problem is that technology is changing the work world and GOP has no solutions other than trying to force the clock back to the 1950's. The very definition of conservatism is trying to change the clock back. They are doing what conservatives are "supposed" to do.
But you cannot but technology genie back in the bottle. Bots will kill jobs in China also eventually. The Democrats' plan of retraining and college had a better shot at making a difference in my opinion because it assumes change rather than hide from it.
The alleged email quote: "We are going to try to do an oversample of seniors on the poll. Sample too small otherwise..."
That can be interpreted at least in two ways. It may mean they simply don't have enough data for a given factor and so use a subset with more factors to extrapolate that factor to a general set. It's a statistical "trick" to tease more info out of a limited data set.
Perhaps one can argue that they are "over-guessing" which makes their poll bad, but that's not the same as introducing intentional bias. It could be being a cheap-skate rather than propagandist. I don't know enough about their data to say for sure.
Further, I cannot tell from that alone that they are talking about an internal poll or a public poll. If it's an internal poll for internal usage, then it's not "public manipulation". It's then for internal reports.
Without more evidence about the context, I see no reason to make a default assumption of malice. Context matters. Don't jump to conclusions.
That suggests penny-pinching at play rather than political bias. News orgs have taken a big hit in revenue due to the Internet and Craigslist ads* eating their core biz. Also, maybe in the past the cheap way was "good enough", but turned out not good enough in Trumpland.
The LA-Times, a center or left-center paper, apparently had the money to spend on a Cadillac polling model and got better answers.
* Interesting that Criagslist employs only about 60 people, compared to the possibly tens of thousands of newspaper ad jobs lost around the nation. This seems to be a common pattern of job loss now: the high-tech way employs much fewer than what it replaces. If Trump can "fix" that, I'll be as surprised as I was with the election results.
Would that advice had worked to prevent Hitler's bullshit from working? Enough of the population believed that "The Jews" were out to get them that they elected him and triggered WW II.
Why the hell would they risk that again after going through that? Somebody who has seen their ass, family, neighborhood, country, and world shot all up will have a different perspective than an Internet Warrior sitting around their mother's basement in their underwear eating stale pizza.
Not on the Android OS
You are contradicting yourself. You claim he had nearly a blank check to do what he wanted, YET claim he had to use an "illegal trick" to pass ACA. If he had a blank check he wouldn't need any tricks. (I dispute your "illegal" claim, but it's a side topic.)
Surviving the Great Recession was priority of that time, and trade-pressure talk would have rattled the fragile markets.
I agree such negotiations will create some grumbling in the markets. But sometimes you have to accept a short-term hit to get longer-term benefits.
That has not been proven, it's just a theory based on overly-simplistic models or extreme cases.
Lopsided trade is also dangerous. It can create dependencies and cash bubbles. Balanced trade carries less risk, and tariffs can be a negotiating and incentive tool to help achieve it. As things balance out, tariffs can shrink.
Thanks for making my case for me! They wouldn't hold that much debt if trade weren't lopsided.
For the most part, he's a realist when actual pressure comes. He barks a lot, but usually works out compromises in the end. I could be wrong, but nothing is sure in life, and the status quo isn't working well either.
I followed many of the polls also, and they indeed seemed to lean toward a Clinton win. It was a valid interpretation based on the numbers.
Overseas betting sites, such as Paddy Power, showed about a 3-to-1 advantage for Clinton. Those betting are putting their money on the line and won't generally rely on superficial interpretations of polls. And most are overseas such that political bias is reduced. They are gamblers, not partisans.
A good many people do not like racist and sexist comments, or comments that greatly sound like such, and feel they don't deserve airing on large privately-run news organization/service. They find them rude and offensive.
Whether that's "right" or not is a long and involved debate. A good many people feel the same way, and why it's often banned in Europe. They had to live under Hitler and his horrible racist-lead destruction, we haven't (yet).
People who believe "social justice" censorship is legitimate are not going way. Battling against it will just further inflame the culture wars. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know.
Trump: "I will make apps applier and they will be bigly* great, the best appy apps that ever apped, and you will be apply proud of them! I know more about apps than Apple and goggle, or is it google?, and I will make them pay for it. Make Apps Great Again!"
* Some claim he's saying "big league", the debate on that continues.
The pollsters used the same techniques they did as before with reasonable success. McCain and Mitt's results pretty much matched them. The problem is that Trump is not a normal candidate and that surveyee's didn't react to him like they did a normal candidate. He's thrown monkey wrenches into a lot things (for good or bad).
There was no reason for DNC to manipulate the polls. A close election produces more turn-out, which is what they wanted. If anything, the bad polls hurt Hillary rather than Trump.
Outright banning them is too extreme in my opinion, in part because of the appearance of or risk of censorship.
Instead, tag the suspect stories, or all stories, with a link to lists of alternative sources, viewpoints, and fact-checking sites for the claims given.
By the way, some conservatives consider politifact.com and snopes.com to be left-leaning. Evidence of this is thin, or at least doesn't show significant bias in my inspections. (I see errors in ranking judgement more than bias.)
However, assuming it is left-leaning, where is the right's alternative?
GOP Congress tied his hands. Trump doesn't have that limitation ... at least not yet.