Political Roundtable Part XII

[payitforward]

Further, why do so many Trump supporters characterize any objection to Trump or PTM as "rage" or similar? Is that just a way to readily dismiss without consideration as irrational any objection at all, no matter how well-stated, well-reasoned, or well-supported? It sounds a little...hysterical.

Welcome to the club, montestewart. For an entire campaign, Trump supporters were labeled as "angry", or the "angry white man". Only Trump demonstrators never actually set fires to cars, attacked people, burned flags, threw eggs at people, blocked traffic, threw rocks and police, or otherwise disrupted and terrorized entire communities. Democrat protestors actually do these things regularly.

Well, there's a difference between angry and rage, as many Trump supporters were angry, just as Trump frequently presented himself to be. Angry is not irrational. There were very few reports of violent activity during January 21st marches, representing many angry people, and it is a prolific but small number of people who are committing the crimes you mentioned.

You frequently disparage people for painting Republicans and conservatives with a broad brush, and I generally agree with that and try to avoid doing so myself. And still I find myself, my views, and my delivery falsely painted into a corner where they've never been, and repeatedly encounter the "maybe serious or maybe just trolling" stance. So, is there any point to political discussion (as opposed to mere pontification) at all, or do too many people wear a filter that translate words into 100% Agree or 100% Disagree and And1 or FU accordingly?

Well put. Thanks, Monte. & this is partly why I'm encouraging a different dialog: one where the deeper bases of a person's politics can come to be understood. I hope you'll reconsider that issue, nate.

[payitforward]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

Ok, so that's a much more interesting response than many others I read here, nate (not just by you).

I'd be interested to know which Democrats (we're talking senators... yes?) you have in mind, and what you like about them.

[payitforward]

I wonder what Nate was saying about these guys before Papa Trump came into the picture.

Is there a single issue you don't agree with Trump on?

Two years ago, I would have disagreed with Trump on trade, but after doing some more research on the economics of protectionism, I think Trump may actually be on the right track. I think there are limits to the effectiveness of protectionism, but modest tariffs can be helpful to offset the advantages less developed nations have with respect to environmental and labor regulations.

I suppose I disagree with Trump on the transgender issue. I think transgenderism is rare enough that it should be classified as more of a mental illness than anything else. (And I don't mean this in a negative way. I'm not trying to ridicule them. I think they need real help from mental professionals rather than surgery.) As I understand it, most people who consider themselves transgender are also very likely to be depressed, and that depression doesn't get any better even when they "switch". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

I'm a little concerned with Trump's policy in the Middle East. At this point, I'll take a wait and see approach. His rhetoric has been conflicting so I'm not sure where he stands. Are we going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or should we never have fought wars in the Middle East in the first place. I'm hoping he is taking steps to extricate ourselves from the region.

Is he though? Automation appears to be a much bigger factor in all of this. Bringing back manufacturing jobs when they could be automated, making companies less efficient and less profitable - it's difficult for me to see how that's a good thing. Wouldn't training unemployed Americans for jobs actually needed in our information / services economy make more sense?

?? Trump can't stand in the way of automating manufacturing. And yes manufacturing will be coming back here in its increasingly automated form. The only reason behind off-shoring was lower labor costs. The less labor costs make up of the whole cost of manufacturing the more "re-shoring" will happen -- there are tons of advantages in cost to making stuff closer to the largest markets for it.

In that sense, long-term at least, there'd be little need for protectionism. Strong recommendation for this book -- https://www.amazon.com/Second-Machine-Age-Prosperity-Technologies/dp/0393350649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485963852&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+mcafee (The Second Machine Age, by Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee)

[gtn130]

Two years ago, I would have disagreed with Trump on trade, but after doing some more research on the economics of protectionism, I think Trump may actually be on the right track. I think there are limits to the effectiveness of protectionism, but modest tariffs can be helpful to offset the advantages less developed nations have with respect to environmental and labor regulations.

I suppose I disagree with Trump on the transgender issue. I think transgenderism is rare enough that it should be classified as more of a mental illness than anything else. (And I don't mean this in a negative way. I'm not trying to ridicule them. I think they need real help from mental professionals rather than surgery.) As I understand it, most people who consider themselves transgender are also very likely to be depressed, and that depression doesn't get any better even when they "switch". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

I'm a little concerned with Trump's policy in the Middle East. At this point, I'll take a wait and see approach. His rhetoric has been conflicting so I'm not sure where he stands. Are we going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or should we never have fought wars in the Middle East in the first place. I'm hoping he is taking steps to extricate ourselves from the region.

Is he though? Automation appears to be a much bigger factor in all of this. Bringing back manufacturing jobs when they could be automated, making companies less efficient and less profitable - it's difficult for me to see how that's a good thing. Wouldn't training unemployed Americans for jobs actually needed in our information / services economy make more sense?

?? Trump can't stand in the way of automating manufacturing. And yes manufacturing will be coming back here in its increasingly automated form. The only reason behind off-shoring was lower labor costs. The less labor costs make up of the whole cost of manufacturing the more "re-shoring" will happen -- there are tons of advantages in cost to making stuff closer to the largest markets for it.

In that sense, long-term at least, there'd be little need for protectionism. Strong recommendation for this book -- https://www.amazon.com/Second-Machine-Age-Prosperity-Technologies/dp/0393350649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485963852&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+mcafee (The Second Machine Age, by Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee)

Right, but that's not JOBS he's bringing back. Seems like Trump's vision is huge factories in America with white Americans working the assembly line - not a couple well-trained workers overseeing robots.

My point is that what Trump is doing is completely regressive and contrary to the way our economy is moving. I think Trump believes he can stand in the way of automation.

[TGW]

LOL at using IQ to judge anything relevant. You white nationalists love using the IQ test to judge people as a whole.

Fine...here's a study done on Presidential IQ:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf

According to this study, Carter and Clinton had higher IQs than Reagan. As a matter of fact, if you look at our last 20 presidents, on average, the presidents with the highest IQs were LIBERAL presidents.

I wonder what Trump's IQ is...according to his IQ test, he should probably be unloading trucks somewhere in Pittsburgh.

[nate33]

LOL at using IQ to judge anything relevant. You white nationalists love using the IQ test to judge people as a whole.

Fine...here's a study done on Presidential IQ:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf

According to this study, Carter and Clinton had higher IQs than Reagan. As a matter of fact, if you look at our last 20 presidents, on average, the presidents with the highest IQs were LIBERAL presidents.

I wonder what Trump's IQ is...according to his IQ test, he should probably be unloading trucks somewhere in Pittsburgh.

I don't see how the IQ of presidents has anything to do with this conversation. I never once alleged that Reagan had a higher IQ than Carter or Clinton. IIRC correctly, Carter was a chemical engineer so it doesn't surprise me that he has a high IQ. A high IQ doesn't mean you are infallible.

Ultimately, your link proves my point more than it disproves it. Being President is intellectually demanding. It's worth noting that every President in that study had a significantly above-average IQ. Most are at least 2 standard deviations above average and some are 3. I can guarantee you that a person with a 70 IQ will never be President. Do you disagree? Would you want someone with a 70 IQ to be President?

[FAH1223]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

I disagree. Some of the small scale UBI programs being performed in places in Europe have shown that cash transfers have fostered more flexibility for people to find work and have capital to start a business.

The issue in the US and much of the world has been the reliance on focusing on supply side mechanisms. The demand side policies and concerns haven't been highlighted much in 40 years.

We saw this with structural adjustment in the developing world and now in the industrial world the same policies prescribed in places like Latin America, much of Africa, have manifested itself right here in America.

We won't have robust economic growth and income inequality without addressing the demand side of the economy. Automation is also a huge deal. The lack of skills and education/vocation for displaced workers is also a huge deal. Which is why I'm always so puzzled by people who think we can't have tuition free college and vocational training which by most estimates would be only 10% of our bloated military budget.

[AFM]

LOL at using IQ to judge anything relevant. You white nationalists love using the IQ test to judge people as a whole.

Fine...here's a study done on Presidential IQ:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf

According to this study, Carter and Clinton had higher IQs than Reagan. As a matter of fact, if you look at our last 20 presidents, on average, the presidents with the highest IQs were LIBERAL presidents.

I wonder what Trump's IQ is...according to his IQ test, he should probably be unloading trucks somewhere in Pittsburgh.

You haven't heard?

[nate33]

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

Ok, so that's a much more interesting response than many others I read here, nate (not just by you).

I'd be interested to know which Democrats (we're talking senators... yes?) you have in mind, and what you like about them.

I didn't specifically mean Senators. I have more trust in Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Joe Manchin than I do in McCain or Graham. Ben Nelson isn't that bad.

[AFM]

Trump twitter dump:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I think that last one is my all time favorite

[gtn130]

Two years ago, I would have disagreed with Trump on trade, but after doing some more research on the economics of protectionism, I think Trump may actually be on the right track. I think there are limits to the effectiveness of protectionism, but modest tariffs can be helpful to offset the advantages less developed nations have with respect to environmental and labor regulations.

I suppose I disagree with Trump on the transgender issue. I think transgenderism is rare enough that it should be classified as more of a mental illness than anything else. (And I don't mean this in a negative way. I'm not trying to ridicule them. I think they need real help from mental professionals rather than surgery.) As I understand it, most people who consider themselves transgender are also very likely to be depressed, and that depression doesn't get any better even when they "switch". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

I'm a little concerned with Trump's policy in the Middle East. At this point, I'll take a wait and see approach. His rhetoric has been conflicting so I'm not sure where he stands. Are we going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or should we never have fought wars in the Middle East in the first place. I'm hoping he is taking steps to extricate ourselves from the region.

Is he though? Automation appears to be a much bigger factor in all of this. Bringing back manufacturing jobs when they could be automated, making companies less efficient and less profitable - it's difficult for me to see how that's a good thing. Wouldn't training unemployed Americans for jobs actually needed in our information / services economy make more sense?

Not everyone is trainable for the information economy. The IQ requirements are too high.

It's better to overpay Americans $40,000 a year to make widgets, than it is to pay Mexicans $20,000 a year to make widgets while paying Americans $30,000 a year in welfare.

This isn't true. IQ scores have everything to do with education and upbringing. Some dirt poor kid who has never spent a day in school isn't going to roll up to an IQ test and crush it.

I mean, do you think the biggest welfare states like Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana are made up of just dumber Americans? Such little respect you have for the Real Rural Americans who decided this election. Quit the Coastal Elite you are.

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Is he though? Automation appears to be a much bigger factor in all of this. Bringing back manufacturing jobs when they could be automated, making companies less efficient and less profitable - it's difficult for me to see how that's a good thing. Wouldn't training unemployed Americans for jobs actually needed in our information / services economy make more sense?

Not everyone is trainable for the information economy. The IQ requirements are too high.

It's better to overpay Americans $40,000 a year to make widgets, than it is to pay Mexicans $20,000 a year to make widgets while paying Americans $30,000 a year in welfare.

This isn't true. IQ scores have everything to do with education and upbringing. Some dirt poor kid who has never spent a day in school isn't going to roll up to an IQ test and crush it.

I mean, do you think the biggest welfare states like Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana are made up of just dumber Americans? Such little respect you have for the Real Rural Americans who decided this election. Quit the Coastal Elite you are.

IQ is between 50-80% hereditary. Furthermore, that other 30-50% isn't even "environment". Two adoptive siblings raised in the same family and going to the same schools are no more alike in IQ than two total strangers. I know it's comforting to believe that we can control these things and make everyone much smarter if we just try harder, but it's simply not the case.

People in Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, etc. actually do have a lower average IQ than other regions, and this is due to population migrations over the generations. With few cities having technology centers and most industry being based on low IQ occupations like farming and mining, the best and brightest move away to other states and have their smart children elsewhere.



West Virginia has a slightly higher IQ than some of the southern states, but their poor economic performance is probably impacted by geography. There are no natural ports, few decent waterways, the cost of infrastructure is high due to the mountains, and it's not cost effective to farm in a mountainous region either. Their one major resource, coal, has fallen out of favor. (Central Pennsylvania and Central New York have the same issues, but are offset by huge populations living in coastal cities with great ports and waterways.)

[dckingsfan]

Liberals don't want taxpayer money subsidizing charter schools.

What is the alternate plan? I think that is where the liberal plan has fallen down. It was always a cry for more money. I think you would agree that more funding wouldn't help? What is the liberals alternate plan? From what I have seen - double down on the same failed policies.

I would posit that there needs to be a plan because we have failed both in terms of the $s spent against per pupil progress and against preparing the students against the needs of the economy (getting them ready to succeed).

In this case, I think the conservative (if you could call it that) plan to have competition is a good one. Both in terms of states coming up with their own plans and interstate with vouchers, charter schools and public schools competing. Believing that individuals will make the right choices (on average) for their children.

And btw, do you agree that charter schools should be transparent if they take federal monies?

Describe transparency. What I would care about is $s in vs. improvement.

You only need to Google cost of Federal Education reporting costs and you will find that it is one of the things killing public schools. I think this is one of those unintended consequences.

[dckingsfan]

IQ is between 50-80% hereditary. Furthermore, that other 30-50% isn't even "environment". Two adoptive siblings raised in the same family and going to the same schools are no more alike in IQ than two total strangers. I know it's comforting to believe that we can control these things and make everyone much smarter if we just try harder, but it's simply not the case.

But that still misses the point. Manufacturing jobs are trending toward needing "smarter" individuals and the other industries are going the other way.

Manufacturing jobs are decreasing.

Individuals with lower intelligence can be pigeon holed into the new economy more easily. For example some that test high with Q-factor emotional intelligence might test low with IQ testing. Perfect sales people.

So, even if we accept the premise, it doesn't matter.

[AFM]

Oh no, not the IQ discussion again...

[dckingsfan]

Oh no, not the IQ discussion again...

Yeah - in reality pretty meaningless.

[montestewart]

Oh no, not the IQ discussion again...

Watch on YouTube

[AFM]

Oh no, not the IQ discussion again...

Watch on YouTube

Was he an Obama speech writer?

[Wizardspride]

Lordy...

Read on Twitter