Political Roundtable Part XII

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Right, the "deplorables" can't understand the nuances of what is happening - should we even allow them to vote?

This requires respecting opinions that aren't rooted in facts. If people are misinformed, their opinions aren't worth much. The Breitbart crowd is generally wildly misinformed.

Sorry, but it just followed so closely to what Hillary did... I agree with Monte that this comes from both sides.

But is this a winning strategy? When the conservatives typecast wide swaths of folks does that help their cause?

In this case you are taking a swing at Trump supports and lumping them as low-information/poorly educated... that is a very large group that you just lumped together. A big chunk of them run small businesses - plumbers, electricians, etc. - they aren't as ignorant as you might guess.

I thought you might like this figure:


Notice the percentage of folks from the Rs that don't trust Breitbart - maybe they get it more than you might guess.

I had a road trip through Trump country in GA. I was stuck in a little town for 3 days. I had some very lengthy conversations with folks there. Many of them didn't like Trump much but liked the politics of Hillary less.

I tried hard to get them to vote for Hillary - I think I had one women convinced. Then her friend reminded her she was a deplorable - and that was that.

I said literally "The Breitbart crowd" - as in people who consume all of their news via that publication. Obviously not all Republicans read Breitbart, and not all Trump voters do either.

[verbal8]

Interesting chart.

The Onion is surprisingly high on the credible side. Maybe be even stranger, on the republican side mainstream media sources have higher unreliable percentages.

Overall it looks like Republicans trust the media a lot less in general.

Right, the "deplorables" can't understand the nuances of what is happening - should we even allow them to vote?

This requires respecting opinions that aren't rooted in facts. If people are misinformed, their opinions aren't worth much. The Breitbart crowd is generally wildly misinformed.

Sorry, but it just followed so closely to what Hillary did... I agree with Monte that this comes from both sides.

But is this a winning strategy? When the conservatives typecast wide swaths of folks does that help their cause?

In this case you are taking a swing at Trump supports and lumping them as low-information/poorly educated... that is a very large group that you just lumped together. A big chunk of them run small businesses - plumbers, electricians, etc. - they aren't as ignorant as you might guess.

I thought you might like this figure:


Notice the percentage of folks from the Rs that don't trust Breitbart - maybe they get it more than you might guess.

I had a road trip through Trump country in GA. I was stuck in a little town for 3 days. I had some very lengthy conversations with folks there. Many of them didn't like Trump much but liked the politics of Hillary less.

I tried hard to get them to vote for Hillary - I think I had one women convinced. Then her friend reminded her she was a deplorable - and that was that.

[dckingsfan]

Overall it looks like Republicans trust the media a lot less in general.

I missed that - that would be an interesting study to find out why.

[popper]

...you know that Trumps low-information/poorly educated supporters (that segment), can't distinguish between opinion, fact, and bold-faced lies.

Right, the "deplorables" can't understand the nuances of what is happening - should we even allow them to vote?

This requires respecting opinions that aren't rooted in facts. If people are misinformed, their opinions aren't worth much. The Breitbart crowd is generally wildly misinformed.

Gtn - I hope you recognize that both Obama and Trump are serial liars. One is a sophisticated serial liar protected by the MSM and the other is an unsophisticated serial liar excoriated by the MSM. HRC is also a serial liar. Many of us voted for Trump not because we respect him but because he will be forced to appoint judges who will apply the constitution as it was framed and amended. I hope you also realize that the establishments in both party's would like to suborn the rule of law for their own selfish purposes and thus relegate the "people" to a subordinate position. Many of us are fed up with it.

Edit - another fallacy that needs clarification is the economy. Talking heads in the MSM regurgitate that the economy is improving and that X millions of jobs have been created since the recession. We borrowed 9 trillion from future taxpayers and the FED printed 4.5 trillion for a total stimulus of 13.5 trillion in eight years. To be fair, two trillion was appropriate for the recovery but the remaining 11.5 trillion was nothing more than an artificial propping up of the economy to make the president look good. Ignorant Americans believed the talking points fed to them by the MSM (they never mentioned it's all achieved by borrowed and printed money).

[gtn130]

Right, the "deplorables" can't understand the nuances of what is happening - should we even allow them to vote?

This requires respecting opinions that aren't rooted in facts. If people are misinformed, their opinions aren't worth much. The Breitbart crowd is generally wildly misinformed.

Gtn - I hope you recognize that both Obama and Trump are serial liars. One is a sophisticated serial liar protected by the MSM and the other is an unsophisticated serial liar excoriated by the MSM. HRC is also a serial liar. Many of us voted for Trump not because we respect him but because he will be forced to appoint judges who will apply the constitution as it was framed and amended. I hope you also realize that the establishments in both party's would like to suborn the rule of law for their own selfish purposes and thus relegate the "people" to a subordinate position. Many of us are fed up with it.

Edit - another fallacy that needs clarification is the economy. Talking heads in the MSM regurgitate that the economy is improving and that X millions of jobs have been created since the recession. We borrowed 9 trillion from future taxpayers and the FED printed 4.5 trillion for a total stimulus of 13.5 trillion in eight years. To be fair, two trillion was appropriate for the recovery but the remaining 11.5 trillion was nothing more than an artificial propping up of the economy to make the president look good. Ignorant Americans believed the talking points fed to them by the MSM (they never mentioned it's all achieved by borrowed and printed money).

As usual, Popper, a Breitbart acolyte, with a zero information nonsense post that is easily debunked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

[popper]

This requires respecting opinions that aren't rooted in facts. If people are misinformed, their opinions aren't worth much. The Breitbart crowd is generally wildly misinformed.

Gtn - I hope you recognize that both Obama and Trump are serial liars. One is a sophisticated serial liar protected by the MSM and the other is an unsophisticated serial liar excoriated by the MSM. HRC is also a serial liar. Many of us voted for Trump not because we respect him but because he will be forced to appoint judges who will apply the constitution as it was framed and amended. I hope you also realize that the establishments in both party's would like to suborn the rule of law for their own selfish purposes and thus relegate the "people" to a subordinate position. Many of us are fed up with it.

Edit - another fallacy that needs clarification is the economy. Talking heads in the MSM regurgitate that the economy is improving and that X millions of jobs have been created since the recession. We borrowed 9 trillion from future taxpayers and the FED printed 4.5 trillion for a total stimulus of 13.5 trillion in eight years. To be fair, two trillion was appropriate for the recovery but the remaining 11.5 trillion was nothing more than an artificial propping up of the economy to make the president look good. Ignorant Americans believed the talking points fed to them by the MSM (they never mentioned it's all achieved by borrowed and printed money).

As usual, Popper, a Breitbart acolyte, with a zero information nonsense post that is easily debunked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

Good lord. What did you debunk? Nothing. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep him, Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video, we are the most transparent administration, blah blah blah. You're just deceiving yourself Gtn. No malice toward you at all but unless you're paid to regurgitate the BS then I don't understand why you do it.

[gtn130]

Gtn - I hope you recognize that both Obama and Trump are serial liars. One is a sophisticated serial liar protected by the MSM and the other is an unsophisticated serial liar excoriated by the MSM. HRC is also a serial liar. Many of us voted for Trump not because we respect him but because he will be forced to appoint judges who will apply the constitution as it was framed and amended. I hope you also realize that the establishments in both party's would like to suborn the rule of law for their own selfish purposes and thus relegate the "people" to a subordinate position. Many of us are fed up with it.

Edit - another fallacy that needs clarification is the economy. Talking heads in the MSM regurgitate that the economy is improving and that X millions of jobs have been created since the recession. We borrowed 9 trillion from future taxpayers and the FED printed 4.5 trillion for a total stimulus of 13.5 trillion in eight years. To be fair, two trillion was appropriate for the recovery but the remaining 11.5 trillion was nothing more than an artificial propping up of the economy to make the president look good. Ignorant Americans believed the talking points fed to them by the MSM (they never mentioned it's all achieved by borrowed and printed money).

As usual, Popper, a Breitbart acolyte, with a zero information nonsense post that is easily debunked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

Good lord. What did you debunk? Nothing. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep him, Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video, we are the most transparent administration, blah blah blah. You're just deceiving yourself Gtn. No malice toward you at all but unless you're paid to regurgitate the BS then I don't understand why you do it.

Cool. You've got a couple anecdotes that you're sticking to even though the actual data easily refutes what you're saying. Par for the course.

[gtn130]

Popper literally just looks past the data and doubles down on a few hot takes he's fond of lol

[DCZards]

Good lord. What did you debunk? Nothing. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep him, Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video, we are the most transparent administration, blah blah blah. You're just deceiving yourself Gtn. No malice toward you at all but unless you're paid to regurgitate the BS then I don't understand why you do it.

Popper, gtn makes a good point when he says you always use the same anecdotes when singling out the "lies" told by Pres. Obama. Even if the above were indeed lies, you can't label Obama a "serial liar" based on those few instances alone. Obama served as president for 8 years and if those are the only so-called lies he told the man deserves a medal.

When it comes to lying, you simply can't put Obama in the same class as Trump. Trump has told lie after lie over the past year or so. Given the pace at which he lies, it's hard to even fathom how many lies--or should I say alternative facts--Trump is likely to tell over the next 4 years.

BTW, I believe Obama actually thought healthcare reform legislation could be drafted that would allow Americans to keep their doctors. And, from what I can tell, most Americans have been able to keep their doctors under Obamacare. I know that I have.

[montestewart]

"Serial liar" is one of those cliched terms that's getting thrown around so carelessly that it will soon join Hitler, fascist, and other such terms that are rarely used correctly. All politicians lie, it's a means to an end. Ronald Reagan, who some consider one of the greatest presidents ever, clearly lied many times. Roosevelt, Kennedy, any Bush you choose...

Trump tells lawmakers 3-5M illegal ballots cost him popular vote, reports say

Trump is in another category. His aren't really scripted, conceal-the-truth lies so much as stream-of-consciousness, the truth is what I say it is in the moment lies. I saw this on a website (that had nothing to do with politics) and the description seems to fit him perfectly, especially the incessantly part.

A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways
found here

I expect the same from Trump as I expect from Terd: if there is anything that can be labeled success during his tenure, we'll never hear the end of his smugness and gloating, and any and all failure will be blamed on external forces quite beyond his control (with lots of finger pointing), often in defiance of all reason and logic. I'd really like to expect something good from him, but so far, he hasn't given me reason to have even moderate hopes.

Trump will be great comedy material, but he's already shown through threats of frivolous, well-financed libel suits that he doesn't respect free speech, and he's also indicated that he doesn't grasp limits on presidential power, so no reason to imagine he won't try to crack down on comedy making fun of him. Kim Don Trump, I tell you!

[BigA]

I think this article makes some good points. Most of Trump's casual, every day lying has the effect of trolling the media. I'm not sure how conscious or strategic it is. Trumps supporters don't think he's lying to them. And Trump won't pay much of a political price because the media is one of the least-trusted institutions.

[AFM]

You heard it here first, Trump is the Terd of politics.

[popper]

I don't want to get cross-threaded with anyone here about politicians that lie. If interested we can all simply google the subject, copy and paste the results and be done with it. I'll just point out however that there is a qualitative element to the lies our politicians tell. One can lie and say his crowds were bigger (that lie doesn't hurt me in the least, although it does diminish the person's character in my eyes) or one can lie about secret side deals in nuclear accords with a sworn enemy. It's not just the quantity of lies in other words.

In any event, I'm done with the subject.

[TGW]

President Biff actually is actually doing something that I agree with--dismantling the TPP. That was one of Obama's worse actions as President, and I'm shocked that Biff is doing something about it. I was expecting him to waffle on that like so many other things.

So kudos to Biff for a job well done on that end. Everything else has sucked so far.

[TGW]

Popper--you need to learn how to differentiate between a lie and political agendas that didn't materialize.

When Obama said you could keep your doctor, that wasn't even remotely close to a lie. The plan was for citizens to be able to keep their own doctor, their own plans, have a public option, etc. Because of political reasons (the dumbass Republicans), that got stripped from the ACA. Obama didn't lie and to think he did lie is shortsighted and biased. At the time he said it, it was IN THE FREAKIN' BILL.

As for transparency--yes, the Obama Administration, to date, is the most transparent administration in American History. Whether you think it wasn't transparent enough, or it was too transparent is your opinion; clearly you're going to have a LESS TRANSPARENT administration now because Trump said just as much when he campaigned. He said the Obama Admin was too transparent and that it was allowing our enemies to have a strategical advantage over the U.S. So let's see the amount of whining you do in the next 4 years about it.

It's like me saying Trump is a liar for not putting up a Wall on the Mexican border. We know that politically he wasn't going to get that done. I don't consider that a lie; I simply consider that as an agenda item that failed.

[popper]

Sorry for the clumsy post. I'm at the beach with a stupid iPad that's temperamental.

..... President Barack Obama repeatedly pledged he would run the most transparent administration in the history of the United States during both of his presidential campaigns, but the evidence shows Obama’s administration has not only failed to meet that standard, it has actively worked to conceal important information from the public.

For instance, in March 2015, the Obama administration rescinded a regulation requiring the administration to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, thereby exempting itself from public scrutiny and oversight. So much for transparency.

The Obama administration’s action should not surprise anyone. An Associated Press investigation conducted in 2014 shows secrecy has increased dramatically under Obama’s time in office. In 2013, the Obama administration censored or denied 244,675 FOIA requests, which amounts to about 36% of the FOIA applications the administration received. This rejection rate is higher than under any previous presidential administration. Another 196,034 FOIA requests were denied because the government claimed it couldn’t find records or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper. In 2014, the figures were even worse. More than 250,000, or about 39%, of FOIA requests were either censored or denied. In 215,584 other instances, the government said the records could not be found or it decided the requests were unreasonable.

Secrecy on matters of environmental science

Memos and information related to national security deserve heightened scrutiny before being released—if they are released at all—but the Obama administration has concealed or denied the release of critical information not related to national security as well, such as the scientific information used to justify environmental regulations. Obama’s lack of transparency when it comes to environmental science makes it very difficult for independent researchers to review important data the government relies on to ensure environmental regulations are justified and based on sound science.

Multiple U.S. Senate reports have found Obama administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other government environmental agencies have repeatedly attempted to avoid public input at meetings or have worked to limit scrutiny by hiding information that ought to have been made readily available, violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), widely known as the “open meetings law.”

EPA utilized a variety of techniques to hide information from the public. To avoid having the names of environmental lobbyists appear on agency visitor logs, EPA employees met them at nearby cafes, parks and at townhouses. After this practice became known, officials fought against disclosure in court, arguing the names and dates were immune to FOIA requests. In violation of official administration policies, EPA and environmental activists used personal email accounts, rather than work email accounts, to exchange ideas, develop regulations, and coordinate public relations and marketing plans to generate support for proposed agency regulations. Officials have also used FACA loopholes and FOIA exemptions to close more than 60% of committee meetings to the public.

Cases of unjustified secrecy

On March 2, 2015, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for mishandling FOIA requests. Lamberth wrote, “Either EPA sought to evade … lawful FOIA request so the agency could destroy responsive documents, or EPA demonstrated apathy and carelessness toward Landmark’s request. Either scenario reflects poorly on EPA and surely serves to diminish the public’s trust in the agency.”

PAGE 1 / 2 Continue
Comment on this story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/02/so-much-for-obamas-pledge-to-transparency/#74b72ce56abc

[tontoz]

Trump is to lying what Curry is to 3 pt shooting. Plenty of guys have shot 3s well before Curry but he leaves them all in the dust.

[gtn130]

Sorry for the clumsy post. I'm at the beach with a stupid iPad that's temperamental.

..... President Barack Obama repeatedly pledged he would run the most transparent administration in the history of the United States during both of his presidential campaigns, but the evidence shows Obama’s administration has not only failed to meet that standard, it has actively worked to conceal important information from the public.

For instance, in March 2015, the Obama administration rescinded a regulation requiring the administration to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, thereby exempting itself from public scrutiny and oversight. So much for transparency.

The Obama administration’s action should not surprise anyone. An Associated Press investigation conducted in 2014 shows secrecy has increased dramatically under Obama’s time in office. In 2013, the Obama administration censored or denied 244,675 FOIA requests, which amounts to about 36% of the FOIA applications the administration received. This rejection rate is higher than under any previous presidential administration. Another 196,034 FOIA requests were denied because the government claimed it couldn’t find records or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper. In 2014, the figures were even worse. More than 250,000, or about 39%, of FOIA requests were either censored or denied. In 215,584 other instances, the government said the records could not be found or it decided the requests were unreasonable.

Secrecy on matters of environmental science

Memos and information related to national security deserve heightened scrutiny before being released—if they are released at all—but the Obama administration has concealed or denied the release of critical information not related to national security as well, such as the scientific information used to justify environmental regulations. Obama’s lack of transparency when it comes to environmental science makes it very difficult for independent researchers to review important data the government relies on to ensure environmental regulations are justified and based on sound science.

Multiple U.S. Senate reports have found Obama administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other government environmental agencies have repeatedly attempted to avoid public input at meetings or have worked to limit scrutiny by hiding information that ought to have been made readily available, violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), widely known as the “open meetings law.”

EPA utilized a variety of techniques to hide information from the public. To avoid having the names of environmental lobbyists appear on agency visitor logs, EPA employees met them at nearby cafes, parks and at townhouses. After this practice became known, officials fought against disclosure in court, arguing the names and dates were immune to FOIA requests. In violation of official administration policies, EPA and environmental activists used personal email accounts, rather than work email accounts, to exchange ideas, develop regulations, and coordinate public relations and marketing plans to generate support for proposed agency regulations. Officials have also used FACA loopholes and FOIA exemptions to close more than 60% of committee meetings to the public.

Cases of unjustified secrecy

On March 2, 2015, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for mishandling FOIA requests. Lamberth wrote, “Either EPA sought to evade … lawful FOIA request so the agency could destroy responsive documents, or EPA demonstrated apathy and carelessness toward Landmark’s request. Either scenario reflects poorly on EPA and surely serves to diminish the public’s trust in the agency.”

PAGE 1 / 2 Continue
Comment on this story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/02/so-much-for-obamas-pledge-to-transparency/#74b72ce56abc

Dude, stop shifting the goal posts. This started with you saying "both Obama and Trump are serial liars" and now your argument is that Obama is too secretive and not transparent enough. Your argument has changed dramatically.

Also, everything you wrote about the EPA is laughable.

[popper]

Sorry for the clumsy post. I'm at the beach with a stupid iPad that's temperamental.

..... President Barack Obama repeatedly pledged he would run the most transparent administration in the history of the United States during both of his presidential campaigns, but the evidence shows Obama’s administration has not only failed to meet that standard, it has actively worked to conceal important information from the public.

For instance, in March 2015, the Obama administration rescinded a regulation requiring the administration to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, thereby exempting itself from public scrutiny and oversight. So much for transparency.

The Obama administration’s action should not surprise anyone. An Associated Press investigation conducted in 2014 shows secrecy has increased dramatically under Obama’s time in office. In 2013, the Obama administration censored or denied 244,675 FOIA requests, which amounts to about 36% of the FOIA applications the administration received. This rejection rate is higher than under any previous presidential administration. Another 196,034 FOIA requests were denied because the government claimed it couldn’t find records or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper. In 2014, the figures were even worse. More than 250,000, or about 39%, of FOIA requests were either censored or denied. In 215,584 other instances, the government said the records could not be found or it decided the requests were unreasonable.

Secrecy on matters of environmental science

Memos and information related to national security deserve heightened scrutiny before being released—if they are released at all—but the Obama administration has concealed or denied the release of critical information not related to national security as well, such as the scientific information used to justify environmental regulations. Obama’s lack of transparency when it comes to environmental science makes it very difficult for independent researchers to review important data the government relies on to ensure environmental regulations are justified and based on sound science.

Multiple U.S. Senate reports have found Obama administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other government environmental agencies have repeatedly attempted to avoid public input at meetings or have worked to limit scrutiny by hiding information that ought to have been made readily available, violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), widely known as the “open meetings law.”

EPA utilized a variety of techniques to hide information from the public. To avoid having the names of environmental lobbyists appear on agency visitor logs, EPA employees met them at nearby cafes, parks and at townhouses. After this practice became known, officials fought against disclosure in court, arguing the names and dates were immune to FOIA requests. In violation of official administration policies, EPA and environmental activists used personal email accounts, rather than work email accounts, to exchange ideas, develop regulations, and coordinate public relations and marketing plans to generate support for proposed agency regulations. Officials have also used FACA loopholes and FOIA exemptions to close more than 60% of committee meetings to the public.

Cases of unjustified secrecy

On March 2, 2015, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for mishandling FOIA requests. Lamberth wrote, “Either EPA sought to evade … lawful FOIA request so the agency could destroy responsive documents, or EPA demonstrated apathy and carelessness toward Landmark’s request. Either scenario reflects poorly on EPA and surely serves to diminish the public’s trust in the agency.”

PAGE 1 / 2 Continue
Comment on this story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/02/so-much-for-obamas-pledge-to-transparency/#74b72ce56abc

Dude, stop shifting the goal posts. This started with you saying "both Obama and Trump are serial liars" and now your argument is that Obama is too secretive and not transparent enough. Your argument has changed dramatically.

Also, everything you wrote about the EPA is laughable.

I was responding to TGW's post about transparency. Go back and read it please. I didn't write anything about the EPA. I posted an excerpt from a Forbes article that mentions it.