[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-August-31, 10:49, said:

They're different things.

Just because people disapprove of Trump's actions, it doesn't mean they now realize that they would have preferred Hillary. To many voters it was a "least of evils" decision, and they haven't changed their opinion.

And there are many like ldrews who continue to believe Trump will eventually come through on his promises.

This is how I read it also. Presumably, only 10% of all voters would change their vote. I would guess that about 0% of Clinton voters would change to Trump, so that leaves Trump with a 10% loss of voters who supported him - more than enough to change the outcome of the election in the 3 critical states, btw.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-August-31, 10:05, said:

Let's take a look atthe alst two paragraphs, which I will reproduce only giving it all equal emphasis.



The first of these two cited paragraphs appears to be emphasizing the decline of Trump's popularity. The second appears to emphasize that his popularity is unchanged. So which is it? I am not saying that the numbers from the first paragraph are irreconcilable with the number form the second paragraph but the general flow suggests that the general claim is that despite a sharp drop in support the people who once supported him still support him. Such a claim requires a bit of work to make any sense out of it. If 10% of his previous supporters become non-supporters then a rough guess would suggest that there would be about a 5% drop in overall support. Eg If from 100 people it split about 5050 on support and then 10% of that support, 5 people, became non-supporters, then the split would be 45% support, 55% non-support. This is a drop of 5% rather than 7% but one could explore other statistical features, for example when these two statistical samples were done. . So I think a fair paraphrase of the argument presented by the article would be: 90% of Trump supporters still support him despite the clear fact that 10% no longer do. I can imagine that this might well be true.

Basically, condescension is a choice. I try to not make it my choice. Not actually a strategy, just a preference.
.

What has gone unnoticed it seems is that for a crafty opponent to produce nothing more than a trite, sophomoric response to a post about a complex legal issue displays a deep and abiding condescension for anyone that conflicts with his worldview. In response, I simply cut through the subtlety (read BS).

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2017-August-31, 10:56, said:

Woohoo! my question made it into their Hot Network Questions list.

And a good discussion there.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-August-31, 08:54, said:

It seems to me that our polity has become completely polarized. Rather than seek common ground and mutually agreeable solutions to problems, we are at war. At least that is how I feel: you are the enemy and not to be trusted.

Indeed it comes across to an outside, relatively neutral, observer such as myself quite often that parts of the Republican party have a desire to make war against their fellow countrymen. This is essentially what gives American conservatives such a questionable reputation abroad. I do hope you are not expectant of cooperation from Democrats anytime soon though given the actions of your party over the recent past. And if Trump had wanted cooperation he could have chosen to take Obama's SC nomination. That would have sent a powerful bipartisan message. He didn't, and nor imho should Democrats at this time.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-31, 23:15, said:

Indeed it comes across to an outside, relatively neutral, observer such as myself quite often that parts of the Republican party have a desire to make war against their fellow countrymen. This is essentially what gives American conservatives such a questionable reputation abroad. I do hope you are not expectant of cooperation from Democrats anytime soon though given the actions of your party over the recent past. And if Trump had wanted cooperation he could have chosen to take Obama's SC nomination. That would have sent a powerful bipartisan message. He didn't, and nor imho should Democrats at this time.

For the record, I am not a Republican. I am an independent/libertarian. I happen to think that the policies espoused by Trump are much needed in the US.

[PassedOut]

The Texas republicans in congress who opposed federal relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy are singing a different tune these days. What a surprise!

[awm]

Certainly seems like there are a lot of people who:

1. Believe things which are factually untrue (and kind of racist).
2. Will take any attempt at presenting facts that show their beliefs are untrue as condescending and/or elitist.
3. Feel that they are "at war" with the people who disagree with them, to the degree that they are willing to harm themselves, their country, or their world provided "those people" will suffer more than they will.

The curious thing is that there IS in fact "an elite" of wealthy people and corporations who've invested a lot into deceiving these people and riling them up to behave in this way (Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers being good examples).

Since these folks are pretty much impervious to facts at this point (they disregard facts as fake news and liberal propaganda) and there seem to be enough of them in enough states to deliver electoral college and senatorial wins, it is hard to see a way forward...

Most likely the best bet is to run people with fame and personal charisma but basically no experience or track record that can be used to rile people up against them. Tom Hanks for president anyone?

[ldrews]

awm, on 2017-September-01, 09:18, said:

Certainly seems like there are a lot of people who:

1. Believe things which are factually untrue (and kind of racist).
2. Will take any attempt at presenting facts that show their beliefs are untrue as condescending and/or elitist.
3. Feel that they are "at war" with the people who disagree with them, to the degree that they are willing to harm themselves, their country, or their world provided "those people" will suffer more than they will.

The curious thing is that there IS in fact "an elite" of wealthy people and corporations who've invested a lot into deceiving these people and riling them up to behave in this way (Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers being good examples).

Since these folks are pretty much impervious to facts at this point (they disregard facts as fake news and liberal propaganda) and there seem to be enough of them in enough states to deliver electoral college and senatorial wins, it is hard to see a way forward...

Most likely the best bet is to run people with fame and personal charisma but basically no experience or track record that can be used to rile people up against them. Tom Hanks for president anyone?

For some reason I am reminded of the French Revolution, or rather the period just prior. The elite felt secure in their dominant positions, epitomized by Marie Antionette's famouse remark "Let them eat cake!! (which today is widely misunderstood, "cake" at that time referred to the leftover crust from baking bread). But then came the Revolution and the guillotines. The peasants didn't understand logic or facts either.

And then there was Mao Zedong's Long March in China, with "re-education camps" for the elite and intellectuals. The peasants there didn't appreciate logic and facts either.

One might want to reconsider pissing off a large segment of people by using condescending language and tone, calling them "deplorables", calling them racist, nazis, homophobes, etc., and telling them they just don't understand logic and facts.

[Al_U_Card]

ldrews, on 2017-September-01, 13:03, said:

One might want to reconsider pissing off a large segment of people by using condescending language and tone, calling them "deplorables", and telling them they just don't understand logic and facts.

Everything espoused concerning "those" that don't understand, accept untrue facts, cannot reason etc. can be equally applied to both sides of the political spectrum. The shading just makes certain "facts" and "ideas" more palatable depending on the perspective. This polarization appears to be promoted by the media and by the leaders of both extremes. Gould thought he could pay one half of the commoners to kill the other half but it looks like our own oligarchs have found a way for us to pay no attention to them (behind the curtain) and to focus our energies on the "other" half.

The only way to win, is not to play that particular game. It will be hardest for the ones that feel that they hold the moral high ground and that they need to show the rest just what is right and what is wrong.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-01, 13:03, said:

The elite felt secure in their dominant positions, epitomized by Marie Antionette's famouse remark "Let them eat cake!! (which today is widely misunderstood, "cake" at that time referred to the leftover crust from baking bread).

If you're going to provide your little lectures, please try to get the basic facts correct.

The quote was “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche”

Not sure where you learned French or baking, but "brioche" has nothing to do with leftover bread crusts

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-01, 14:35, said:

If you're going to provide your little lectures, please try to get the basic facts correct.

The quote was "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

Not sure where you learned French or baking, but "brioche" has nothing to do with leftover bread crusts

The Wikipedia goes on about this:
https://en.wikipedia...arie_Antoinette

Quote

"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", supposedly spoken by "a great princess" upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was a luxury bread enriched with butter and eggs, the quote would reflect the princess's disregard for the peasants, or her poor understanding of their situation.

While the phrase is commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette,^[1] there is no record of her having said it. It appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, his autobiography (whose first six books were written in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was nine years of age, and published in 1782). The context of Rousseau's account was his desire to have some bread to accompany some wine he had stolen; however, feeling he was too elegantly dressed to go into an ordinary bakery, he recollected the words of a "great princess".^[2] As he wrote in Book 6:

Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.^[2]

At length I recollected the thoughtless saying of a great princess, who, on being informed that the country people had no bread, replied, "Then let them eat pastry!"

Rousseau does not name the "great princess" and he may have invented the anecdote, as Confessions was, on the whole, not a very reliable autobiography.

And definitely nobody should take my word for either French translation nor French history. But possibly Marie Antoinette has been maligned in this quote. Fake News! Nonetheless, she did go to the guillotine. But not for any comments about bread, cake or pastry:




https://en.wikipedia...arie_Antoinette

Quote

During the Revolution, after the government had placed the royal family under house arrest in the Tuileries Palace in October 1789, several events linked to Marie Antoinette, in particular the June 1791 attempted flight to Varennes and her role in the War of the First Coalition, had disastrous effects on French popular opinion. On 10 August 1792, the attack on the Tuileries forced the royal family to take refuge at the Assembly, and on 13 August the family was imprisoned in the Temple. On 21 September 1792, the monarchy was abolished. After a two-day trial begun on 14 October 1793, Marie Antoinette was convicted by the Revolutionary Tribunal of high treason and executed by guillotine on the Place de la Révolution on 16 October 1793.

Also, George Washington did not confess to his father that he had cut down the cherry tree. I believe that crime remains unsolved.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-September-01, 15:25, said:

And definitely nobody should take my word for either French translation nor French history. But possibly Marie Antoinette has been maligned in this quote. Fake News!

Yes, most historians do not believe she really used those words. What that has to do with leftover bread crusts is beyond me though. A little like defending smearing your opponent as being in charge of a paedophile ring by saying that the whole thing was made up so not to worry about any details being wrong.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-01, 14:35, said:

If you're going to provide your little lectures, please try to get the basic facts correct.

The quote was “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche”

Not sure where you learned French or baking, but "brioche" has nothing to do with leftover bread crusts

Ah, how perceptive! You are right, I do not speak French and was parroting what I have read elsewhere. But go ahead, ignore the main thought and pick on the details.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-01, 16:16, said:

Ah, how perceptive! You are right, I do not speak French and was parroting what I have read elsewhere. But go ahead, ignore the main thought and pick on the details.

No Larry,

The main point is that you constantly and mindlessly parrot "facts" that other people tell you.
You lack enough knowledge to know what is true and what is false.
You lack enough self knowledge to recognize that people treat you with derision because you go around lecturing your betters about things that you don't actually understand.

Yesterday it was the Presidential power to pardon
Today its an anecdote about Marie Antoinette
Tomorrow you'll probably be try to explain how we're all doomed unless we return to the gold standard or trying to explain bitcoin to me.

And I understand that this causes you to feel aggrieved because you like to think that you're smart and deserve respect.

Sorry mate. Perhaps its time to start swimming in a smaller pond...

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-01, 18:00, said:

No Larry,

The main point is that you constantly and mindlessly parrot "facts" that other people tell you.
You lack enough knowledge to know what is true and what is false.
You lack enough self knowledge to recognize that people treat you with derision because you go around lecturing your betters about things that you don't actually understand.

Yesterday it was the Presidential power to pardon
Today its an anecdote about Marie Antoinette
Tomorrow you'll probably be try to explain how we're all doomed unless we return to the gold standard or trying to explain bitcoin to me.

And I understand that this causes you to feel aggrieved because you like to think that you're smart and deserve respect.

Sorry mate. Perhaps its time to start swimming in a smaller pond...

Excuse me, were you just lecturing me?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-01, 18:00, said:

No Larry,

The main point is that you constantly and mindlessly parrot "facts" that other people tell you.
You lack enough knowledge to know what is true and what is false.
You lack enough self knowledge to recognize that people treat you with derision because you go around lecturing your betters about things that you don't actually understand.

Yesterday it was the Presidential power to pardon
Today its an anecdote about Marie Antoinette
Tomorrow you'll probably be try to explain how we're all doomed unless we return to the gold standard or trying to explain bitcoin to me.

And I understand that this causes you to feel aggrieved because you like to think that you're smart and deserve respect.

Sorry mate. Perhaps its time to start swimming in a smaller pond...

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing. If so, it would explain the hostility you express to someone who does not share your views.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-September-01, 20:16, said:

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing. If so, it would explain the hostility you express to someone who does not share your views.

It seems to me that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are afflicted with significant levels of hypocrisy. Also, I haven't seen any convincing statistical evidence by behavioral scientists that suggests that one political party is more prone to this vice than the other.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-01, 19:52, said:

Excuse me, were you just lecturing me?

No. I was calling you stupid.
Next time, I'll use smaller words and a more simple sentence structure.

Sorry.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-01, 20:16, said:

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing.

I have been accused of a variety of sins. Lack of empathy and being an asshole normally top the list.
Being an idiot, grossly misinformed, lacking basic information...

That hasn't happened so far.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-30, 00:41, said:

A recap from 538 through the lens of historical precedent.

The difference from all the others is that this crime was committed against the judiciary and the judiciary brought the charges to compel compliance. Without the power to compel, the judicial system is powerless and the rule of law becomes a meaningless phrase.

"The rule of law" refers to the concept that a nation should be governed by laws rather than the ideas of individuals. When the president interferes with the ability of the judicial system to compel compliance, he attacks the separation of powers.