Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
Easier said than done. On both sides.
OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
Easier said than done. On both sides.
Kerouac
weird musical dildo
http://www.spin.com/2016/09/trump-w...ebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=timeline
Newt Gingrich, who serves as an adviser to Trump, said Clinton’s insistence on moderators working to deliver a factual debate makes her look “weak” and “afraid of Trump.” Another Trump spokesperson took it even farther Sunday night on MSNBC, saying Holt shouldn’t refute even the most outrageous of lies from Trump.
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/780184448092471296
MSNBC rn on moderators factchecking: "What if Trump says Hillary was president during 9/11?" Trump spox: "That's for Hillary to refute."
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/780184448092471296
MSNBC rn on moderators factchecking: "What if Trump says Hillary was president during 9/11?" Trump spox: "That's for Hillary to refute."
mongooz
.
Trump knows more about ISIS than all of the generals do. he said so.
Theodore
I gotta move
tiger roach
Urban Bovine Knievel
Presumable there will be adult beverages, mocking and jeering.
Sounds like one way I might be able to endure watching...
GDSmithTX
Corporate cog
Quoth me: "Newt Gingrich is a fucking moron who will say any damned thing, no matter how unbelievably ridiculous because his supporters will lap it up like fresh puke"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...ust-how-unscientific-america-is/#5fc2572f2832
Is violent crime down? It seems like a simple enough question: one that everyone could agree on if we had the facts. Presumably, all you’d have to do would be to gather the statistics on violent crime over time, and see whether they had gone down. If they had, then violent crime is down, and that should be the end of the story. You would assume that would be the only reasonable way to decide!
But in an appearance on CNN at the end of last month, Newt Gingrich told a different story, one that should make us all fear what’s become of the world where we can’t agree on a conclusion even given the same set of facts.
[ can't embed the video for some reason ]
There are three different lines of thinking he explores, and they should all terrify you.
- The full suite of facts doesn’t say what you want it to say, so you pick out the few facts that support your non-factual position and talk about them.
- The average American doesn’t think that the facts says what they actually say, and that alone should be a basis for both voting and policymaking.
- And that what people feel about an issue is more important than what the actual facts behind the issue are.
What Newt Gingrich is supporting, though, is a step that’s even worse than our failings as people. He’s supporting actively misleading people about the facts to appeal to their gut, their beliefs and their preconceptions, and to use those lies to gain power and enact policy. Immediately after citing his cherry-picked statistics that show small pockets of uptick in crime amidst an ocean of crime decreases, he says, ”The average American, I will bet you this morning, does not think that crime is down, does not think that we are safer,” and then follows that up with, “People feel more threatened. As a political candidate, I’ll go with what people feel,” rather than the actual facts.
People’s feelings about crime rates, in more detail. Image credit: Gallup’s annual Crime survey, conducted Oct. 3-6, 2013.
What should we do about this? Are we okay knowing that we have these biases, that power-seeking people are manipulating those biases and lying about factual issues? Without having the full suite of expert-level knowledge at our disposal, the training of an expert in a particular field or the analysis tools of an expert, can we put our own egos aside and listen to the conclusions of the scientific experts? Most of us are uncomfortable with relying on others — even experts — even when we ourselves don’t have expert knowledge, expert training or the expertise of the full suite of all relevant facts. Particle physicist Brian Cox recently discussed this, saying:
It’s entirely wrong, and it’s the road back to the cave. The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct. Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something. You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.
The facts do not change because of how we interpret (or misinterpret) them. Homeopathy is scientifically, robustly 100% ineffective against cancer. Fluoridated water results in a blanket 40% reduction in cavities, on average, on top of any other dental health programs in children. Violent crime has continued to decrease in America, continuing a trend that has persisted for more than 20 years. (You can read Newt continue to dissemble here.)
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I’m not a fan of moderators fact-checking debates. There’s so much misinformation out there that the partisans will just cast the entire debate as an attack by a partisan moderator (as they did after Candy Crowley fact-checked during a 2012 debate). And politicians would start trying to weave webs of words to trap their opponents, which would be painful to watch and just make people tune out. Let the candidates fact-check each other. Or just keep doing it online, or on the side of the scree, in real-time, as it’s been done for most debates over the last decade.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
Chad
Slender Hobbit
I have come up with the best solution for debates. Put both candidates in individual isolation booths like they had on Name That Tune. Their mics are muted. The moderator asks a question and then unmutes the persons mic. If they start going off on some prewritten response that doesn't address the question, their mic is muted and their time is over. When they go to the other one, if they just try to bad mouth their opponent without answering the question, their mic is muted.
micwalt
Too Controversial To Have An Athleisure Line
Excellent idea!
shoeless
Riffin'
That would be awesome.
Theodore
I gotta move
EXTREME VETTING.
mongooz
.
i'm not going to watch the debates because nothing either one of them says is going to change how i vote. that was decided with the event in cleveland.
i'm going to go ahead and presume more than 50% of what Trump says is either a gross exaggeration or our right lie and the other 50% is either self aggrandizing or an attack on Clinton. i don't need moderators to tell me what was bullshit and what wasn't.
i'm going to go ahead and presume more than 50% of what Trump says is either a gross exaggeration or our right lie and the other 50% is either self aggrandizing or an attack on Clinton. i don't need moderators to tell me what was bullshit and what wasn't.
jelloman
Couch'd Tater...
smurfco
Meatus McPrepuce
Fixed
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I tend to agree. Unless Hillary comes out in a Klan robe and burns a cross onstage I’m not voting for Trump.
- Status