Page 91 of 103

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:53 pm
by jacob
@Campitor - I don't .. even ... know... where to .. begin with that. Conflict of interest maybe? Of course, US higher ed. institutions are going to do their best to fight for continued international enrollment: "Despite what gov may say, we will continue to promote our previous business plan and tell prospective customers [meaning students] what they want to hear. Please keep coming our way paying full price for many semesters". Those institutions got everything to lose now! There's no question that academic institutions desire an increase in int. enrollment. For one, it's direct money. Int student pay full price. That's the primary objective.

For secondary long term growth they depend on research (tier one stuff ... so publications and research accolade) for several decades by now. Research success leads to secondary enrollment for the tails. You get this spiel during every Big10 et al. football commercials. Some professor of some research group talking about how their research is "making a difference" inviting gullible teenagers to join up and try. I fell for this too. Alright, already, but it screws over 90% of individuals. But then these guys (me and similars) go and do other stuff like industry or ERE or whatever. This is all good for us common folks.

However, in terms of large effects, only the good and rare stuff matters ... so please don't dilute the argument with hundreds of podunk institutions ... These are all good and fine doing important stuff for the general economy by educating people for industry but they're not what drives things forward for the national economy staying competitive :-P Hmm.. that prob. sounds way too elitist ... but unfortunately that's how techmological evolution seems to work. I posted a link from Forbes above about how 40% of Fortune500 companies derive from immigrants. So this does determine whether you live in a country that's a superpower ... or something else.

The question is whether those who matter really [that is, the students deciding to enroll or abstain] believes in their personal ROI vs those ideas. Think of a US degree as a product but being promoted by how the US is perceived by the rest of the world? Then discount it by cost and convenience ... So your random above average intelligent 23 year old now has to balance 3 factors according to what they read in the news to make their decision ... If you're "hot shit"... where do you go to maximize your opportunities.

When I'm talking about long term consequences, I don't mean the average C, B, A student know puts in time and money to get their foot in the door. I'm talking A++ grade movers and shakers ... both the good and evil ones.

This is how the world system works ...

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:00 pm
by Campitor
jacob wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:53 pm
However, in terms of large effects, only the good and rare stuff matters ... so please don't dilute the argument with hundreds of podunk institutions ... These are all good and fine doing important stuff for the general economy by educating people for industry but they're not what drives things forward for the national economy staying competitive :-P Hmm.. that prob. sounds way too elitist ... but unfortunately that's how techmological evolution seems to work. I posted a link from Forbes above about how 40% of Fortune500 companies derive from immigrants. So this does determine where you live in a country that's a superpower ... or something else.
I agree with your statement and I don't think it's elitist. I wasn't trying to dilute the argument with podunk institutions but I was wondering if the survey actually contained any responses from any Universities that aren't podunk in status. 250 responses were returned - how do I know if those responses came from MeatHead University and their ilk or good STEM institutes like Cornell, MIT, or Caltech? Or maybe the 35% who saw increases in foreign enrollments are Caltech, MIT, Cornell, etc., thereby the A++ future is safeguarded?

I just can't accept survey results when I can't see the underlying data. The linked surveys could be 100% legitimate or they could be trying to push an agenda that nets them more donations and government funding under the guise of foreign student enrollment drop-off. If foreign enrollments keep increasing either the amount of foreigners are getting smarter, the amount of Americans dumber :roll: , or colleges are lowering the acceptance standards for foreign enrollments...or perhaps a combination of all three? Or maybe none of this applies and foreign student enrollment is increasing as a byproduct of America's expanding economy and its corollary STEM requirements.

Data, data, data...I can't make bricks without clay...

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:05 pm
by BRUTE
brute would like to underscore Riggerjack's comment about "perfect was not an option".

brute likes this analogy: party A drives a car way too fast, approaching a tight turn. party A speeds into the corner, and lets go of the wheel, saying "everything went great so far". the options at this point are full stop or crash, making the turn is not an option. no matter who gets behind the wheel.

this is how the current situation feels like to brute. what's being compared by jacob et al is "crashing" or "making a full stop" with "making the turn at full speed", which is not physically possible. physically possible, if translated into the political landscape, would be whatever force governs the political system, part deep state, part electorate, probably more.

while it would have been nice to continue going full speed in one direction and still make the turn, that was not a possible option. the other party should have thought about that before they set this situation up.

in fact, Democrats are to blame for Trump. if Democrats hate Trump so much, why'd they make him President?

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:48 pm
by Campitor
...in fact, Democrats are to blame for Trump. if Democrats hate Trump so much, why'd they make him President?
They made Donald-Duck-Trump President because they thought Hillary was going to steam roll him. They pegged Trump as an idiot New York rube who couldn't manage a streak in his underwear never mind a presidential campaign. They thought they were campaigning against a simpleton but they were really fighting a mafia style thug. He threatened to have Hillary arrested if he became president - this seem to really rattle her. He brought some of Bill Clinton's rape accusers to the final debate - a move that could have been written into one of the Godfather movies; Trump is Michael Corleone. The dems brought a rusty dull knife to a gun fight. The Dems thought it was a chess match but Trump turned it into a bare knuckle brawl. The dems better find someone other than Hillary to run in 2020 or it's going to be a 2nd term of the apprentice POTUS style...

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:02 am
by BRUTE
brute thinks that Hillary and her loss are just consequences or symptoms of the deeper problems Dems have/caused.

during Obama's 2nd term, the US changed, and not in a good way, brute thinks. it wasn't that any very specific or dramatic acts happened. it was more of an accumulation, a reaching of various tipping points, and a lack of other things happening. not all of these are directly the Dems' fault, but maybe part of a related cultural change.

- PC culture changed from "humans should be nice to each other" to an Orwellian police "state" situation
- disdain and open contempt for certain (major) parts of the population became official, accepted, encouraged (cultural/media "globalism" and "elitism")
- it became clear that the economic trouble caused by the 08 crash wasn't going to get better for all segments of the economy (economic "globalism" and "elitism"), and that Dems didn't have any economic solutions besides screeching "minimum wage" and "corporations"
- it became clear that Obama wasn't going to do any of the actual liberal things he had promised, it was just Bush 3, with the money going into different pockets. more war, more bombing, more drones, more surveillance, more drug war, more corruption, more partisanship. brute isn't arguing that Bush was better at this (or Trump), but the Dems basically proved they were lying about the moral high ground during 2000-2008 and would abuse power as soon as they had the chance. this realization took about all of Obama's 1st term to settle in, maybe even half of the 2nd.
- Dems proved that they would bury any challenge to party line thought, against the wishes of their base, burying Bernie. brute is no socialist, but clearly a lot of humans loved Bernie. squashed.
- Dems gave up on Economics, settling for "this is as good as it's going to get, better redistribute what's there now".
- Dems fixated on partisan BS issues that didn't fix any actual problems, like gun control (assault rifles are not a real problem in this country), ACA (didn't fix anything long term), various other kicking of cans down roads.

all of these, and more, created a situation in which it was time for change. Hillary was just a product of this problematic environment - corrupt, incompetent, unlikable. again, brute is not arguing that Trump is any better, just that he was inevitable.

all this crap is the metaphorical pushing of a car past it's physical limits into a tight corner, fully knowing that an election (change of drivers) was going to happen right in the beginning of the corner.

as a possible alternative to this inevitability, brute would consider a hypothetical win of Romney in 2012. Romney, as centrist a Republican as is possible these days. Governor of Taxachussetts. instituted RomneyCare. a Mormon, for fuck's sake.

during a Romney presidency, PC would probably not have escalated to these absurd levels of madness. regulations would have been kept in check, so the economy would've grown a bit more. the globalism/elitism thing would've probably not improved, but at least slowed down, if only due to regime change and different messaging. Obama fans could've argued that he didn't have enough time, becoming less disillusioned.

Democrats get to be angry, but they don't get to be surprised. they made this happen - maybe through sheer greed or incompetence, but they don't get to blame other humans for the consequences.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:48 am
by Campitor
@Brute

I agree with all your statements - the loss to Donald-your-fired-Trump was the final miscalculation of a campaign that was guaranteed to lose. Sucky nominee, sucky platform, sucky campaign strategy. But they really did underestimate Trump. Everyone keeps thinking he's stupid. He may be stupid in the sophisticated sense but he fits the shrewd mob boss model very well. I'm not saying he is a mob boss but he certainly plays by their handbook. I voted for neither candidate - I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in free markets and limited government - I didn't think I'd get either with Hillary or Donald. And I'd certainly wouldn't have gotten it with Bernie.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:28 am
by Riggerjack
Well, I went to the Democratic primary (where I voted Bernie, like nearly everyone else).

Had the Democratic party run Bernie, he would have won, but we would still be in the same boat.

Bernie would have been a extreme left President, with Congress lined up against him, no political capital, and the deep state in rebellion.

The issues would be feel good, instead of the current look bad issues. But that would be the only real change.

Bernie would have been Jimmy Carter all over again.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:03 am
by Chad
jacob wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:03 pm
However, I worry about the potential long-term fallout in terms of US leadership on the tech and culture front/innovation as well as national security risks because the US does not exist in isolation independent of the rest of the world. Most of this will go unseen and not be directly attributable, so in some sense it's "all theory", but let me give an example that's pertinent to anyone reading this, I think.
This has been my point all along. The US has not been the economic, tech, and cultural leader of the world by any inherent exceptionalism in the citizens of the US. It has been through good luck (giant moats on both sides, longest navigable river system in the world, large deposits of natural resources, WWII, built on back of British Empire, etc.), good policies (open markets, fairly open borders, public education, etc.), and strong positive national culture/story (American Dream, risk taking, "cowboy way", more accepting of immigrants than most other places, etc.).

We are currently seeing some of these advantages be eroded. Some examples (these examples are entire topics unto themselves):

- TPP: Rejecting it hurts US soft-power and creates a vacuum China will probably fill. What does the US get for rejecting it? The US probably doesn't even get short-term gains in manufacturing jobs and, if it does, they are going away for good in 5-10 years.

- Paris Agreement: Rejecting it hurts US soft-power and will make it more difficult for the US to keep up in the tech race for alternative energy.

- Wall/Muslim Ban/Anti-immigration: Again, a negative to US soft-power, reduces population growth (1 of 2 key macro variables in current economic system), and makes it less likely Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, etc. start the next big thing in the US. An argument could also be made that it makes the US less safe long-term, but safer short-term.

- Lying/Fake News/non-Facts Facts: Yes, all politicians lie, but the extent of it and the level of anti-fact rhetoric coming out of the administration is way above anyone in the past. If this becomes accepted/norm our culture is negatively impacted.

- Needlessly antagonizing closest allies/Disrespecting closest allies/Supporting States and totalitarian leader actions we wouldn't in the past (and we supported a lot of questionable stuff previously): Again, soft power is damaged and it's damaged for no good reason, as nothing is gained.

These are just some examples of things done by the administration that aren't "meteor impact" level events when done, but are more akin to water slowly smoothing out a rock in the stream. They are hard to measure in the short-term, but blatantly obvious in the long-term.

Now, all of the negatives associated with the above are not 100% caused by the items listed above. However, they will add more speed, force, etc. to those negatives and to the issues below:

Where are all the startups? U.S. entrepreneurship near 40-year low
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- ... 871a48d6ce

Lack of social mobility
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... me/399311/

US citizens don't move for economic reasons like they used too
http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/13/w ... ans-movin1

Americans more risk averse
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 2903760052
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 4edcf5c789

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:03 am
by Dragline
Seems like a symptom of part of a long-term decline or "hollowing out" for vast swaths of the country: https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-amer ... ?mod=e2twe

I wonder what these people will do when their situation continues to deteriorate and their savior can't save them with any of the aforementioned policies (or otherwise)?

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:57 am
by George the original one
Dragline wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:03 am
I wonder what these people will do when their situation continues to deteriorate and their savior can't save them with any of the aforementioned policies (or otherwise)?
Sagebrush rebellion part III? Or will it be called Appalachian uprising?

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:55 pm
by cmonkey
Appalachian Spring

More seriously, any uprising would be directed not at Trump for failing but at a system that wouldn't let him 'get 'er done'. They seem pretty devoted.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:51 pm
by BRUTE
Campitor wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:48 am
But they really did underestimate Trump. Everyone keeps thinking he's stupid. He may be stupid in the sophisticated sense but he fits the shrewd mob boss model very well.
brute agrees 100%. Trump is stupid in the sense that a shark is stupid - if there's blood in the water, it doesn't matter that the shark isn't well-read.

brute notices this bias towards "sophisticated, educated intelligence" among left-leaning elites all the time. dear leader jacob strongly exhibits it on this forum. certain types of humans confuse their interpretation of intelligence with evolutionary/social fitness or general competence. this makes them underestimate Trump, misunderstand Trump, and sets them up for this absurd panic they're in right now, where they simply can't comprehend how a human as "stupid" as Trump (which in their world view equals ineffective) completely owned them. they then make up excuses like "flyover states" and "Appalachians" and "angry whites" and "popular vote", rather than confront their own cognitive dissonance.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:09 pm
by Dragline
NIce ad hominem. Got anything else?

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:12 pm
by jennypenny
I dunno. Trump may not be stupid, but his performance so far has been disappointing (at least to me). Can't get away with lewd and shrewd without the shrewd part.


That testimony today was disheartening. Everyone looked bad. Comey looked bad for leaking his notes. Trump looked bad for deliberately confronting Comey alone (even Sessions knew it was a bad idea and tried to stick around). Lynch looked bad for trying to influence Comey. The NYT and CNN both had stories debunked.

And McCain must have been drunk or something, not just because of the convoluted questioning but because he seemed to be defending Trump. When did they kiss and make up? Did I miss it?

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:20 pm
by jacob
BRUTE wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:51 pm
brute notices this bias towards "sophisticated, educated intelligence" among left-leaning elites all the time. dear leader jacob strongly exhibits it on this forum. certain types of humans confuse their interpretation of intelligence with evolutionary/social fitness or general competence.
Well, I'll totally own that I prefer the elite-option. I would prefer movies I watch to have elite actors because movies with shitty actors just generally suck. Sports is just better when the athletes are the best athletes and not the beer hockey team. In advertising, I prefer to look at models who are beautiful, not ugly. If I fly, I would fly with the company with the elite pilots. I don't care whether these people have any "sophisticated, educated intelligence" because it's not that material to acting, sports, modeling, or flying. Their evolutionary/social fitness doesn't really matter to me ... I'll take a cantankerous Dr House over a quack with supreme bedside manners who knows how to change an oil filter and cook a good meal.

When it comes to dealing with issues like the economy, the financial system, fixing health care and immigration, fighting wars, dealing with terrorism, ... and doing it in a way where all the pieces fit together, I'm not looking for the best flyer, the prettiest face, or the best cook. Here my preference would be for "sophisticated, educated intelligence", because I think that's the defining talent/requirement for dealing with a nuanced complex system.

As for general competence, I'm well-aware that "sophisticated, educated intelligence" doesn't necessarily translate into good driving skills, the ability to color-coordinate a good wardrobe, or a pleasant personality. Very well aware, thank you very much :P

However, I think in general most people prefer dealing with the person that has the highest talents for whatever problem they need to have solved, so that's typically the standard, that is, except when it comes to politics.

jacob notices this bias in certain other types of humans, namely the confused belief that general competence and a demonstration of evolutionary/social fitness somehow magically translates into sufficient intelligence, sophistication, and executive experience for the most complex job in the universe.

You wouldn't let someone perform surgery or teach middle school just because they own a plumbing business and has three children and 12 grandchildren and sound like someone you could have a beer with. Yet most people are willing to put people in political office because "Candidate X mows their lawn regularly and knows what it's like to be a parent". How's that for cognitive dissonance?

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:22 pm
by IlliniDave
jennypenny wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:12 pm

And McCain must have been drunk or something, not just because of the convoluted questioning but because he seemed to be defending Trump. When did they kiss and make up? Did I miss it?
Heck I even heard Piers Morgan somewhat espousing some of Trumps's positions while being pretty hard on the Mayor of London the other day.

About all I think we learned today is that there's not much to the Trump "colluding with Russia" stuff, and that although DT opened himself up to some eyebrow raising, he didn't do anything that rose to the level of full-blown obstruction of the overall Russia/election investigation. He clearly doesn't have much awareness of appearances regarding matters where it's best to avoid even the appearance of something questionable. That's a tough flaw to overcome these days.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:40 pm
by IlliniDave
jacob wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:20 pm
However, I think in general most people prefer dealing with the person that has the highest talents for whatever problem they need to have solved, so that's typically the standard, that is, except when it comes to politics.
That's fine to a point, but sometimes you need a General Grant or General Patton (both less sophisticated/talented than many of their contemporaries on paper) to just get in there and make it happen without letting perfect be the enemy of good. In a simple-minded sense there are men of thought and men of action. Clearly Trump is the latter and people judged (perhaps wrongly) that what the country needed was a man of action. I don't think the problem that people felt needed solving was that there was not enough thinking, philosophizing, and politicking going on. The problem was there wasn't enough good stuff happening in their view. Ideally a guy like Trump would surround him self with thinkers and philosophizers and politickers so he could better chart his actions. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:52 pm
by Chad
jennypenny wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:12 pm
And McCain must have been drunk or something, not just because of the convoluted questioning but because he seemed to be defending Trump. When did they kiss and make up? Did I miss it?
Too old. There is a minimum age for President, Senator, and Rep. No reason there shouldn't be a maximum. I recently saw a speech by GWB as governor compared to one when he was President. He actually sounded like he had a chance at Yale in the one when he was younger.

Lately, Bloomberg has been interviewing a ton of old geezers. It's agonizing. They can't keep up with the conversation, always stating the obvious, and almost never provide a unique thought on the subject.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:20 pm
by George the original one
IlliniDave wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:40 pm
Ideally a guy like Trump would surround him self with thinkers and philosophizers and politickers so he could better chart his actions. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case.
Bullies never surround themselves with thinkers and philosophizers. They're not interested in charting their actions.

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:21 pm
by Riggerjack
@ Jacob,
You had me until:
When it comes to dealing with issues like the economy, the financial system, fixing health care and immigration, fighting wars, dealing with terrorism, ... and doing it in a way where all the pieces fit together, I'm not looking for the best flyer, the prettiest face, or the best cook. Here my preference would be for "sophisticated, educated intelligence", because I think that's the defining talent/requirement for dealing with a nuanced complex system.
I thought you were familiar with democracy. When has "sophisticated, educated intelligence" been on the table, I must have missed it. It is just part of the antitrump reaction to mourn the loss of traits that were never an option. As though there weren't enough real reasons to resent the Douche.

We had a primary where the DNC gave us a choice between "not evil and not competent " and "both evil and competent". We got HRC because the DNC is more comfortable with evil than incompetence.

The GOP gave us Trump, because too many people were pissed at the GOP regulars.

I expect the same thing to happen to the DNC in 3 years. There won't be another HRC/Kerry type. Rejection of the mainstream is in the cards.