Trump - Clown Genius

[jennypenny]

@brute--I laugh at some of the people I know who've changed their handles to #deplorableTim or #deplorableSue etc. The comment definitely backfired. I figured Clinton was trying to reference Despicable Me and misspoke.

@thedinosaur -- To be honest, she couldn't have won me over. I have a terminal case of Clinton fatigue. I could have been convinced to vote for Biden and probably Sanders. I might still be convinced not to vote for Trump. I can't see any way though that she would ever get my vote.

She could have won over others by listening to people's specific grievances and acknowledging the economic conditions that have frustrated so many of Trump's supporters. A lot of the anti-immigrant movement stems from people being unemployed or underemployed. That, combined with an influx of immigrants competing for those jobs, has led to much of the acrimony.

@PoI--They also had a headline today that said something like "Clinton speaks directly to white people." I agreed with Clinton's comments in the article, but the headline was so ... odd. Like she was communicating with other white people telepathically or something. With so many unemployed liberal arts majors out there, I'm always surprised that news outlets can't find better writers.

[BRUTE]

You've implied that there is something Clinton could have done to win you over, or some such.

whom is this directed to?

[ThisDinosaur]

@brute. It was directed at jennypenny. But if you or anyone wants to weigh in on how Trump or Clinton could win your vote, I'm genuinely interested. This thread and the HRC one has focused on how these two have put us off. How, hypothetically, could an alt universe Trump or Clinton win you over?

[ThisDinosaur]

Unrelated:, Trump Jr.'s Skittles argument is well crafted and worth addressing. The "offended" MSNBC crowd is missing the point, possibly on purpose.

[GandK]

How, hypothetically, could an alt universe Trump or Clinton win you over?

I believe that resource distribution is the political issue. It's at the heart of immigration, of taxes, of "the economy," welfare, defense spending, you name it. When all the smoke of victimization and wrongs and hurt feelings clears, what you're left with is a math problem. And the more on point a candidate remains with regard to that, the more I respect him or her even if that candidate's ideas about distribution are not the same as mine. I want to know that's where their head is. It's the only way to get to a solution. But that is not likely for either major candidate, because both have been sucked into the victim language vortex. I do not give a **** who said what about who; the world does not owe anyone a hug. I just want someone who expects to be my paid public servant to put his big boy pants on and deal with the actual math. (As opposed to magic partisan math.)

[BRUTE]

brute doesn't think it's a math problem, but it is about resource allocation. the problem is that the different crowds have mutually exclusive expectations. in a zero-sum game like this, politics is war.

brute has mentioned this before in this forum, he thinks. in any given society, the job of politics is to turn zero-sum games into positive-sum games. this does not work in all societies. if a society is polarized enough or otherwise incohesive, no amount or type of politics can achieve this transformation. thus, the society starts spinning out of control, which is reflected in crazier and crazier politics.

on another note, it's an interesting thought that the type/form of politics likely doesn't matter much. any form of -cracy would likely work in a small, rich, homogeneous society (Sweden sans immigration). and no form will work in a huge, divided, unequal society (US, Brazil).

the better solution would likely be redrawing the lines where they make more sense, and keeping them fluid. but of course the lines aren't purely geographic. maybe a sort of Snow Crash style voluntary phyle system.

edit: oh yea, there's nothing either Clinton or Trump could do to convince brute. unless they turn into far out libertarians (way further than The Johnson).

[ThisDinosaur]

I didn't feel your Bern, now you feel my Johnson.

I once heard an interview with HRC where the interviewer pressed the issue about her lateness to the party on supporting gay marriage. Rather than give an even slightly human answer, she bullied the reporter until it was too uncomfortable to continue. I couldn't help but imagine how her policy history was completely defensible in the hands of a more skilled wordsmith.

I think trump, as a charismatic, populist, political outsider, could have run a very different campaign. This is all fantasy, ofcourse, because they have both proven that they stand for absolutely nothing but their own egos. But I like imagining that someone articulate quantum leaps into either candidate and starts defending all of their previous statements in some sensible, cohesive way.

[Dragline]

Unrelated:, Trump Jr.'s Skittles argument is well crafted and worth addressing. The "offended" MSNBC crowd is missing the point, possibly on purpose.

The problem with the argument is not about people and candies, but that its innumerate and thereby represents a false threat designed to justify more government control of individuals to "keep you safe". You would probably need 3 poison skittles in a swimming pool full of them to have an analogous situation, especially if you are only talking about risks from illegal immigrant terrorists.

"From current media headlines, one might perceive that terrorism is common everywhere, and most common in Western societies. This perception is erroneous. From the Global Terrorism Database maintained at the University of Maryland, "The Middle East and North Africa region is where terrorism is by far the most common. With nearly 6,000 incidents last year [2015], the region experienced 40 percent of all terrorist attacks; South Asia was second with about 4,600 incidents." Worldwide there were almost 15,000 terrorism incidents in 2015 and 38,000 deaths. The largest of such attacks occurred in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Niger and Egypt, accounting for about 2,000 deaths. The most significant attack in the West, which was the 23rd biggest overall, occurred in Paris and resulted in 92 deaths.

By contrast, In the United States, there were 38 attacks with 44 deaths in 2015. The most significant attacks were the San Bernardino shootings, which resulted in 16 deaths, and the Charleston church shootings, which resulted in 9 deaths and were committed by an unaffiliated individual. Thus, terrorist incidents in the United States accounted for approximately 0.2% of incidents worldwide and 0.1% of all deaths due to terrorism worldwide in 2015. According to the GTD, total fatalities due to terrorism in the United States from 1995 through 2014 amounted to 3264 deaths in 510 attacks, of which 3003 deaths occurred on 9/11, meaning that all other attacks accounted for about 261 deaths in a 20-year period.

For alternative comparison purposes, we might consider that approximately 200 deaths per year in the U.S. are caused by animals, with bees and wasps leading the way at 58 on average. Approximately 300 people are struck by lightning each year in the United States, resulting in about 30 deaths per year. In 2015 there were 986 deaths in the United States from shootings by police. Traffic fatalities average about 33,000 per year, or about 90 deaths on an average day. Thus, more Americans die in traffic accidents every month or two than have been killed in all terrorist attacks combined in the last 20 years, even including 9/11."

[jacob]

[BRUTE]

lol Colombia and Philipines.. wow.

@Dragline

so it was 22.5x more likely to be shot by the police than killed by a terrorist in the US in 2015? also wow. and: fuck wasps. they don't even make honey and kill more humans than terrorists.

[BRUTE]

that number probably includes criminals. still, the bees kill more. although that might include beekeepers. hm.

[jennypenny]

I think the randomness of terrorism makes it so disconcerting. If a person is afraid of something like flying, they can avoid air travel. We can argue about whether they *should* be afraid of air travel, but there's still a measure of control for the person. It's why I also don't like comparisons to things like death from lightning. That presumes a person is outside during a storm. Again, most people would choose to avoid putting themselves at risk. What scares people about random violence is the unavoidability of it.

Another disturbing aspect is motive. Some motives are more tolerable than others, and death without motive (like the bee example) is viewed as just a tragic part of life. No one is trying to convince the bees to kill certain people, and lightning isn't hoping to kill as many people as possible when it strikes.


So ... turns out one of you is on the other forum. Small world. At least I know I'm not the only conspiracy nut here.

[GandK]

Surprisingly sympathetic CNN piece that echoes how the Trump-supporting people in my own hometown seem to feel:

The Forgotten Tribe

I cannot find it in myself to get worked up about conspiracies, terrorism, lightning or bees. Cut me off in traffic, however...

[Dragline]

You are correct that the chances are few that I will die or someone I know will die in a terrorist attack in the United States. Currently. What you are failing to detail is the fact that we have the power to hopefully limit future events. And I think it is a little misleading to assume an event like 9-11 can't happen again with massive death tolls. The Orlando terrorist exceeded the death toll of 2015 in one night of shooting.

To me, if we have an option to prevent future events through more rigorous standards to become a U.S. citizen , then we should unapologetically take it. We should also note what other countries are experiencing in regards to certain immigrant groups, and not just the threat of violence. What's troubling to me is that some of our most recent terrorists are the children of immigrants that clearly were never integrated into our culture. That should be noted, as well as other troubling facts, and if that means less immigrants from certain ideologies, then so be it. Our national interests and safety come first.

Point it, we don't have the power to prevent people from mass murder in a free society and you are just fooling yourself if you think we do. As we say, freedom is not free. It's going to happen unless you want to live in a police state, and historically its not even new. The only thing that changes is whether the perpetrators are anarchists, religious fanatics, home grown revolutionaries like the OKC bomber, etc. Or just whack jobs.

But these events are so statistically improbable that implementing whole new programs of government controls targeted at particular people isn't likely to make any significant difference, either statistically or because determined individuals will just find another way. If you really believed in "preventing future events" as a top priority, you'd be advocating for things like more gun control. But there is a reason why people always want more government control over "people that are not like them": It doesn't cost them anything personally. Its all the same sentiment, though, disguised with b.s. rationalizations about why things that aren't big threats should be treated like bigger threats that they are because they "feel different".

Another example of irrational fears leading to dumb decisions: "in the year or two after 9/11 many people refused to fly and logged many more miles driving long distances. Since driving is more dangerous than flying, it is estimated that there were 1500 additional highway deaths -- more than all of the people that died in the planes that were hijacked."

On Orlando, the real statistic you should pay attention to is that it was an extremely rare event. Most years you don't have anything like than.

Fact is, our efforts to identify potential terrorists have been largely successful, and these people are largely pathetic. The FBI knew who the last guy was long before he did anything -- we don't need new systems of control if people just do a little bit better job doing their jobs.

[Dragline]

At least I know I'm not the only conspiracy nut here.

You know, I can "name every nut there was": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGmNqzbsuiY

[jennypenny]

LOL! That's the only movie of theirs I haven't seen. I'll have to watch it.

[BRUTE]

@ffj:

in a way, terrorist deaths aren't "random", either. there is no random in the real world, there's just causation not being understood.

brute's theory is basically that there are always a few fringe-nuts that are susceptible to being talked into dumb shit by anyone who'll make them feel like they belong. but they don't pick suicide bombing and mass shootings if there's something better out there for them.

ffj can say what he will about 9/11, but there was plenty of meddling in the Middle East for decades before that. blowback is a thing.

and as far as brute knows, Muslim immigrants in France and Belgium were settled down into project-type suburbs where integration was unlikely, educational and economic progress almost impossible, and they were basically treated like 2nd class citizens. once there's a large enough group of people that are being treated like shit in some way, and have no prospects in their lives, the predisposed ones among them will likely take on ANY ideology that tells them they're victims of an inhuman system and that they should violently fight it. also see how France's first political reaction to the massacre was bombing more random people in the Middle East.

it's likely not just economic factors. any human who feels oppressed or victimized in their own mind will be susceptible to an ideology that gives them relief. the Orlando dude might have been a suppressed homosexual himself, according to some reports. bombing random humans that happen to live in the same region as terrorists is a surefire way to anger their surviving families. some humans are just nuts, period.

preventing contact with a violent ideology (ISIS) is hard in the age of the internet. so presenting the susceptible humans with a peaceful way out of their perceived misery might be a better strategy.

[oldbeyond]

I can't think of any western european country were muslim immigrants have not received citizenship and full access to the welfare state. There has also been a lot of accomodation from political and cultural elites. For example, honour killings at first swept under the rug and perpetrators sentenced extremely leniently with explicit reference to tolerance for their cultural background. Obviously socioeconomic outcomes have not harmonized, but neither have hispanics' and whites' in the US. This "humanistic" line of argument boils down to the Us being evil instead of the Them.

Basically Western Europe has done what is possible for a political entity and a cultural gemeinschaft to do in a modern liberal democratic setting. If more is required, it's the concept that is flawed, not the execution.

[BRUTE]

they've certainly done some things, and they think they did well. but not all of the immigrated are happy with it. as brute said, it's perceived. maybe some of these individuals don't consider access to welfare state the height of what it means to be a 1st class citizen.

who determines what "more" is, or how it should be done?

[jacob]

I think risk perception theory explains this disagreement rather well! Based on much study, it is known that ...

* Personal control increases risk tolerance. So, for example, people will find driving safer than flying even if it's not, because they have their own personal albeit amateurish hands on the steering wheel rather than a professional pilot on the stick.

* Institutional control increases or decrease risk tolerance proportional to one's faith in the relevant institution. So, for example, some who has little faith in the government will think that something becomes more risky once the government gets involved. And vice versa.

* Voluntariness increases risk tolerance. So, for example, people are willing to accept more risk if they feel like it's their decision to do so, e.g. sky-diving or smoking and not something they have imposed on them, e.g. terrorism or pollution.

* Dread decreases risk tolerance. So, for example, people are willing to accept less risk if the outcome is considered more dreadful, e.g. a plane crash, compared to one that is considered less dreadful, e.g. a car crash.

* Familiarity increases risk tolerance. So, for example, terrorist attacks in Israel is a common problem so people just live with them (much like Americans live with guns or cars), whereas in the US they are so rare that people still run around like headless chicken. (Conversely, in a country like Denmark where gun laws are draconic, it's a very big deal if someone gets shot with a gun.)

* Artificiality decreases risk tolerance. So, if the risk is due to some complicated technology, like nuclear power, people are less willing to tolerate it than a equal risk of death from something familiar like coal power.

So let's contrast and compare two approximately equally probably ways to die in the US: Death by Terrorism vs Death by Falling Furniture.

Terrorism has no personal control, it's generally felt that the government is incompetent, the risk is obviously involuntary, it's dreadful, unfamiliar, and artificial. Terrorism checks ALL boxes thus leading people to believe it's much riskier than it is.

Falling furniture is under your personal and noninstitutional control. You can voluntarily choose to [not] secure the furniture and it's pretty easy to see how and why it works, so the risk is neither dreadful nor artificial. Just attach the TV or stove correctly to the wall. Falling furniture checks NONE of the boxes, and thus people don't even bother securing their furniture thus ironically making furniture as dangerous as terrorism actually is.

There are similar biases in regards to whether the risk kills a lot of people at once (worse), imminent (worse), or locally (worse).