Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:49 pm I just mentioned those two because they had easy names to wookify.
Kylo WarRen
Bernie Sando Calrissian? No? I’ll work on it.
Greedo O’Rourke
Moderator: Global Moderator
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:49 pm I just mentioned those two because they had easy names to wookify.
Let's not forget the elephant in the room (praying his terrible pic-inserting skills will work)...dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:17 pmKriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:49 pm I just mentioned those two because they had easy names to wookify.
Kylo WarRen
Bernie Sando Calrissian? No? I’ll work on it.
Greedo O’Rourke
I’m saying I think the US media sucks and who knows how far the narrative is from reality. I also agree the same applies to how Democrats are portrayed on Fox, Rush etc. Agreed that people need to make their own conclusions; however, you don’t generally reach good conclusions if you don’t have good factual material to begin with.moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:53 amZero idea? No idea at all? Really? Just a big goddamn mystery isn't it...Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:03 pm I’ve zero idea what Trump is actually like. I do know there is a standard set of caricatures rolled out for Republican presidents. Rich, stupid, uncaring, unsophisticated, embarrassing to our allies, bumbling, in the pocket of corporations...as opposed to witty, urbane, sophisticated, a man of the people, cares about the working man, loved by our Allies (particularly European allies)...etc.
It really doesn’t matter what the person is or is not like, that IS going to be the narrative.
I mean it's possible that he is polished, professional and an expert negotiator behind closed doors, but we definitely have a pretty good sample of what he's "actually like."
But you DO know that there's a narrative "rolled out." Of course there is. There's always some narrative "rolled out." Fox News Rolled out a narrative for Obama. And Bush. So did MSNBC. So did every smaller news outlet. So did people around dinner tables. Every conceivable "narrative" was probably "rolled out." Adults should ignore these narratives, even if partially true, and try to come up with their own conclusions based on much more fact-based analysis.
What are you actually trying to say here? The only thing we know about Trump is what "thuh mediuh" is telling us in line with "their" narrative? Well that's ridiculous. We can know plenty without exposing ourselves to CNN garble.
I told you that your assertion that you have "zero idea" what Trump is actually like is ridiculous. Is that demeaning? I thought it was too obvious to ignore. If you find that demeaning, I have trouble figuring out how you have "zero idea" what Trump is actually like, as we have hundreds-if-not-thousands of hours of him actually behaving a certain way in a myriad of scenarios. Many of which are far-and-away more demeaning than calling an idea "ridiculous."Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:16 amI’m saying I think the US media sucks and who knows how far the narrative is from reality. I also agree the same applies to how Democrats are portrayed on Fox, Rush etc. Agreed that people need to make their own conclusions; however, you don’t generally reach good conclusions if you don’t have good factual material to begin with.moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:53 amZero idea? No idea at all? Really? Just a big goddamn mystery isn't it...Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:03 pm I’ve zero idea what Trump is actually like. I do know there is a standard set of caricatures rolled out for Republican presidents. Rich, stupid, uncaring, unsophisticated, embarrassing to our allies, bumbling, in the pocket of corporations...as opposed to witty, urbane, sophisticated, a man of the people, cares about the working man, loved by our Allies (particularly European allies)...etc.
It really doesn’t matter what the person is or is not like, that IS going to be the narrative.
I mean it's possible that he is polished, professional and an expert negotiator behind closed doors, but we definitely have a pretty good sample of what he's "actually like."
But you DO know that there's a narrative "rolled out." Of course there is. There's always some narrative "rolled out." Fox News Rolled out a narrative for Obama. And Bush. So did MSNBC. So did every smaller news outlet. So did people around dinner tables. Every conceivable "narrative" was probably "rolled out." Adults should ignore these narratives, even if partially true, and try to come up with their own conclusions based on much more fact-based analysis.
What are you actually trying to say here? The only thing we know about Trump is what "thuh mediuh" is telling us in line with "their" narrative? Well that's ridiculous. We can know plenty without exposing ourselves to CNN garble.
Also, there’s a difference between snark and demeaning and you’re way over that line in your reply.
I suspect Mayor Pete and his husband would be well-received in Europe and may even win the Nobel peace prize like Obama did.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm I like Mayor Pete. Most well spoken one of the bunch. And a military vet.
I'd be interested to see the response across America to a president who is gay and a veteran. I suppose some heads will explode.
Apology accepted?
Yes please consider that an apology. Put another way, what I was trying to say is "this is ridiculous... so surely you don't actually mean that and mean something else" hence the part asking "what are you trying to say."Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pmApology accepted?
I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.
An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:02 amYes please consider that an apology. Put another way, what I was trying to say is "this is ridiculous... so surely you don't actually mean that and mean something else" hence the part asking "what are you trying to say."Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pmApology accepted?
I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.
An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
I was perhaps too young to see the "rehabilitation of Nixon." I never realized that was a thing.
So I sort of see what you mean with standard narrative with dem vs republican presidents, but let's take a look at what they've given us for a second here. I was barely cognizant of who Bush 1 was, so Clinton was really my first president, so perhaps my scope is limited, but I've only really seen two dem and two republican presidents, as well as the media response to them. The two dems were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and while both definitely had their hiccups, both could discuss complicated issues in relatively nuanced ways. Often this was over-stated, or what they were "saying" was really nothing, but just sounded good if you don't know much (think Reagan speeches, though I think both Obama and Clinton were much smarter than Reagan). On the other hand, you have Bush II and Trump.
It would take pretty biased media to NOT have the first two sound more worldly and polished and the other two sound like doofuses. If anything, I think "the media" is too easy on Presidential stupidity, and that would have been a lot more prevalent during Bush II/Trump than Clinton/Obama. If there's any media bias worth really getting incensed over during Bush II, it's the 2001-2005 9/11 and follow-up foreign policy coverage, not "making Bush II look too dumb." At least as far as I'm concerned. Bush II was pretty dumb. It's not the media's job to find his most nuanced, professional statements and pepper them all over the news. It's their job to hold them accountable on lies, falsehoods, and bad/inconsistent analysis.
To your point on Bush, it partially un-makes my point, but it's probably a good time to mention that I've personally found myself dumbfounded on how smart people can be in certain areas, while being over-confidently and astoundingly dumb in others. And by dumb, I don't mean uninformed. I mean dead-confident but the critical thinking on display is garbage on its face.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:09 ammoda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:02 amYes please consider that an apology. Put another way, what I was trying to say is "this is ridiculous... so surely you don't actually mean that and mean something else" hence the part asking "what are you trying to say."Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pm
Apology accepted?
I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.
An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
I was perhaps too young to see the "rehabilitation of Nixon." I never realized that was a thing.
So I sort of see what you mean with standard narrative with dem vs republican presidents, but let's take a look at what they've given us for a second here. I was barely cognizant of who Bush 1 was, so Clinton was really my first president, so perhaps my scope is limited, but I've only really seen two dem and two republican presidents, as well as the media response to them. The two dems were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and while both definitely had their hiccups, both could discuss complicated issues in relatively nuanced ways. Often this was over-stated, or what they were "saying" was really nothing, but just sounded good if you don't know much (think Reagan speeches, though I think both Obama and Clinton were much smarter than Reagan). On the other hand, you have Bush II and Trump.
It would take pretty biased media to NOT have the first two sound more worldly and polished and the other two sound like doofuses. If anything, I think "the media" is too easy on Presidential stupidity, and that would have been a lot more prevalent during Bush II/Trump than Clinton/Obama. If there's any media bias worth really getting incensed over during Bush II, it's the 2001-2005 9/11 and follow-up foreign policy coverage, not "making Bush II look too dumb." At least as far as I'm concerned. Bush II was pretty dumb. It's not the media's job to find his most nuanced, professional statements and pepper them all over the news. It's their job to hold them accountable on lies, falsehoods, and bad/inconsistent analysis.
Moda, my opinion, and you know what opinions are like , on the bolded sentences above:
1. I have relatively good memory of the presidents beginning with Truman (but I was quite young when Truman was president). The four you have seen are in the weaker quadrant in my opinion for a variety of reasons: Clinton - poor role model especially for youth who came to see lying was not a problem; Obama - denigration of "American" values and a narcissist; Bush II - too much faith in his advisors or perhaps naively wanting to believe in the goodness of man; Trump - blatant egotist.
2. Obama and Clinton are perhaps smarter than Reagan, however I'd say much of that smartness was not put to the good use of our country; Reagan was the better at uniting our country.
3. I do not believe Bush II is dumb. Basically you can't be dumb and fly an F-102 and survive.
Excerpt: Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. https://www.456fis.org/PRESIDENT_BUSH_&_THE_F-102.htm
Of course you are entitled to your opinion.
That's probably the biggest piece of evidence we have towards his relative incompetence. I could stand a blow-hard who can't organize an organized thought if he had a good ability to on-board good advisers and administrators. It's probably the single most important trait of a president, short of direct foreign policy savvy, as he doesn't actually administer much himself, but simply acts as a "decider."
If you haven't seen it, I recommend the movie "Frost vs Nixon" to get up to speed on Nixon's rehabilitation tour. It was about a series of interviews he did with David Frost. Like all movies "based on a true story" it plays loose with the facts, the main discrepancy being that it shows Frost out to get Nixon when in fact the whole thing was a highly staged event with Nixon mostly in charge. Nevertheless, it's a good movie and the actor that played Nixon did an excellent impression of "tricky Dick".
Definitely. I think I said that 20 pages back. Something along the lines of, "Don't take my word for it. Just look at who's sticking with him and who isn't."
After George H.W. Bush died, they closed up his local office here in Houston. The staff had a final farewell gathering. Some had been with him for four decades, since he was VP. They stayed on through his Presidency, and into his retirement, until they too, finally, could retire. It brought a tear to my eye. Where do you find that kind of employer / employee loyalty anymore? Answer: nowhere
Holy cow...my phrase exactly...the crazies. I have cast a single non-R vote in my life and it was for Gary Johnson last election. I’ll quote Ronald Reagan: I didn’t leave my party, it left me. If Biden wins the D Primary and Trump wins the R, voting D. If Biden doesn’t win, no idea who I’ll vote for.ochotona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:28 pmAfter George H.W. Bush died, they closed up his local office here in Houston. The staff had a final farewell gathering. Some had been with him for four decades, since he was VP. They stayed on through his Presidency, and into his retirement, until they too, finally, could retire. It brought a tear to my eye. Where do you find that kind of employer / employee loyalty anymore? Answer: nowhere
I find it telling the Bushes did not vote for Trump. Neither did I, and I used to be a GOP Precinct Chair... before the crazies took over.
Just 2 years and 158 days later.