Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 918499 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #260 on: February 09, 2017, 08:17:50 pm »

Thought you were joking then I found:
1984: Newspeak Dictionary Vocabulary (great for learning Newspeak)
Newspeak From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK

Wow...I had no friggin' idea. I'm pretty sure I read 1984 (probably in school I think) but I had no real memory of the story.

Yes, amazing/disconcerting, or even fightening, isn't it? What once was an amusing read (although at the time of conception inspired by the events leading up to WW2), has become so much more realistic in our day and age, again. I wish I could only refer to it in a lighthearted historical fashion, but alas.

Quote
So...looks like 1984 is gonna be on my reading list.

Same with me. I'll have a look at some of the other titles you found.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18093
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #261 on: February 09, 2017, 08:22:07 pm »

No...

Well...no!

You are suffering from a hindsight bias.

The only reason you can smugly claim you've "seen the light." i.e., the truth, is because I've shown it to you (the cylinder). Otherwise, depending on your distance from one shadow (say it is miles instead of inches) the only thing you'd see is either a square or a circle. And for you, it would be an undeniable fact. Someone else, having a different standpoint, would see the other object. And for them, that would be a single, undeniable fact as well. Those are alternate facts. Only when viewed together, and seeing the third alternative fact (cylinder) we can claim we've seen the truth. The ultimate benefit of recognizing the existence of alternative facts is the need to illuminate the issue from various angles, to understand that truth is not a single fact, that truth is multifaceted, that we need to move around, walk in other guy's shoes, audiatur at altera pars, in order to see the truth.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18093
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #262 on: February 09, 2017, 08:26:51 pm »

...In unanimous ruling, U.S. appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban

Then SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Trump II
« Reply #263 on: February 09, 2017, 08:40:42 pm »

I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.

Why?  It was a needlessly inflammatory order that, (if I'm being generous) was redundant and poorly written, and (if I'm not) was likely purely politically motivated and served no rational purpose, but did tangible harm to actual people.  Not to mention it's an application of executive authority that should give any true conservative pause.   The judicial order that came down today is one that should warm the heart of anyone that had a problem with Obama's use of executive authority.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #264 on: February 09, 2017, 09:04:05 pm »

Well...no!

You are suffering from a hindsight bias.

AKA as progressive insight, a concept that is alien to most of the Trump administration 'believers', sofar (see, I'm an optimistic person).

Quote
The only reason you can smugly claim you've "seen the light." i.e., the truth, is because I've shown it to you (the cylinder). Otherwise, depending on your distance from one shadow (say it is miles instead of inches) the only thing you'd see is either a square or a circle. And for you, it would be an undeniable fact.

Not really, but rather an observation at this moment which, when more plausible alternatives are absent, might be called a fact.

Quote
Someone else, having a different standpoint, would see the other object. And for them, that would be a single, undeniable fact as well.

It might, if the alternatives, like you presented, were unlikely or unavailable. Like Gravity, which is still being debated.

Quote
Only when viewed together, and seeing the third alternative fact (cylinder) we can claim we've seen the truth.

Not really, progressive insight (unknown new information) though, yes.

Quote
The ultimate benefit of recognizing the existence of alternative facts is the need to illuminate the issue from various angles, to understand that truth is not a single fact, that truth is multifaceted, that we need to move around, walk in other guy's shoes, audiatur at altera pars, in order to see the truth.

With which I could largely agree. But so-called facts that are demonstrably wrong, should never be called 'facts', not even Alternative ones, unless one is deliberately trying to create a parallel universe! Only when presented with new (conflicting) information, one could reconsider one's opinion.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #265 on: February 09, 2017, 11:30:12 pm »

Well...no!

You are suffering from a hindsight bias.

The only reason you can smugly claim you've "seen the light." i.e., the truth, is because I've shown it to you (the cylinder). Otherwise, depending on your distance from one shadow (say it is miles instead of inches) the only thing you'd see is either a square or a circle. And for you, it would be an undeniable fact. Someone else, having a different standpoint, would see the other object. And for them, that would be a single, undeniable fact as well. Those are alternate facts. Only when viewed together, and seeing the third alternative fact (cylinder) we can claim we've seen the truth. The ultimate benefit of recognizing the existence of alternative facts is the need to illuminate the issue from various angles, to understand that truth is not a single fact, that truth is multifaceted, that we need to move around, walk in other guy's shoes, audiatur at altera pars, in order to see the truth.

No ;-)

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that no matter how much you believe it and can't prove otherwise, neither the circle nor the square are facts, only the cylinder is fact.

In your example, it is possible to not know what the fact is, indeed.  But that lack of knowledge doesn't allow you to substitute your point of view and call it fact.  All you can say is that's it's a point of view.  That you know what it's a shadow being cast (because you can see the light and the absence of light) you can surmise what might be causing the shadow, but you can't know.  If you say, "I think it's a square because it casts a square shadow", that's a reasonable theory, but it's not a fact.  You need to investigate further if you want to know what the fact of the matter is.

In relation to the various alternative facts from Trump and his administration, they have been largely proven to be untrue.  The claim that the Sydney Lindt Café Siege was not widely reported despite it being broadcast live, globally, by the TV network whose studio was opposite it and in lockdown during part of it, easily proves that's incorrect.  It's not a matter of perspective, they're calling the square a hexagon!
Logged
Phil Brown

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3950
    • Rajan Parrikar
Re: Trump II
« Reply #266 on: February 10, 2017, 12:07:12 am »

I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.

I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #267 on: February 10, 2017, 12:41:18 am »

Facts can be skewed by time and space.  For example, the NY Times might place a truthful article about something Trump did right on page 35 while placing a truthful article about what he did negatively on page 1.   The number of articles of each, how they're written, etc also enhances their effect to make a biased point.  Of course six montha later, the Times can factually state they reported on both. 

What's fun is to watch the instant polls taken on MSNBC and Fox where you message in your opinion.  If a poll is taken about some Trump policy let's say, on MSNBC the poll will show 95% opposed and on Fox 95% in favor.  Why do the producers even bother?  Aren't they ashamed of presenting results like that?  I guess it's just red meat for their respective viewers.  But all they do is show how biased their stations are.  Another fun thing to do.  Take an article from newspaper of record - The New York Times.  Pick one that focuses on some political thing.  Then count up the people who write in to the Comments for that article.  95% provide liberal viewpoints and the other 5% conservative.  The NY Times readership is overwhelming liberal.  That's important because just like MSNBC and FOX, they report to their customers with bias that will keep their readership buying their newspaper.  Yet much of the public sees their reporting without bias.    It's no different than cable news.

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #268 on: February 10, 2017, 05:12:07 am »

Facts can't be skewed in and of themselves.  Reporting of them, interpretation of them - yes.  But saying there exist things called "alternative facts" is making the mistake of saying the opinions are facts - they're not.  It's a ploy, which was used by the pro Brexiters, to discredit inconvenient facts, by getting people to believe that opinions are facts.  It's the same approach that you see from anti-vaxxers, for example, who cite as facts, unfounded, untested, unreviewed, and unsubstantiated claims.

Sure, politicians have been loose with facts for pretty much the whole of history - I'm sure we all get that.  But the level and degree of the deception changes from time to time and, right now, it's increasing and it's A Bad Thing.
Logged
Phil Brown

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #269 on: February 10, 2017, 05:19:41 am »

I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.
In a good democracy I think you should have faith in the independence of judges to uphold the law and the constitution higher then political bullying and intimidation. Calling judges "leftwing" or "so-called judges" is an insult to the independence of appointed judges and I think is wrong.

In this particular case the federal judges were from appointments by both republicans as well as democrats, however their verdict was unanimous.

In case the supreme court rules differently so be it, but up to now my only conclusion is that the executive order was legally questionable.

I would think the Trump administration should be spending it's energy putting in place a better immigration check (I'm all for that) then defend something legally shaky as they are doing now.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 05:23:05 am by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2299
Re: Trump II
« Reply #270 on: February 10, 2017, 05:21:14 am »

I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy

The author of the article seems to have an agenda (leave aside the bias), deliberately fails to address the reasoning behind the decision, and selectively nit-picks to support his argument.  Since when does a private directive to Rudi Giuliani to craft a plan to ban Muslims that will pass legal muster count as a campaign statement?

From the decision:
Quote
Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide.

Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.*

*In addition, the Government asserts that, “unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal and maintain its confidentiality.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 05:58:12 am by Manoli »
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Trump II
« Reply #271 on: February 10, 2017, 06:52:57 am »

Not just today!  As anyone who has read the works of the great American political scientist, Richard Hofstadter, well knows, anti-intellectualism has a long and storied life in the US. 

This even applies to the education of our presidents.  If memory serves we have elected 12 presidents who did not have college degrees (although some attended) but only one president with a PhD. Only 10 of our presidents ever served as faculty/staff at the university level. 

I often wonder if there is an innate distrust by the citizens of people with higher educations or teaching experience. 
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #272 on: February 10, 2017, 08:18:54 am »

I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.
they are not going to prevail with the ban as written.  The court pretty much stated this.  Going to the Supreme Court is a waste of time as they likely would not accept the case.  It's back to square one in terms of rewriting the ban so it will be judicially acceptable.  This was a case of very poor legal work from the beginning as well as some pretty stupid comments from Mr. Guliani, "It's a ban on Muslims."
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #273 on: February 10, 2017, 08:22:31 am »

I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy
that is not a news article but an opinion piece written by a law school professor.  Many other law school professors have weighed in on this find the court's decision correct.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18093
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #274 on: February 10, 2017, 08:26:47 am »

... I often wonder if there is an innate distrust by the citizens of people with higher educations or teaching experience

That one is easy...people prefer those who can, not those who can't  :P

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #275 on: February 10, 2017, 08:27:59 am »

No ;-)

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that no matter how much you believe it and can't prove otherwise, neither the circle nor the square are facts, only the cylinder is fact.

I'll side with Phil on this as it's similar to what I already wrote about perception bias.  You cannot call perception bias a fact in the real sense (unless you want to travel down the road of "alternative facts") as it is dependent on the viewer and it can easily be disproved by making a physical measurement.  It's like all the variety of illusions that trick the mind into believing something is when it is not.  Similarly, the glass half full or half empty falls into the same category.  A physical measurement can show that a one cup glass contains 1/2 cup which is an indisputable fact.  An observe might conclude that it is half full or half empty.  This is why the work of Tversky and Kahneman was so important to a variety of fields.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Trump II
« Reply #276 on: February 10, 2017, 09:50:23 am »

Going to the Supreme Court is a waste of time as they likely would not accept the case. 

That is something that many don't understand.  The Supreme Court has considerable discretion on what cases it hears and does not hear.  President Trump can say that he will take it to the Supreme Court, but it is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to accept the case.

"Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion."  Rule 10 of the 2013 Rules of the Court.

It is uncommon for the Supreme Court to accept a write of certiorari for a case where the lower courts are in agreement.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1052
    • JNB54
Re: Trump II
« Reply #277 on: February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 am »

Alternative Facts

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to an editor for the OED; to study etymology and semantics in such a fast-changing society must be both fascinating and daunting. If one starts with Oxford, one sees:

Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Alternative: available as another possibility

As has been written, interpretation of facts can be wildly different. And statement of fact can be true, false, incomplete, misleading, etc., etc. In certain circumstances, two separate facts are interpreted to be oppositional, the inference being that one of them is not actually a fact (and, with statement of fact, that can often be the case). In other circumstances, both facts co-exist without such inference (light behaves like and particle and light behaves like a wave). Perhaps a science major will correct me vis a vis that light example (I'll not contest it), but it does raise the issue of absolutes. A thing that is (believed to be) indisputably the case in one age and one society, may not be so in another. It's easy to accept that "the sun revolves around the earth" is not, now, a fact, but it certainly was considered a fact by many, at one time.

As to whether Alternative Fact is ultimately regarded as an oxymoron, a useful concept, or a dangerous tool of propagandists, remains to be seen.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Trump II
« Reply #278 on: February 10, 2017, 12:25:12 pm »

Isn't this all far more complicated than it's supposed to be?

Alternative facts are simply facts that exist, are perhaps vaguely relevant one to the other, and may be quoted about something in order to create comparisons; or they are facts that simply exist as independent realities.

Alternative facts, in the sense of meaning that's come about post-T means - AFAIK - something else: that what's being said, written, read or quoted is just a fib.

I hardly see much confusion there, just another euphemism.

Rob C

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #279 on: February 10, 2017, 12:43:07 pm »

This even applies to the education of our presidents.  If memory serves we have elected 12 presidents who did not have college degrees (although some attended) but only one president with a PhD. Only 10 of our presidents ever served as faculty/staff at the university level. 

I often wonder if there is an innate distrust by the citizens of people with higher educations or teaching experience. 

What do college degrees have to do with charisma, the ability to communicate, common sense and the ability to lead and make executive decisions, all requirements to be an effective President?  Practical experience beats book learning any day of the week.  Can you imagine Einstein as President?  That's not to say education is bad.  But that alone isn't going to take you very far. 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 331   Go Up