CatBus

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.

The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.

not in my circle.

I get that. Nevertheless, there are other – and unfortunately, larger – circles.

Warbler said:

Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.

The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.

Depends who else is in the room.

?

There are lots of smart people in the world. Not all the candidates are fielded yet. We may get to choose among multiple well-informed, articulate, competent candidates… in the Democratic primary. Kamala Harris has a lot of chatter but she hasn’t even declared yet. Who knows who else might be in the mix by 2020? There could easily be better choices than her… in the Democratic primary.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.

Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.

As said on a conservative blog:

More than anything, what sustains him is the sense — true or not — that he’s outsourced his actual duties to more responsible actors. Ryan and McConnell write the bills; Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and the generals coordinate foreign policy. Occasionally POTUS pops up to say something provocative about North Korea or NATO’s obsolescence or a trade war with China but mostly he seems consumed with live-tweeting Fox News and settling grudges.

IMO there’s difference between delegation and a power vacuum. Delegation is an actual management skill, Trump seems to be the latter.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.

Me too. Now you’ve got me all misty eyed for Bush Sr again, and I hated that guy’s policies.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.

Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.

yhwx said:

The BernieBros don’t like Harris though.

The BernieBros don’t even like Bernie. They’re just there to sink Democrats.

EDIT: I should add that I’m an actual Bernie primary voter (not just someone who plays a Bernie supporter on the Internet to peddle pro-Trump conspiracy theories) and sure Harris is more conservative than I’d like but so are most people. If we could have stopped fascism in the 1930’s merely by voting for less-than-perfect candidates, I’d have jumped at the chance. I would gladly vote for Romney or Bush Sr. if I thought it would stop the rise of white supremacy.

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

Warbler said:

What qualifications does Frink have for being President?

Being Frink.

… I never really thought about it that way before … it’s all so clear to be now … must make campaign contribution …

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

Warbler said:

I’m just curious, other than not being Trump, what qualifications does Oprah have for being President?

Well, when Trump ran for President, he would have been the least qualified person to ever be elected to that office.

If Oprah runs for President, she would be tied for the least qualified person to ever be elected to that office.

Totally different 😉

But all snark aside, lack of political experience is not an immediate disqualification, just a giant red flag. Oprah is clearly a successful businesswoman, which puts her above Trump on that scale, for whatever that’s worth. She doesn’t appear to be mobbed up, which is nice. She also can go hours and even days without lying or committing a major crime, which again is a serious leg up.

Maybe she’s got some political savvy that we haven’t seen very clearly yet. Trump’s political liabilities were on full display and easy to discern during the primary and general election, and people ran from him in droves (not enough, but still). Obviously Oprah will come across more favorably than Trump, but she’ll be up against people like Kamala Harris who will be very clearly smart, levelheaded, professional and experienced. Don’t forget Trump was up against a clown car full of amateurs in the primary, so it didn’t really matter what sort of fool he looked like there, and he failed to be more appealing than his opponent in the general. Oprah will have to really prove herself to come out on top, just in the primary alone.

Mrebo said:

With Trump in office, I keep hoping liberals will see the danger of consolidation and expansion of federal power. Some wonder if marijuana could be the gateway drug to federalism.

If Federalism’s most notable appeal is that it can throw a wrench in the gears when the Federal Government opts to do spectacularly bad things, the argument is already lost IMO. Because, among other things, who can throw a wrench into the gears when states opt to do spectacularly bad things? Whoever gets primacy gets the ability to screw people over, any good anarchist could tell you that.

That said, liberals AFAIK have never been against Federalism per se, but see the role of the Federal goverment fundamentally differently than conservatives. There’s plenty of good stuff in Federalism, liberals just hate most of the things conservatives love about it, and vice-versa.

The NeverTrumpers (well, the ones that weren’t just kidding about it) are a fascinating bunch. Sure, you’ve got your David Brooks crowd who deals with it by digging even deeper into their own bullshit (i.e. “My party never had a problem with racism and was full of very serious policy ideas until Trump came along!”). But you do have a few who are starting to take a long and sober look (warning: crazy right-wing link with only hints of the beginnings of introspection) at how their party got to where they are today. Maybe the National Review is doing this. Maybe we’ll end up a better nation for it. I’m dubious, but you never know.

TV’s Frink said:

I’d rather put two tiny little things in my ears than two giant things over my ears with a big strap connecting them.

Commander Chekov would like a word.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

I don’t use headphones.

My co-workers appreciate that I do, I can assure you.

I can still tell it’s “Hot Rocks Polka” on repeat from three cubicles away. Get some closed headphones please!

CatBus said:

The collusion starts paying off.

EDIT: Hey, that may be the only time I’ve ever linked to the National Review, so get your ideologically conservative news served up by CatBus while the limited-time offer stands.

Speaking of the conservative news slant – twice within the period of one year I have linked to the National Review now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455035/new-york-city-stop-and-frisk-crime-decline-conservatives-wrong

Could the National Review be heading in the direction of “self-defined conservative news outlet with actual editorial standards and some degree of credibility” to join the Wall Street Journal in that lonely group? A few more fact-based analyses and I might have to check with them more often. It’s a crazy world we live in where the National Review of all places changes their opinions to fit the facts rather than the other way around.

Well, my $80 set is pretty unfashionable*. But it goes well with my overall very unfashionable wardrobe. And as with all audio stuff, there is a point of diminishing returns on audio (more money can yield incrementally better results, but is it worth it?)–but some people are willing to go further beyond that point than others. $300 for good headphones is still an excellent deal over an equivalent-sounding speaker setup, though.

* And it should be noted I’ve been called a cheapskate by quite a lot of people.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

At $330, they better have good sound. The headphones I usually use are less than $20.

At the risk of threadcrapping…this. I don’t get you fancy headphone people.

If it helps: in part, it’s because getting incredible sound from speakers is really effing hard. Speakers are (relatively) expensive, they are large, room acoustics are never ideal without major investment (build a media room!), external noises are hard to block out. So instead of all that, you blow $80 on a set of headphones and have the audio equivalent of a multi-thousand-dollar speaker setup, and you can take them on vacation with you!

So it’s the fancy speaker people I really don’t get. I’ve spent more on a day at the amusement park than I have on headphones, but speakers, sheesh, there’s a money pit with no bottom, because the speakers are just the cheapest component of the whole picture, and in the end you can’t even take it with you.

So apparently Wikileaks has “leaked” a complete copy of Fire and Fury. I’m pretty sure that’s the only book they’ve ever released online. They’re not circumventing censorship, not releasing classified info or trade secrets. It’s as if their only goal was to dampen sales of an already bestselling and widely-available book. Who’d have thought?

At least they probably have learned by now not to release a version that’s been altered by Russian intelligence agents, like they did with Macron’s e-mails.

Typical to my biases, if you’re in the market for something completely unfashionable, cheap, but very good and damn near indestructible, I’d recommend the Sony MDR-V6. It’s truly the same damn thing as the MDR-7506, minus the gold stereo plug. Response is pretty flat (in a good way), detail is great, I use them for all my audio editing.

Oh, and anything can drive them, from some cheap knockoff MP3 player on up. And there’s a good chance the guy who mixed the audio you’re listening to did it using these headphones (well, the 7506).

The SE dialogue changes were already changed in our version… but those changes may not have been so great either.

But that is how it ends up working, intended or not. The media spending so much time critiquing tweets means less time critiquing policies. And the critiques of the tweets can be very easily dismissed as fluff. Leaving very little observable media criticism of Trump for those who dismiss that stuff out of hand.

It’s also how it worked during the campaign. Nobody knew a single one of his policies, and 46% of the country thought that was a wonderful thing.

You didn’t mention you can finally say “Merry Christmas” again 😉

Or is it that you can finally dream of a White Christmas?

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

or there is CNN and MSNBC

I hear this from a lot of conservatives. Do you really think there’s an anti-Trump bias here, or is this just a counterpoint to the left of FOX? All the standard leftist media boogeymen (CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT) seem pretty pro-Trump to me so far, just pro-Trump by omission rather than pro-Trump by commission like FOX. That’s the view from the left at least.

Just a quick look at CNN.com has several headlines that are embarrassing for Trump. Usually, I see far more. It’s often a mixture of news and opinion articles that are disparaging towards him. I’ll be honest, a part of me enjoys it and fills me with a proud “I told ya so” attitude towards the Republican Party of which I am a former member. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel like it’s excessive to the point that I find some of it hard to believe–like such extreme saturation of negative Trump news that it’s hard to know what’s really true and what is actually just people trying desperately to bring him down.

For the record, I still hope he does get brought down. I feel he is tremendously dangerous to our country and the world.

I dunno. The “news” (such as it is) today involves people having Twitter feuds and publishing tell-all books. As that goes, the CNN front page I’m looking at seems to cover those bases pretty neutrally, albeit with the salacious tabloid fever that flavors all news these days.

Now, I’m with you that the facts are anti-Trump. So if you report the facts objectively, you’re going to sound anti-Trump. But you’d have to pretty much ignore his tweets and random blatherings and focus on policies, and I’m afraid no media outlet’s going to do that in the clickbait economy.

I guess we may also be measuring bias differently too. If you’re upset the media hops over the latest Twitter gaffe at the expense of everything else, I’m with you. And Trump’s manner of Twitter usage pretty much ensures that that salacious gossip column style coverage is going to be anti-Trump because you’d have to be a crazy person (or FOX contributor) to support his tweets.

But as far as the real substantial news goes, I see CNN doing a lot of “our staff stenographer just wrote down what they said at the press conference without analysis”, which is pretty pro-Trump (also lazy). Or consulting “experts on both sides” which allows people to offer exercises in framing the issues rather than analysis of the issues (also lazy). And as the facts are anti-Trump, dropping any number of substantial stories skews the coverage in his favor.

So is media shallow? Hell yes. Lazy? Vapid? No argument. Liberal? Not so much.

Mrebo said:

I like that the responses focused solely on his examples of media.

Well, there’s not much to argue with in the basic premise. Objectivity doesn’t sell. Centrism isn’t the same thing as objectivity, but I feel like the Washington Post has been doing pretty well walking the line there (for now). Objectivity? Nope, haven’t seen in in very big quantities anywhere.