[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-July-05, 14:37, said:

The free press has been using PC to hold back the Republicans for decades. Bush/McCain/Romney just took it. Trump will fight back.

Could you tell me what you mean by political correctness and specifically how that can affect presidential races? I seriously don't understand where or how you think this happens. Everything I know and understand about political correctness is about using civil language and actions; how that causes harm is beyond (or maybe below) me.

[Flem72]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-05, 11:19, said:

It is amazing what happens to fantasies when one grows up - they vanish.

Marxist socialism is probably the biggest casualty. Or maybe "The Republic," and the idea that philosopher kings could actually improve things. OOOOOPs: so many policy "experts" around these days.....

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-05, 10:33, said:

How can you support Trump - a man who calls the free press the "enemy" - and still say with a straight face you are interested in the preservation of democracy and freedom in this country?

https://morningconsu...nton-unpopular/

This webpage describes our Presidential choices.

You have untrustworthy and potentially corrupt running against politically inexperienced and potentially racist (sexist). Not the best of choices from the start. See article.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-05, 20:55, said:

https://morningconsu...nton-unpopular/

This webpage describes our Presidential choices.

You have untrustworthy and potentially corrupt running against politically inexperienced and potentially racist (sexist). Not the best of choices from the start. See article.

You give Trump too much credit. What you had was a race between a disliked career politician and an ignorant narcissistic thug who has no business being allowed out of a cage much less sitting in the oval office.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-05, 21:28, said:

You give Trump too much credit. What you had was a race between a disliked career politician and an ignorant narcissistic thug who has no business being allowed out of a cage much less sitting in the oval office.

Winston . . .Clinton is untrustworthy... There is not a "dislike".... She has a husband as a continuous scandal albatross, seems too cozy with Wall Street, and I won't let her campaign off the hook on how they accepted "assistance" from the Democratic National Committee for debate questions at Bernie Sander's expense. That doesn't make Trump a great choice or a good choice, but the "choices" we were given were hardly inspiring.

The choices we had for President were not examples of "American exceptionalism".

See https://www.theatlan...onalism/532548/

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-July-05, 08:07, said:

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-05, 00:50, said:

Everyone here knows my level of civility. But for as long as you come here only to be a troll you should expect none. There comes a time when civil people have to stand up and say publically that bullsh!t is bullsh!t and an a$$h0le is an a$$h0le.

Which is exactly what I did.

Really? This is a thread about Donald Trump and yet I cannot remember a statement of that nature from you about him. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to correct that.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-06, 05:59, said:

Really? This is a thread about Donald Trump and yet I cannot remember a statement of that nature from you about him. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to correct that.

Glad for the opportunity. I find Trump inexperienced as a politician with a big mouth that he can't or doesn't want to control I agree with most of his policy actions and executive orders. The Republican led Congress is unlikely to give him what he wants in health care reform or tax reform, so in that way he will probably be ineffectual. But on the whole, Trump is moving the country in a direction that I approve.

[kenberg]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-06, 03:47, said:

Winston . . .Clinton is untrustworthy... There is not a "dislike".... She has a husband as a continuous scandal albatross, seems too cozy with Wall Street, and I won't let her campaign off the hook on how they accepted "assistance" from the Democratic National Committee for debate questions at Bernie Sander's expense. That doesn't make Trump a great choice or a good choice, but the "choices" we were given were hardly inspiring.

The choices we had for President were not examples of "American exceptionalism".

See https://www.theatlan...onalism/532548/

I thank you for the article. I don't think it has the answers, and I probably disagree with some of it, but it has some good questions.

The problem, in brief, with "American exceptionalism" is that it is a simple-minded phrase meaning different things to different people . And is smacks of arrogance. The article discusses some of the history of the phrase.

A quote from the article

Quote

None of that is true, and in important ways it is the opposite of the truth. Who your parents were and where you came from matters probably more in the United States than in most other advanced economies, at least if statistics on upward mobility are to be believed.

I really support the last qualifying phrase. This is not because I think the data is faked, but rather that I think attacking a problem requires looking beyond the gross data.


Like any country, we have our strengths, our weaknesses, our problems, our opportunities. I can say, clearly and truthfully, that I feel very lucky to have been born here. I can hope for a bright future, I can perhaps contribute. None of this requires an assertion of American Exceptionalism.

Maybe we need a thread to list phrases that I think we would be much better off consigning to the trash heap. "American Exceptionalism" and " Politically Correct" would certainly make my list. I'm not to fond of "elite" either.

[RedSpawn]

kenberg, on 2017-July-06, 07:58, said:

I thank you for the article. I don't think it has the answers, and I probably disagree with some of it, but it has some good questions.

The problem, in brief, with "American exceptionalism" is that it is a simple-minded phrase meaning different things to different people . And is smacks of arrogance. The article discusses some of the history of the phrase.

A quote from the article


I really support the last qualifying phrase. This is not because I think the data is faked, but rather that I think attacking a problem requires looking beyond the gross data.


Like any country, we have our strengths, our weaknesses, our problems, our opportunities. I can say, clearly and truthfully, that I feel very lucky to have been born here. I can hope for a bright future, I can perhaps contribute. None of this requires an assertion of American Exceptionalism.

Maybe we need a thread to list phrases that I think we would be much better off consigning to the trash heap. "American Exceptionalism" and " Politically Correct" would certainly make my list. I'm not to fond of "elite" either.

Admittedly, I cringed when I used "American exceptionalism" which is one of the reasons I qualified it with quotes.

http://www.npr.org/s...ers-resignation

But I think the election of Trump was a revolt of sorts. The average voter really doesn't trust Washington to look out for his interests anymore. The populace thought by electing Trump they had a chance to give Washington a rude awakening and a new political calculus. However, the histrionics in Washington for the last 7-8 months is nothing like I have ever seen.

I feel like the Washington D.C. patient is rejecting the "organ transplant" in the White House.

[ggwhiz]

American Exceptionalism to me, always meant the culture and structure to attract the best and brightest the world has to offer.

It caused much handwringing here in Canada in the 60's and 70's over the brain drain that saw a lot of our talent working on Cape Canaveral, behind the scenes in Hollywood and even a lot of health care professionals today.

That's just Canada. Steve Jobs etc. ad nauseum so how did so many podunks decide that capping immigration to exclude people like this would make America great again?

[barmar]

jogs, on 2017-July-05, 14:44, said:

Trump is the only politician serving the working class and shop keepers.

Trump is doing nothing to help blue collar workers. He talks about helping them all the time, and his promises are probably what got him into office. But none of his actual actions will do anything for them. You're just one of the millions of people who have fallen for his ruse.

For instance, no matter what he says or does, coal jobs are not coming back. They didn't go away because of burdensome government regulations, so relaxing those regulations won't bring them back. They went away because natural gas has taken much of its place, renewable energy is on the increase, and automation has reduced the need for miners in the coal mines that we still have. If there's any increase in coal production, much of it will be automated, there won't be thousands of jobs for out-of-work miners.

The billionaire owners of those coal mines are going to get nice tax cuts, though.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-06, 03:47, said:

Winston . . .Clinton is untrustworthy... There is not a "dislike"....
See https://www.theatlan...onalism/532548/

You do understand, don't you, that you are only expressing your opinion about the meaning of trustworthy.

Donald Trump has shown himself over and over in the business world with bankruptcies and inabilities to find bank funding to now in politics by showing he has no understanding of NATO or the EU or of much of anything else that he is unqualified to be president.

IMO, Donald Trump is untrustworthy to hold onto your empty wallet while you take a whiz. I'd leave my cash with Hillary Clinton and not worry a thing about it.

[billw55]

ldrews, on 2017-July-06, 07:36, said:

Glad for the opportunity. I find Trump inexperienced as a politician with a big mouth that he can't or doesn't want to control I agree with most of his policy actions and executive orders. The Republican led Congress is unlikely to give him what he wants in health care reform or tax reform, so in that way he will probably be ineffectual. But on the whole, Trump is moving the country in a direction that I approve.

Trump does not know anything about health care, or care about it. He is only following the desire of his base to erase the Obama presidency.

He does know something about taxes. He wants to reduce them for this family. That means tax cuts for the wealthy. That this is also a primary republican goal is incidental.

Trump has no ideology of his own.

[kenberg]

ggwhiz, on 2017-July-06, 09:45, said:

American Exceptionalism to me, always meant the culture and structure to attract the best and brightest the world has to offer.

It caused much handwringing here in Canada in the 60's and 70's over the brain drain that saw a lot of our talent working on Cape Canaveral, behind the scenes in Hollywood and even a lot of health care professionals today.

That's just Canada. Steve Jobs etc. ad nauseum so how did so many podunks decide that capping immigration to exclude people like this would make America great again?

And Fred Gitelman from Canada! And my father from somewhere, not famous for anything except maybe ice fishing, . And I am reading the Walter Isaacson biography of Einstein (much, much better than the National Geographis special that was made from it, btw).


I reminisce: When my younger daughter was maybe 3 I was bringing her home from the playground. This neighbor woman, walking with her daughter, explained how lucky I was to have just a normal child. Her child was exceptional. Her child had been "partially evaluated" and was brilliant. The responsibility for raising this brilliant child was such a burden. I was so lucky that my child was just normal.
The only exceptionalism I was seeing was this nut job of a mother. I can easily imagine a similar reaction when we tell others of our exceptionalism.

[ggwhiz]

kenberg, on 2017-July-06, 12:13, said:

And Fred Gitelman from Canada!

Just a note on Fred that is no doubt at least a partial myth.

Sheri took a telephone order for an early version of his Bridge software at Christmas and got the name, Bill Gates. She (supposedly) said "Yeah and I'm the Queen of England".

It was Bill Gates Sr. who soon after told young Bill "Your card games on the Microsoft Zone suck. You gotta hire this kid".

And so we lost yet another one that's a keeper along with Alan Graves, Geoff Hampson .......

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-05, 16:42, said:

Could you tell me what you mean by political correctness and specifically how that can affect presidential races? I seriously don't understand where or how you think this happens. Everything I know and understand about political correctness is about using civil language and actions; how that causes harm is beyond (or maybe below) me.

Political correctness seeks to limits debate to only certain "acceptable" terminology. Progressives have used it to try to frame everything in terms favorable to their world view. In essence, it's arbitrary censorship to gain political advantage by stifling debate. Anyone who dares to criticize or question that view is ostracized, delegitimized, intimidated, or otherwise stopped up to and including threats or acts of violence.

Yet in a FREE and democratic country, unpleasant or tough questions must be asked to get to the best solutions. Limiting discourse only along certain lines does not lead to optimal outcomes. History is replete with countries that followed self destructive paths because they couldn't recognize how they were acting in ways antithetical to what they presumably espoused.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-July-06, 13:58, said:

Political correctness seeks to limits debate to only certain "acceptable" terminology. Progressives have used it to try to frame everything in terms favorable to their world view. In essence, it's arbitrary censorship to gain political advantage by stifling debate. Anyone who dares to criticize or question that view is ostracized, delegitimized, intimidated, or otherwise stopped up to and including threats or acts of violence.

Yet in a FREE and democratic country, unpleasant or tough questions must be asked to get to the best solutions. Limiting discourse only along certain lines does not lead to optimal outcomes. History is replete with countries that followed self destructive paths because they couldn't recognize how they were acting in ways antithetical to what they presumably espoused.

You're trying to sell a bias without without defining the term. What is political correctness? Give examples. How is it weaponized? Again, real life examples, please. Otherwise it sounds like a rehash of Rush Limbaugh's talking points.

My understanding of political correctness is that it is simply language chosen as less offensive to minority groups within our society. I would say that the ones who have a say-so in the discussion is a member of one of those groups. I don't know if the deaf prefer hearing impaired to describe their condition. Same with blind. I'm pretty sure that race-based minority groups are OK with some descriptions but not with others.

I can't see how being civil is in any way an attempt to impinge on your freedom of expression. We are free to be asses. But we can't bitch when civil society calls us an ass for the language we choose.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-06, 15:18, said:

You're trying to sell your bias still without without defining the term. What is political correctness? Give examples. How is it weaponized? Again, real life examples rather than Rush's talking points.

My understanding of political correctness is that it is simply language chosen as less offensive to minority groups within our society. I would say that the ones who have a say-so in the discussion is a member of one of those groups. I don't know if the deaf prefer hearing impaired to describe their condition. Same with blind. I'm pretty sure that race-based minority groups are OK with some descriptions but not with others.

I can't see how being civil is in any way an attempt to impinge on your freedom of expression. You are free to be an ass. But don't bitch when civil society calls you an ass for the language you choose.

Political correctness can go way beyond this.

We had a problem in the UK where Muslim men with backgrounds in Pakistan/Afghanistan were systemically grooming underage white girls and using them for sex. The police knew about this but were very reticent to prosecute because they knew they'd be branded racist. https://www.theguard...ight-men-jailed for an example.

Another type of political correctness and one that gives it a bad name is where somebody (usually a white civil servant) bans/discourages something because "it might offend xyz minority" when if anybody actually asked that minority it wouldn't offend them at all. I am aware that a lot of the examples of this in the press are in fact fake.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-06, 11:03, said:

You do understand, don't you, that you are only expressing your opinion about the meaning of trustworthy.

Donald Trump has shown himself over and over in the business world with bankruptcies and inabilities to find bank funding to now in politics by showing he has no understanding of NATO or the EU or of much of anything else that he is unqualified to be president.

IMO, Donald Trump is untrustworthy to hold onto your empty wallet while you take a whiz. I'd leave my cash with Hillary Clinton and not worry a thing about it.

You can make the case that both Trump and Clinton are untrustworthy, but I honestly don't think you can make the case that Clinton is an "honest" or trustworthy politician.

Clinton was groomed to run in 2016 after losing to Obama in 2008. The behavior of the Democratic National Committee towards Clinton and against Sanders seems to reflect this sentiment.

I am not sure the Democratic side was provided a fair number of Presidential candidates. The Democratic party thought it was "her" time to become President so there was no need for a slew of "interfering" candidates to upset the outcome

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-July-06, 15:28, said:

Political correctness can go way beyond this.

We had a problem in the UK where Muslim men with backgrounds in Pakistan/Afghanistan were systemically grooming underage white girls and using them for sex. The police knew about this but were very reticent to prosecute because they knew they'd be branded racist. https://www.theguard...ight-men-jailed for an example.

Another type of political correctness and one that gives it a bad name is where somebody (usually a white civil servant) bans/discourages something because "it might offend xyz minority" when if anybody actually asked that minority it wouldn't offend them at all. I am aware that a lot of the examples of this in the press are in fact fake.

I ready the Guardian article you cited but saw nothing about the police knowing and being reticent to act due to political correctness. Do you have some other reference that speaks clearly to your assertion?

Secondly - and I'm not doubting your word if you have actually seen/experienced this - but here in the U.S. civil servants do not have the luxury of changing/altering rules based on personal whims. They do have - and are know to - enforce harshly existing rules, though.

I still can't see this as the mountainous problem that is continually espoused by the coordinated efforts of the right's media pool.

I'm genuinely open to being shown I am wrong but so far no one has offered much in the way of actual data or objective evidence - only a lot of innuendo.