5 ms·

Because it's supporting an authoritarian liar, who denies the validity of established science, the rule of law, and the normal checks and balances of government

Because it's supporting an authoritarian liar, who denies the validity of established science, the rule of law, and the normal checks and balances of government. He also has suggested he'll trample on civil rights, including the freedom of press, speech, and the civil liberties of many Americans. Just out of curiosity, were you paying attention during the election, and if so, where did you get your information?

civilian 10y ago
I was paying attention :) The left is anti-GMO, which is straight-up anti-science. (Which, I also need to add, is the kind of anti-science which will exacerbate food scarcity in Africa. Drought-resistance crops save lives.) They also tend to harbor anti-vaxxers, althought Trump is also an anti-vaxxer. IDK! I'm just so tired of the emotional crybabying from the left. I agree (with Trump) that the media is extremely biased-- if you watched Trump's press conference today you'll see it. And the left tended to just piss on the way that Trump talked. They don't even see that he's a master of words in his own way. He looks like a fool, but he's _wailing_ on the left. Here's how the next 4 years are going to go down. The left is going to continue crying wolf/fascist/racist/sexist/whatever. Moderates and independents are going to see a mediocre presidency, but _not_ the authoritarianism you think we're in for. And then he's going to get re-elected, because of the low expectations.
- ryandamm 10y ago
  Again, where do you get your news? I find anyone that most people who posit a monolithic "left" are typically consuming a strange brew. Anyone who cares about truth -- not just in science, but in economics, policy, etc, should be horrified by what Trump represents. And I'd take even money against him being re-elected. There are betting sites that are offering even money that he won't even finish four years, and based on how he's handling the transition, that seems correct. I think being president is harder than you think, by the way. And I'm extremely pessimistic that Trump's up for it. He certainly hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he's capable.
  - civilian 10y ago
    I read The Economist regularly, and I read miscellaneous articles from the NYTimes, HuffPo, WashingtonPost that comes up on HN/FB. I enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast but Rogan is wildly uninformed and likes to push conspiracy theories. I think you're looking for a "badMedia -> uninformedCitizen" trend, but you're not going to find it. My values are just libertarian--- so I've been on the sidelines every presidential race ever. I wasn't excited about either candidate. I just want to hear some good honest arguments. But I see so much emotional manipulation from the left.
    - GrinningFool 10y ago
      If you're only seeing emotional manipulation from the left, you're only seeing half the story.
      - civilian 10y ago
        So, I grew up in Portland, went to school in Massachusetts, and live in Seattle now. I totally agree that I'm probably not seeing a lot of the stupid shit that the Right is saying, just based off of who my friends and community are. I critique where I can. :]
    - ryandamm 10y ago
      I subscribe to the Economist, too. Their opinion of Trump jibes with mine, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? And I ask about media because you've got to start from an agreed upon set of facts. That didn't used to be so difficult. (Not sure we disagree on facts here, but it's the easiest explanation for wildly different opinions on this subject. Might as well dispense with the big issues first, eh?)
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    > find anyone that most people who posit a monolithic "left" are typically consuming a strange brew s/left/right. Is there any difference in how each perceives the other? Is the assumption that any member of "the right" voted for Trump and believe what he espouses any more fair than the assumption that "the left" is anti-science, based only on the beliefs of a subset? People and their beliefs are complex. We do each other a disservice when we make assumptions based on our own lack of understanding and willingness to actually learn about each other.
- Frondo 10y ago
  I don't believe that is an accurate characterization of the left, to say they're anti-science or anti-GMO. As far as I can tell, the American left generally wants GMO ingredients to be labeled, as they are in Europe, so that consumers can make their own choices. As for Trump being a master of words, no, not if you posit that words have meaning. Here's a quote from a speech he gave in 2015 (source: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14238274/trumps-speaking-style-press-conference-linguists-explain http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14238274/tr...): "Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us." That is not a masterful use of words, unless you intend a nonstandard definition of "masterful". You may consider that there is "emotional crybabying" from the left, but from where I sit, people across a wide swath of mainstream thinking are concerned about a lot of the baggage Trump is bringing to the table. You're free to disagree, but I'm also free to think that you haven't thought things through very deeply when you say the things you said up there.
  - civilian 10y ago
    You've got good points, and you're right that I didn't explain "master of words" well. I think that most people are about as bad with listening comprehension as they are in reading comprehension. It's why in ToastMasters you're told to structure your speech in the format of "Tell the audience what you're about to tell them. Tell them it. And then tell them what you just told them." The amount of _time_ he spends on a topic just shows that he's thinking about and that it's important to him. He's conveying that he cares and he takes it seriously. He's not trying to explain tactics or be especially witty. And this is a style that we're not used it! Which is why it took everyone off-guard, and made people who are "classically" good-with-words underestimate him. But who knows, maybe this is just 20/20 hindsight.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > He looks like a fool, but he's _wailing_ on the left. In the real world, he secured less votes of actual people than the opponent to the left, and now is polling worse than recent past Presidents-elect, of either party (overall, among his own party, and among the opposing party and independents.) Trump certainly leveraged anti-democratic factors in the electoral system for electoral success, but the idea that he is having unusual (or even usual) levels of rhetorical success against his ideological opponents (much less "wailing on" them) is at odds with the facts.
- tzs 10y ago
  > The left is anti-GMO, which is straight-up anti-science. Whether or not being anti-GMO is anti-science depends on why one is anti-GMO. All science tells is that there is nothing inherently unsafe about GMO. Science does not tell us that all ways one might choose to use GMO is safe. Anti-GMO sentiment among people I know is due to mistrust of the companies that will be using GMO, rather than a belief that GMO itself is unsafe. With strong, enforced, labeling requirements and strong, enforced, FDA or DoA regulations that require showing new foods are not misleadingly unhealthy before they can be sold, and they would be fine with GMO. With the big food companies given a free hand to use GMO however they want, and without labeling, then they are against GMO.
Inconel 10y ago
With the exception of denying the validity of science, couldn't most of those things be said about President Obama and most mainstream Democrats as well, particularly in regards to issues like mass surveillance?
- ryandamm 10y ago
  I do have heartburn about mass surveillance -- and watching "Citizen Four" was an eye-opener. Snowden should be pardoned, and given a medal. But I think there's false equivalence at work, here. Maybe there are no good guys in politics, but there are definitely bad guys. I think Obama was a thoughtful, careful centrist on most issues. He tried to be bipartisan early in his first term. The Republicans were categorically obstructionist. Trump is a populist demagogue. Downvote away if you must, but look up the definition of those words too. It's true. And saying "eh, they're all the same anyway" misses the point. It's easy and convenient to say that, and maybe it makes you seem cool. But it's really not true. Obama is nothing like Trump. They're both complicated men. But they're not equivalent, not even close. I mean, let's be real, here: one's the child of a single mother and an immigrant, who experienced the world as an immigrant, and growing up in the US as a black man. The other inherited a fortune from his father, and made his reputation play-acting as a boss on reality television. (The first one is Obama, the second one is Trump.) Their biographies are wildly divergent, as are their reasons for public service, and what they're trying to do while in office.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    I appreciate your response, but still disagree on some things. I'm not necessarily convinced that Obama was as thoughtful as he's made out to be. He's certainly more polished than many politicians but underneath that veneer he seems every bit as calculating and power hungry as most. And to be honest, if he is as thoughtful as many say, and yet still endorsed the expansion of mass surveillance along with some of our recent foreign policy interventions, my opinion of him would probably go even lower. With regards to false equivalency, I'm sympathetic to your point and even agree that Obama and Trump are not equal on my sliding scale of bad, but from my personal point of view, when both are already so far down that scale it can become difficult for me to parse the differences. As to any downvotes you have received, none of them came from me. We might disagree here but I think we've both been respectful of each other's views. As a side note, I generally really dislike the downvote mechanism as a way to voice disagreement. If I disagree with a comment enough to consider downvoting it, I find it much more constructive to instead post a rebuttal.
ElijahLynn 10y ago
Why is this greyed out?
- ryandamm 10y ago
  Downvotes.

civilian 10y ago

I was paying attention :) The left is anti-GMO, which is straight-up anti-science. (Which, I also need to add, is the kind of anti-science which will exacerbate food scarcity in Africa. Drought-resistance crops save lives.) They also tend to harbor anti-vaxxers, althought Trump is also an anti-vaxxer. IDK! I'm just so tired of the emotional crybabying from the left. I agree (with Trump) that the media is extremely biased-- if you watched Trump's press conference today you'll see it. And the left tended to just piss on the way that Trump talked. They don't even see that he's a master of words in his own way. He looks like a fool, but he's _wailing_ on the left. Here's how the next 4 years are going to go down. The left is going to continue crying wolf/fascist/racist/sexist/whatever. Moderates and independents are going to see a mediocre presidency, but _not_ the authoritarianism you think we're in for. And then he's going to get re-elected, because of the low expectations.

ryandamm 10y ago
Again, where do you get your news? I find anyone that most people who posit a monolithic "left" are typically consuming a strange brew. Anyone who cares about truth -- not just in science, but in economics, policy, etc, should be horrified by what Trump represents. And I'd take even money against him being re-elected. There are betting sites that are offering even money that he won't even finish four years, and based on how he's handling the transition, that seems correct. I think being president is harder than you think, by the way. And I'm extremely pessimistic that Trump's up for it. He certainly hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he's capable.
- civilian 10y ago
  I read The Economist regularly, and I read miscellaneous articles from the NYTimes, HuffPo, WashingtonPost that comes up on HN/FB. I enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast but Rogan is wildly uninformed and likes to push conspiracy theories. I think you're looking for a "badMedia -> uninformedCitizen" trend, but you're not going to find it. My values are just libertarian--- so I've been on the sidelines every presidential race ever. I wasn't excited about either candidate. I just want to hear some good honest arguments. But I see so much emotional manipulation from the left.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    If you're only seeing emotional manipulation from the left, you're only seeing half the story.
    - civilian 10y ago
      So, I grew up in Portland, went to school in Massachusetts, and live in Seattle now. I totally agree that I'm probably not seeing a lot of the stupid shit that the Right is saying, just based off of who my friends and community are. I critique where I can. :]
  - ryandamm 10y ago
    I subscribe to the Economist, too. Their opinion of Trump jibes with mine, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? And I ask about media because you've got to start from an agreed upon set of facts. That didn't used to be so difficult. (Not sure we disagree on facts here, but it's the easiest explanation for wildly different opinions on this subject. Might as well dispense with the big issues first, eh?)
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  > find anyone that most people who posit a monolithic "left" are typically consuming a strange brew s/left/right. Is there any difference in how each perceives the other? Is the assumption that any member of "the right" voted for Trump and believe what he espouses any more fair than the assumption that "the left" is anti-science, based only on the beliefs of a subset? People and their beliefs are complex. We do each other a disservice when we make assumptions based on our own lack of understanding and willingness to actually learn about each other.
Frondo 10y ago
I don't believe that is an accurate characterization of the left, to say they're anti-science or anti-GMO. As far as I can tell, the American left generally wants GMO ingredients to be labeled, as they are in Europe, so that consumers can make their own choices. As for Trump being a master of words, no, not if you posit that words have meaning. Here's a quote from a speech he gave in 2015 (source: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14238274/trumps-speaking-style-press-conference-linguists-explain http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14238274/tr...): "Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us." That is not a masterful use of words, unless you intend a nonstandard definition of "masterful". You may consider that there is "emotional crybabying" from the left, but from where I sit, people across a wide swath of mainstream thinking are concerned about a lot of the baggage Trump is bringing to the table. You're free to disagree, but I'm also free to think that you haven't thought things through very deeply when you say the things you said up there.
- civilian 10y ago
  You've got good points, and you're right that I didn't explain "master of words" well. I think that most people are about as bad with listening comprehension as they are in reading comprehension. It's why in ToastMasters you're told to structure your speech in the format of "Tell the audience what you're about to tell them. Tell them it. And then tell them what you just told them." The amount of _time_ he spends on a topic just shows that he's thinking about and that it's important to him. He's conveying that he cares and he takes it seriously. He's not trying to explain tactics or be especially witty. And this is a style that we're not used it! Which is why it took everyone off-guard, and made people who are "classically" good-with-words underestimate him. But who knows, maybe this is just 20/20 hindsight.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> He looks like a fool, but he's _wailing_ on the left. In the real world, he secured less votes of actual people than the opponent to the left, and now is polling worse than recent past Presidents-elect, of either party (overall, among his own party, and among the opposing party and independents.) Trump certainly leveraged anti-democratic factors in the electoral system for electoral success, but the idea that he is having unusual (or even usual) levels of rhetorical success against his ideological opponents (much less "wailing on" them) is at odds with the facts.
tzs 10y ago
> The left is anti-GMO, which is straight-up anti-science. Whether or not being anti-GMO is anti-science depends on why one is anti-GMO. All science tells is that there is nothing inherently unsafe about GMO. Science does not tell us that all ways one might choose to use GMO is safe. Anti-GMO sentiment among people I know is due to mistrust of the companies that will be using GMO, rather than a belief that GMO itself is unsafe. With strong, enforced, labeling requirements and strong, enforced, FDA or DoA regulations that require showing new foods are not misleadingly unhealthy before they can be sold, and they would be fine with GMO. With the big food companies given a free hand to use GMO however they want, and without labeling, then they are against GMO.

Inconel 10y ago

With the exception of denying the validity of science, couldn't most of those things be said about President Obama and most mainstream Democrats as well, particularly in regards to issues like mass surveillance?

ryandamm 10y ago
I do have heartburn about mass surveillance -- and watching "Citizen Four" was an eye-opener. Snowden should be pardoned, and given a medal. But I think there's false equivalence at work, here. Maybe there are no good guys in politics, but there are definitely bad guys. I think Obama was a thoughtful, careful centrist on most issues. He tried to be bipartisan early in his first term. The Republicans were categorically obstructionist. Trump is a populist demagogue. Downvote away if you must, but look up the definition of those words too. It's true. And saying "eh, they're all the same anyway" misses the point. It's easy and convenient to say that, and maybe it makes you seem cool. But it's really not true. Obama is nothing like Trump. They're both complicated men. But they're not equivalent, not even close. I mean, let's be real, here: one's the child of a single mother and an immigrant, who experienced the world as an immigrant, and growing up in the US as a black man. The other inherited a fortune from his father, and made his reputation play-acting as a boss on reality television. (The first one is Obama, the second one is Trump.) Their biographies are wildly divergent, as are their reasons for public service, and what they're trying to do while in office.
- Inconel 10y ago
  I appreciate your response, but still disagree on some things. I'm not necessarily convinced that Obama was as thoughtful as he's made out to be. He's certainly more polished than many politicians but underneath that veneer he seems every bit as calculating and power hungry as most. And to be honest, if he is as thoughtful as many say, and yet still endorsed the expansion of mass surveillance along with some of our recent foreign policy interventions, my opinion of him would probably go even lower. With regards to false equivalency, I'm sympathetic to your point and even agree that Obama and Trump are not equal on my sliding scale of bad, but from my personal point of view, when both are already so far down that scale it can become difficult for me to parse the differences. As to any downvotes you have received, none of them came from me. We might disagree here but I think we've both been respectful of each other's views. As a side note, I generally really dislike the downvote mechanism as a way to voice disagreement. If I disagree with a comment enough to consider downvoting it, I find it much more constructive to instead post a rebuttal.

ElijahLynn 10y ago

Why is this greyed out?

ryandamm 10y ago
Downvotes.