5 ms·

Let me take a couple of specific examples. Upon being told that an asteroid large enough to destroy human civilization was on course to hit the earth in 6 month

Let me take a couple of specific examples. Upon being told that an asteroid large enough to destroy human civilization was on course to hit the earth in 6 months, the President decided that it would make strategic sense to delay announcing or acting on the threat until after the midterms - a month or so later. This was conspicuous for the fact no reason was given, which had to be the case as it makes no sense. Collective threats of this kind have historically created a rally-around-the-flag effect the helps incumbents. Even a venal politician would not assist in the imminent destruction of the planet from which they themselves could not escape. Obviously information of that magnitude of importance would leak, as it did in the film. Meaning its only effect would be to crater the President's support when it became clear they hid the truth. Even an amaetuer political observer would understand all this, let alone a Whitehouse team that won a Presidential election. Or how about the manner in which the astronomers announced their discovery? They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history. Instead, they helped arrange for the astronomers to announce their discovery in a 2-minute segment on an infotainment news show. Neither the NYT, nor the astronomers, nor anyone would think that was a good idea. It would never, ever happen. During the interview, one of the astronomers got upset because the talk show hosts were nonchalant about the news of the possible end of civilization (!?). Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story - again, easily the biggest story in human history, which anyone could appreciate at such. The upshot of this never-ending string of implausible plot points is that the film ends up obfuscating how real politics works. It dumbs politics down and makes it trivial to make an easy joke, making it part of the problem that it ostensibly satirises.

chrsig 5y ago
> Let me take a couple of specific examples. Upon being told that an asteroid large enough to destroy human civilization was on course to hit the earth in 6 months, the President decided that it would make strategic sense to delay announcing or acting on the threat until after the midterms - a month or so later. This was conspicuous for the fact no reason was given, which had to be the case as it makes no sense. Counter example: Trump new about the severity of covid and downplayed it for quite some time instead of trying to rally the country. > Meaning its only effect would be to crater the President's support when it became clear they hid the truth. Even an amaetuer political observer would understand all this, let alone a Whitehouse team that won a Presidential election. In light of the above, this has been shown to be false. There absolutely can be some fanatical base that will construct shared delusional propaganda to avoid the realization that they've been conned. > Or how about the manner in which the astronomers announced their discovery? They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history. Instead, they helped arrange for the astronomers to announce their discovery in a 2-minute segment on an infotainment news show. Neither the NYT, nor the astronomers, nor anyone would think that was a good idea. It would never, ever happen. This I'm more inclined to believe. I'm not sure if it would impact the outcome though. I can't imagine there's a huge overlap in people that read the NYT versus watch morning infotainment. I've also lost all faith in humanity, so I can't rule out that it's quite possible that people would make such bad decisions. > During the interview, one of the astronomers got upset because the talk show hosts were nonchalant about the news of the possible end of civilization (!?). Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story - again, easily the biggest story in human history, which anyone could appreciate at such. I think this pretty firmly falls into satirical license as a commentary on meme culture, and how people care more about the messenger than the message.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > Counter example: Trump new about the severity of covid and downplayed it for quite some time instead of trying to rally the country. The irony is that the pandemic was such a slam-dunk easy win politically. Handled with the minimum level of political savvy, this was a dead simple way to send his approval ratings into the van allen belt, just like Bush post-9/11. I think his personal financial stake in the hospitality industry clouded his judgment and prevented him from taking advantage of the biggest election campaign tailwind in a generation.
  - millzlane 5y ago
    I remember when asked about what to say to the American people about the pandemic who are scared. His response was to lash out. It was such a easy slam dunk question, I was almost inspired to create a you tube video asking people to remix it and answer the question like a president.
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      I think this scenario was a textbook example of why the traditional norm for incoming presidents to divest from their businesses exists. His head was probably spinning like a gyroscope over his business empire cratering and his loans coming due. We can only imagine how things would've turned out if we'd had leadership with an unbiased focus on national unity and the greater good. He could very easily have had a landslide re-election.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Mulling it over, he could have made sooo much by reconfiguring them into humane quarantine centers, without the need to have FEMA-camps, or things like that.
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  >Trump new about the severity of covid and downplayed it for quite some time Trump neither tried to hide the existence of COVID from the public nor thought it would topple civilization and kill him personally. He downplayed it and the risk it posed, but that is a different order of lying. Trump said exactly as much as he thought he could get away with, and no more. >There absolutely can be some fanatical base that will construct shared delusional propaganda to avoid the realization that they've been conned. Sure, but COVID-deniers are a fringe and any political calculus that depends on denying COVID is therefore bound to fail. It is equally clear that denying the existence of an earth-shattering asteroid makes no political sense.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history My understanding was they ran the story and the morning tv show was part of a media tour they set up, the response on the tv show such that they did not really want to continue with the big media blitz and publishing more stories that they had planned. >Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story They had ran it by other scientists in the initial meeting who said that the data looked credible. However after the disastrous media appearance one of the things that made the NYT not want to continue with writing more articles was that they had learned the science was not 100% and they were mad they had been lied to. Who said the science was not 100%? Dr. Jocelyn Calder the head of NASA, later Calder resigns in disgrace to shield the administration when scientist with Ivy League credentials confirm the comet is coming. on edit: formatting, grammar

chrsig 5y ago

> Let me take a couple of specific examples. Upon being told that an asteroid large enough to destroy human civilization was on course to hit the earth in 6 months, the President decided that it would make strategic sense to delay announcing or acting on the threat until after the midterms - a month or so later. This was conspicuous for the fact no reason was given, which had to be the case as it makes no sense. Counter example: Trump new about the severity of covid and downplayed it for quite some time instead of trying to rally the country. > Meaning its only effect would be to crater the President's support when it became clear they hid the truth. Even an amaetuer political observer would understand all this, let alone a Whitehouse team that won a Presidential election. In light of the above, this has been shown to be false. There absolutely can be some fanatical base that will construct shared delusional propaganda to avoid the realization that they've been conned. > Or how about the manner in which the astronomers announced their discovery? They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history. Instead, they helped arrange for the astronomers to announce their discovery in a 2-minute segment on an infotainment news show. Neither the NYT, nor the astronomers, nor anyone would think that was a good idea. It would never, ever happen. This I'm more inclined to believe. I'm not sure if it would impact the outcome though. I can't imagine there's a huge overlap in people that read the NYT versus watch morning infotainment. I've also lost all faith in humanity, so I can't rule out that it's quite possible that people would make such bad decisions. > During the interview, one of the astronomers got upset because the talk show hosts were nonchalant about the news of the possible end of civilization (!?). Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story - again, easily the biggest story in human history, which anyone could appreciate at such. I think this pretty firmly falls into satirical license as a commentary on meme culture, and how people care more about the messenger than the message.

mullingitover 5y ago
> Counter example: Trump new about the severity of covid and downplayed it for quite some time instead of trying to rally the country. The irony is that the pandemic was such a slam-dunk easy win politically. Handled with the minimum level of political savvy, this was a dead simple way to send his approval ratings into the van allen belt, just like Bush post-9/11. I think his personal financial stake in the hospitality industry clouded his judgment and prevented him from taking advantage of the biggest election campaign tailwind in a generation.
- millzlane 5y ago
  I remember when asked about what to say to the American people about the pandemic who are scared. His response was to lash out. It was such a easy slam dunk question, I was almost inspired to create a you tube video asking people to remix it and answer the question like a president.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    I think this scenario was a textbook example of why the traditional norm for incoming presidents to divest from their businesses exists. His head was probably spinning like a gyroscope over his business empire cratering and his loans coming due. We can only imagine how things would've turned out if we'd had leadership with an unbiased focus on national unity and the greater good. He could very easily have had a landslide re-election.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Mulling it over, he could have made sooo much by reconfiguring them into humane quarantine centers, without the need to have FEMA-camps, or things like that.
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
>Trump new about the severity of covid and downplayed it for quite some time Trump neither tried to hide the existence of COVID from the public nor thought it would topple civilization and kill him personally. He downplayed it and the risk it posed, but that is a different order of lying. Trump said exactly as much as he thought he could get away with, and no more. >There absolutely can be some fanatical base that will construct shared delusional propaganda to avoid the realization that they've been conned. Sure, but COVID-deniers are a fringe and any political calculus that depends on denying COVID is therefore bound to fail. It is equally clear that denying the existence of an earth-shattering asteroid makes no political sense.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>They went to the NYT, who inexplicably decided that they would forego running the biggest story in human history My understanding was they ran the story and the morning tv show was part of a media tour they set up, the response on the tv show such that they did not really want to continue with the big media blitz and publishing more stories that they had planned. >Returning to the NYT offices, they're told that the journalists were able to confirm their findings with well-respected third party scientists, but that because one of the astronomers got upset in air, they weren't going to run the story They had ran it by other scientists in the initial meeting who said that the data looked credible. However after the disastrous media appearance one of the things that made the NYT not want to continue with writing more articles was that they had learned the science was not 100% and they were mad they had been lied to. Who said the science was not 100%? Dr. Jocelyn Calder the head of NASA, later Calder resigns in disgrace to shield the administration when scientist with Ivy League credentials confirm the comet is coming. on edit: formatting, grammar