The Trump Presidency

[Kraut783]

"But I recognize that the agency is the most important thing to me," Apparently not she said. "My government is the most important thing to me. No, not if you are really serving the office and not the person. I serve at the pleasure of the president, but I still have the First Amendment right to say things." but not in her postion as an USSS agent.

 

[Raptor]

This story made me look up what the "Lost Cause myth" was. Is that really still taught in the US?

I don't recall ever hearing anything in school along the lines of what the myth states (if it was taught to me, it would have been in elementary school), but I know some members of a church I used to go to believe it. I would not be surprised if their kids/grandchildren heard if from them and started to believe in it themselves. Perhaps the schools could do a better job of dispelling the myth, but I'm not sure if that would sway the people who are picking it up from their own family.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Here's another article I saw today I found very interesting. Rick Perlestein is an author and historian I've really enjoyed. I think his 3-part series on the rise of the modern Republican party is phenomenal though I haven't yet finished the 3rd book (The Bridge). He is definitely a liberal in both the political sense and the political science definition - but is also a well-regarded historian. This essay I think is very informative in it's academic take on a clash of worldviews - but is written from a liberal perspective so if that shit is going to turn you off from the beginning don't bother.

I asked my student why he voted for Trump. The answer was thoughtful, smart, and terrifying.

I'll be honest, that guy is not cool. It became really hard to get through in the middle when he basically claimed that the entire essay his student wrote was just wrong. I understand all the data he threw out there to support his position, but he forgets something that is very important: perception is reality.

 

[AWP]

This story made me look up what the "Lost Cause myth" was. Is that really still taught in the US?

I don't if it is still taught, but it widely accepted in some circles. One of those things passed down within families and written about by historians. People believe it because they want to, it softens the historical narrative, or it is ingrained into them by their family. I have something like 8 - 10 ancestors who fought for the CSA, another who may have participated in the Lincoln Assassination plot (he took a rope for his troubles), and a couple of straight-up slave owners. I'm all too familiar with both (flawed IMO) sides to the Lost Cause argument.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

So here is one of my many issues with today's media. I've had CNN on most of the day and their primary talker has been around this stupid Trump "illegal's voting" story. Talking heads, charts, testimony, and a touch of attendance-gate mixed in for good measure.

Meanwhile, with the stroke of a pen he's ordered a federal hiring freeze, stopped pay increases, and gave new life to the Keystone Oil fields. These are HUGE stories and barely (if at all) got a mention today on live broadcast and small links on the website.

Hey CNN, want me to take you serious and help debunk the "media out to get Trump" story? Cover the stuff that matters, not just the couple topics that you find sexy and might give you ratings.

NBC News cover story is about China pushing back in regards to islands dispute.

CBS News cover story is about projected Trump Supreme Court nominees.

ABC is playing the CNN card and talking about alleged voter fraud.

I'm not saying Trump spouting off about alleged voter fraud is not important, but there are bigger and more important stories to cover.

 

[reed11b]

So here is one of my many issues with today's media. I've had CNN on most of the day and their primary talker has been around this stupid Trump "illegal's voting" story. Talking heads, charts, testimony, and a touch of attendance-gate mixed in for good measure.

Meanwhile, with the stroke of a pen he's ordered a federal hiring freeze, stopped pay increases, and gave new life to the Keystone Oil fields. These are HUGE stories and barely (if at all) got a mention today on live broadcast and small links on the website.

And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
Reed

 

[Il Duce]

I'll be honest, that guy is not cool. It became really hard to get through in the middle when he basically claimed that the entire essay his student wrote was just wrong. I understand all the data he threw out there to support his position, but he forgets something that is very important: perception is reality.

In a graduate seminar perception is definitely not reality. When I was getting my masters in political science I served as a teaching assistant for two semesters. It was very common for undergraduates to think they were in high school and that whatever opinion they offered was just as valid as anything else. Political science - like any other science - has a body of knowledge associated with it. You have to make a case based on evidence. There are still disagreements - but every position is most assuredly not equal.

I don't if it is still taught, but it widely accepted in some circles. One of those things passed down within families and written about by historians. People believe it because they want to, it softens the historical narrative, or it is ingrained into them by their family. I have something like 8 - 10 ancestors who fought for the CSA, another who may have participated in the Lincoln Assassination plot (he took a rope for his troubles), and a couple of straight-up slave owners. I'm all too familiar with both (flawed IMO) sides to the Lost Cause argument.

I thought this was one of the great insights of the essay - that opinion and general 'feeling' often inform analysis. This kid was 21 years old, I doubt he's had any set of facts drilled into him - instead been exposed to a modicum of social science and begun to form his worldview. That's exactly what you're supposed to be doing in the education system - especially the liberal arts one - but it highlights the fact your own experiences, biases, and world view greatly affect the conclusions you make about the same information.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Trump signing an immigration reform Executive Order, part of that is authorization for the construction of the Wall: Trump to sign executive order on border wall plans, immigration enforcement

 

[AWP]

In a graduate seminar perception is definitely not reality. When I was getting my masters in political science I served as a teaching assistant for two semesters. It was very common for undergraduates to think they were in high school and that whatever opinion they offered was just as valid as anything else. Political science - like any other science - has a body of knowledge associated with it. You have to make a case based on evidence. There are still disagreements - but every position is most assuredly not equal.

I disagree with this because for that person their perception is reality, fact, and belief rolled into one. Proven facts may state otherwise, but until you can convince someone of those facts' reliability, what they perceive is real to them. The realiability of stats poses problems of their own. Think of the studies that prove Item A is correct and then several years later we learn Item B is correct while Item A is wrong. There are also studies with an inherent bias or outside influence and all of these influence statistics or a narrative. One great example is the FBI's data on violent crime. We know it to be incomplete, but those are the official US Gov't numbers. Does unreported violence ( with respect to the FBI) drastically change the FBI's numbers and subsequent conclusions? We don't know and can we trust what outside agencies or studies present?

Perception also "allows" us to cherry pick studies or numbers that support our beliefs. Black people are inferior to white people? Use crime statistics or high school graduation rates (I'm spitballing, I don't know the actual numbers and this isn't a meme so fact checking isn't allowed ) to support your beliefs. Dredge up a study from 10 or 20 years ago....any scenario we can conceive of to support our perception.

To a person what they think they see is what they see and believe. Those are the only "facts" that matter to that individual.

 

[ThunderHorse]

In a graduate seminar perception is definitely not reality. When I was getting my masters in political science I served as a teaching assistant for two semesters. It was very common for undergraduates to think they were in high school and that whatever opinion they offered was just as valid as anything else. Political science - like any other science - has a body of knowledge associated with it. You have to make a case based on evidence. There are still disagreements - but every position is most assuredly not equal.

Then we should be looking at it through a lens which I find extremely difficult: social history. The worst class I ever took as a part of my history major was a Methodologically Intensive Social History course.

Perception is always the reality. You may attempt to change the perception with data. Back to the article, it just became very tough to read and I really didn't care at that point, because he wasn't showing he even understood where his student was coming from. And maybe that's the point, if you've never lived poor how can you actually know. I remember when the Enron went up, Linda Lay talked about how they were poor, yeah, they were somehow bankrupt because her husband committed serious white collar crime, but they still had 10 homes with massive acreage. That is not poor, her perception was that she was though, tone deaf as hell.

 

[Il Duce]

I disagree with this because for that person their perception is reality, fact, and belief rolled into one. Proven facts may state otherwise, but until you can convince someone of those facts' reliability, what they perceive is real to them. The realiability of stats poses problems of their own. Think of the studies that prove Item A is correct and then several years later we learn Item B is correct while Item A is wrong. There are also studies with an inherent bias or outside influence and all of these influence statistics or a narrative. One great example is the FBI's data on violent crime. We know it to be incomplete, but those are the official US Gov't numbers. Does unreported violence ( with respect to the FBI) drastically change the FBI's numbers and subsequent conclusions? We don't know and can we trust what outside agencies or studies present?

Perception also "allows" us to cherry pick studies or numbers that support our beliefs. Black people are inferior to white people? Use crime statistics or high school graduation rates (I'm spitballing, I don't know the actual numbers and this isn't a meme so fact checking isn't allowed ) to support your beliefs. Dredge up a study from 10 or 20 years ago....any scenario we can conceive of to support our perception.

To a person what they think they see is what they see and believe. Those are the only "facts" that matter to that individual.

I hear you and I don't think I disagree. The point I was trying to make is that within political science - like any topic - there are frames of reference, rules of evidence, established theory, and a canon of literature from which positions can be derived. There is ample room for opinion and differences in interpretation - but that's still a far cry from anything goes or that all opinions and positions are equal. My experience in the social sciences has been too many of the undereducated value opinion and interpretation without reference to any expertise in the subject.

Here is a really condescending article on being an expert I think makes the point - though as I said in an extremely douchey manner: The Death Of Expertise

 

[nobodythank you]

I hear you and I don't think I disagree. The point I was trying to make is that within political science - like any topic - there are frames of reference, rules of evidence, established theory, and a canon of literature from which positions can be derived. There is ample room for opinion and differences in interpretation - but that's still a far cry from anything goes or that all opinions and positions are equal. My experience in the social sciences has been too many of the undereducated value opinion and interpretation without reference to any expertise in the subject.

I think you are correct within an academic or professional atmosphere. On the other hand, for the average schmo, in the absence of information, perception is quite literally reality. With no other information to go on, one must make a decision based on the available data (even if it is flawed).Excellent observation though, something to think about and consider.

 

[Etype]

And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
Reed

The "gag order" applies to press releases and official media sites.

I'm sure you're inferring that the, "largest employer of veterans," is the federal government, and I'm sure this argument ties back in to your assumed personal afront because you were applying for a VA police job.

If you had done a bit more research, you'd see that the freeze doesn't apply to public safety of national defense hires.

Your research has been incredible weak since your 'Jeff Sessions on-the-record racist comments' posts.

 

[compforce]

And placed a gag order on the EPA. I find it concerning that you think these are good things. Guess who the largest employer of Veterans is?
Reed

Actually, I do consider them good things. Our Government is a bloated beast rife with waste in the form of non-performing employees, redundant responsibilities and a bureaucracy that slows things down to somewhere below the speed of swamp water. Yes, it's the largest employer of Veterans, because it's the largest employer. It also happens to be the largest employer of every minority class, the largest employer of Active Duty military and many others. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world at 3.2 Million people. And the DoD was exempted from the freeze.



What if Veteran preference was given a boost while cutting unnecessary positions filled by non-vets? That's entirely possible given Trump's feelings about the military. Either way something has to be done about the amount of money that is spent on Government. The last four consecutive years we have had record tax income and yet are still further in debt and have a higher deficit than we've ever had. A balanced budget is the place to start, and I'm not talking about passing one in Congress, I'm talking about spending cuts to get things under control. Guess what the most expensive resource in any company is? It's employment expense, the cost of having employees. Trump is doing exactly what any newly hired executive does in a private company. He's trimming the non-performers as a means of cost reduction. I wholeheartedly support that effort.

 

[Etype]

What if Veteran preference was given a boost while cutting unnecessary positions filled by non-vets?

Why not just fill the positions with those most qualified?

Being a vet doesn't make you, in and of itself, some form of better or more productive worker.

 

[compforce]

Why not just fill the positions with those most qualified?

Being a vet doesn't make you, in and of itself, some form of better or more productive worker.

I agree, but with a preference toward Veterans when the applicants are otherwise equal. I'm certainly not suggesting hiring a lesser qualified Veteran over a more qualified non-Veteran.

 

[Etype]

I agree, but with a preference toward Veterans when the applicants are otherwise equal. I'm certainly not suggesting hiring a lesser qualified Veteran over a more qualified non-Veteran.

I see your point.

One thing I'm weary of is the entitled vet, it is a very real monster.

 

[TLDR20]

Opinion | The true, correct story of what happened at Donald Trump’s inauguration

IKIS

 

[Salt USMC]

Actually, I do consider them good things. Our Government is a bloated beast rife with waste in the form of non-performing employees, redundant responsibilities and a bureaucracy that slows things down to somewhere below the speed of swamp water. Yes, it's the largest employer of Veterans, because it's the largest employer. It also happens to be the largest employer of every minority class, the largest employer of Active Duty military and many others. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world at 3.2 Million people. And the DoD was exempted from the freeze.

What if Veteran preference was given a boost while cutting unnecessary positions filled by non-vets? That's entirely possible given Trump's feelings about the military. Either way something has to be done about the amount of money that is spent on Government. The last four consecutive years we have had record tax income and yet are still further in debt and have a higher deficit than we've ever had. A balanced budget is the place to start, and I'm not talking about passing one in Congress, I'm talking about spending cuts to get things under control. Guess what the most expensive resource in any company is? It's employment expense, the cost of having employees. Trump is doing exactly what any newly hired executive does in a private company. He's trimming the non-performers as a means of cost reduction. I wholeheartedly support that effort.

These are all good points. I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD? Amongst discretionary spending, the DoD is the single largest part of the budget, taking up something like 55% of spending. President Trump campaigned on a platform of general non-interventionism, yet he wants to ramp up the size of the military, which makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems like the first place to make cuts would be to the biggest slice of the pie. I mean, I know the reason why he won't make cuts to the military - that idea is anathema to republicans, but it also makes very little policy sense.

Here's a little infographic for all of you that lays out discretionary (not mandatory) spending:
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

I'd also like to point out that the "balanced budget" that you proposed in an earlier post would make the President's infrastructure plan much, much more difficult to accomplish, as borrowing would be curtailed.

 

[CDG]

@Salt USMC, I've been on this site for awhile, and I don't recognize your username. Please post an intro in the proper forum before posting again. #noob