Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/807949237820465152[/ame]

[ame]https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/807952595155357696[/ame]

[Dr. Strangelove]

Despite taking part in almost no intelligence briefings, Trump declares CIA report to be ridiculous

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38282533

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'd be careful about assessing this report as casting doubt on Trump's capacity to make decisions regarding national security.

The CIA, an independent entity since Truman conceived it, has been a political animal since it's inception. IOW, they have agendas and interests in advancing their own view of the world. As well, since all the BS during Watergate, Iran Contra and then 911, there is now a single organization, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), that is responsible for providing information to the President.

That the report has been made public says something about it and the CIA.

[hack]

The leak itself is really interesting. They gave most of it to the Post, but enough of it to the Times so that the latter had a minor scoop of its own on it. Then again, all of it went out on a Friday night.

[hack]

Interesting social network analysis based on political affiliation.

https://news.vice.com/story/journali...nalysis-shows?

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, sure. Twitter is a fantastic tool for journalists and you want them to have more than an echo chamber. They should. If they are using it for reporting -- I have lists for the stuf I cover, i.e. -- they should have a list to follow Bannons and Dukes and the alt-right Richard Whomever guy, etc.

On the other hand, how exactly is it that it's the media's fault for not seeing this coming? Polling outfits are there to predict. We're supposed to report what happened yesterday, and investigate things relevant to the discussion. Certainly doing that sort of thing should give smart folks an ability to sense what could be coming, but in this case EVERYBODY was surprised by the outcome. So picking on reporters, instead of the people whose jobs it is to predict, seems a little silly. I'm also not sure about "soul searching" in media. As far as I'm concerned, the surge in NYT subscriptions is an enabler of that newspaper to continue on with its mostly-but-not-completely dynsfunctional self. In addition, what people don't like about media is perceived slant. If one wants just-the-facts-ma'am coverage, don't ask predictive services. That's just begging for the bias to creep in.

There's plenty about the media to critique, but in this election cycle in several ways some excellent work was done. The NYT got to the bottom of the story of Trump's taxes -- that's a good example of the investigative, non-daily function. Trump tried to make reporters the story in a lot of ways, and yet still there were pieces out daily from those reporters who did not insert themselves in the story. Those reporters deserve a pat on the back too. If one is minded to assign blame where it doesn't really belong, then at the very least give credit where it is due.

[froot loops]

I'd be careful about assessing this report as casting doubt on Trump's capacity to make decisions regarding national security.

The CIA, an independent entity since Truman conceived it, has been a political animal since it's inception. IOW, they have agendas and interests in advancing their own view of the world. As well, since all the BS during Watergate, Iran Contra and then 911, there is now a single organization, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), that is responsible for providing information to the President.

That the report has been made public says something about it and the CIA.

His argument would be more impressive if he wasn't arguing that President Obama was putting the country at risk by not attending every intelligence briefing.

[Da Geezer]

hack:

...Certainly doing that sort of thing should give smart folks an ability to sense what could be coming, but in this case EVERYBODY was surprised by the outcome.

Perhaps the "smart" folks are not very smart. Perhaps they reside in an echo chamber in the Acela Zone and are utterly cut off from reality.

[hack]

hack:

Perhaps the "smart" folks are not very smart. Perhaps they reside in an echo chamber in the Acela Zone and are utterly cut off from reality.

Who would you say has a better grasp of reality? The people who think that Trump tells it like it is? Those who think that he will revive manufacturing? Or who judge others based on their race or orientation?

[Da Geezer]

Well, I'd suggest that you read Hannibal's posts from, say, 4 months ago. He had it nailed, not just the winner, but "why" the winner won. Once again I point out that predictive ability is the best way to judge truth. "EVERYBODY" in your world saw it one way, but Hannibal was posting here with a contrary opinion about the outcome. More importantly, he gave you the reasons for his opinion. You and I didn't listen carefully enough. But to call those who were wrong "smart people" is just factually incorrect. They were just stupid lemmings.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If you look at my link, Trump supporters were in a more secluded bubble than the media or 'lefties' were. Both have bubbles, but the Trumpists were more likely to only read & follow others who shared identical thoughts.

[hack]

Well, I'd suggest that you read Hannibal's posts from, say, 4 months ago. He had it nailed, not just the winner, but "why" the winner won. Once again I point out that predictive ability is the best way to judge truth. "EVERYBODY" in your world saw it one way, but Hannibal was posting here with a contrary opinion about the outcome. More importantly, he gave you the reasons for his opinion. You and I didn't listen carefully enough. But to call those who were wrong "smart people" is just factually incorrect. They were just stupid lemmings.

My opinion is that there are all sorts of ways to be smart, stupid, and a everything in between. Hannibal has no grasp on some very basic facts on which he bases very sweeping opinions, yet there is no question has has spoken very intelligently here about his motivation for voting for Trump, and his understanding of why people do. He can connect some dots, no doubt. It's rare that I would care to read the opinion of anyone so uninterested in verifying what he thinks he knows, but I definitely do think his posts are worth reading. Likewise, there are unquestionably very smart people in government as well as the Acela Zone's commercial core in New York who have access to facts and participate in very stupid outcomes one could have seen coming a mile away.

That said, you "point out that predictive ability is the best way to judge truth"? What exactly does that mean?

[Jeff Buchanan]

Yeah, I wondered about that too. What's that mean, Geeze?

[Jeff Buchanan]

Also, Geezer ..... you seem to acknowledge that there is income inequality but you attribute that to lack of preparation for more lucrative employment opportunities in low income earners. Do I have that right?

If there are barriers to preparation, and there are if Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) is correctly interpreted, how do you suggest low income earners close that income gap? Do the Feds have a role in reducing the obstacles to better preparation for low income earners? If not, then whom?

[Whitley]

President-Elect Trump today on China

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politi...wan/index.html

snipped:

Trump indicated Sunday he won't hesitate to anger China until the country comes to the bargaining table on trade and severs ties with North Korea.

"I mean, look, we're being hurt very badly by China with devaluation, with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don't tax them, with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn't be doing, and frankly with not helping us at all with North Korea," Trump said.

"You have North Korea. You have nuclear weapons, and China could solve that problem, and they're not helping us at all," Trump said.

[Jeff Buchanan]

For starters, China Policy as it relates to relations between sovereign states is hugely complex. I'm not sure where Trump is coming from and I am very sure that CNN has no idea what they are making a story about from Trump's comments. That is because they have no idea of the complexity of the China-Taiwan-all other sovereign states relationships. I could be wrong about CNN but I don't think I am.

Next, bringing up North Korea in the context of the US-China relationship tells me either Trump intends to leverage trade (no question China needs access to European and especially US markets) as a bargaining chip to get China to arm-twist the North Koreans (no question NK needs China to survive) into a less confrontational and inflammatory player on the world stage or he has no idea what HE is talking about either.

I'll say this. So far, Trump has proven he is completely unconventional in both domestic and international politics. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The potential for change to the strategic balances nurtured and established for decades between Russia, China (the PRC) and the US is going to be interesting to watch. There is real potential for conflict if a high degree of instability in this triumvirate obtains.