Support NeoGAF

[ampere]

Obama has very good speaking words for only an IQ of 102! I need to get my learns from think thanks more often to get good brain

 

[benjipwns]

Obama has very good speaking words for only an IQ of 102! I need to get my learns from think thanks more often to get good brain

TELEPROMPTERS

 

[brainchild]

Intellectual curiosity isn't a judgement of how intelligent a person is but rather their propensity to explore and improve with minimal provocation. Making detail oriented mistakes, or being problematically vague, being rigid to a fault, etc. once or twice isn't so much an issue. If you KEEP making those mistakes and don't show improvement, it suggests you aren't taking the time and energy to address your shortcomings and actively seek out way to improve or bolster your knowledge base. I think that's a problem - especially for someone who seeks an office as high as President.

I never argued this. I know exactly what intellectual curiosity is. The examples you listed can not be used to determine with any significant degree of certainty the lack of intellectual curiousity in a person. There are too many unknown variables.

- we don't know how much some specific errors in knowledge correlate with a person's overall willingness to learn from their mistakes (there is not enough info)
- we don't know a person's internal motivation or agenda for communicating with the public
- we don't know how transparent a person is being with the public about their knowledge
- we don't know if there is a fundamental quirk in a person's learning process that causes them to continue to make certain errors

The logic just isn't there with there being so many other factors to consider. At best, we could conclude that a person doesn't appear to be putting any serious efforts into correcting very specific errors or habits, but nothing definitive can be concluded about their overall lack of intellectual curiosity with only public statements with limited contexts to go on.

 

[Crocodile]

Enough with the Hillary criticism already. Bernie lost, fall in line or line up against the wall. Your choice.

I assume this an "e-mail question" dig? I wouldn't call that a policy/detail oriented question/concern. Though at this point, I'm actually not sure what is the right kind of answer she is supposed to give considering she's already publicly ad straight-forwardly apologized for it. How should she be more straight forward (i.e. cut down on the details) without coming across as if the transgression she made were more serious than they were. Fudging 3 or so "classified" emails is different than 30K (or whatever the number is) "classified" emails. The fact that the classifications may have been made after the fact and the CIA & State department don't always agree on what should or shouldn't be classified matters also should matter. I'm having a hard time telling at this point if she is legit fucking up or if there is just no answer she can give that makes the media happy (since they have so little else to chew on since she doesn't insult some group of American's literally everyday).

 

[brainchild]

I assume this an "e-mail question" dig? I wouldn't call that a policy/detail oriented question/concern. Though at this point, I'm actually not sure what is the right kind of answer she is supposed to give considering she's already publicly ad straight-forwardly apologized for it. How should she be more straight forward (i.e. cut down on the details) without coming across as if the transgression she made were more serious than they were. Fudging 3 or so "classified" emails is different than 30K (or whatever the number is) "classified" emails. The fact that the classifications may have been made after the fact and the CIA & State department don't always agree on what should or shouldn't be classified matters also should matter. I'm having a hard time telling at this point if she is legit fucking up or if there is just no answer she can give that makes the media happy (since they have so little else to chew on since she doesn't insult some group of American's literally everyday).

Whatever the case, I don't consider her to lack intellectual curiosity just because she keeps flubbing her responses to the topic.

No one can say for sure what her reasons are, and that's the point. We just don't know.

 

[Crisco]

I mean, Bush was pretty much a C student right? It's not like we're basing his lack of intelligence on superficial qualities, we literally have the receipts!

 

[brainchild]

I mean, Bush was pretty much a C student right? It's not like we're basing his lack of intelligence on superficial qualities, we literally have the receipts!

His intelligence or lack thereof is not the topic of discussion.

 

[Crayons]

Shit, buy me a drink first.

I'm not cheap. I'm free

 

[The Technomancer]

BRAIN AND BRAIN

WHAT IS BRAIN?

I hate that I get this

 

[sc0la]

Kev. He's rich.

Thanks Kev.
Thkev.

 

[Retromelon]

reagan was a poor student too, but no one can say he didn't get a lot of stuff that he wanted done. bad grades, or the dopey things one does in college are not much of a foreshadowing of political success. FDR was often said to be a second rate intellect, as well

 

[brainchild]

That judgement about Bush isn't just based on public statements, it's also anecdote after anecdote that came out during his administration.

Part of politics is demonstrating your knowledge, and the reiterative nature of Sanders' answers on certain topics months into the campaign and the behavior of his campaign staff gave me the strong impression this was a person who had long ago made up his mind on many topics and who wasn't interested in ever changing it, and who wasn't interested in the details. After Bush Jr., this is something that is anathema to me. Whoever it is I'm voting for, I need them to care about these things.

You absolutely can make a ballpark judgement on someone by observing them, listening to them and what others have to say from experiences interacting with them. Politicians are out there to be judged by the people. I doubt you'd disagree that by all appearances Trump's a racist narcissist. You can't ever say "for sure" what's in someone's head, but after a while, it's not hard to make a pretty good guess.

You begin this argument with a fatal mistake, "part of politics...". Not everyone plays politics in public in the same way, and certainly not Bernie Sanders.

And my whole point has been about how poor argumentation it is to fundamentally base it on unfalsifiable claims like 'guessing someone's mind'. It's pathetically weak. Better to criticize a person's actions than whatever it is that you think that they care or don't care about.

 

[The Technomancer]

You begin this argument with a fatal mistake, "part of politics...". Not everyone plays politics in public in the same way, and certainly not Bernie Sanders.

No, but we can look at the way he was playing it and say "I don't like that and I don't want that person leading us"

 

[Trouble]

Intel Institute: Trump’s IQ is 156, Hillary’s is tiny, Obama’s is the worst in history

Intelligence professors at a prominent think thank have weighed in: Barack Obama has the lowest IQ of any President in United States history, which explains why he has been such a failure, and why he endorsed fellow low IQ member Hillary Clinton.

Thank you Benji, I needed a good laugh.

P.S. http://www.snopes.com/obama-iq-test/

 

[brainchild]

No, but we can look at the way he was playing it and say "I don't like that and I don't want that person leading us"

I'm talking about his internal agenda, and none of us can say for sure what that was.

 

[ampere]

Thanks Kev.
Thkev.

Doesn't work good without a vowel in the middle

Kev needs to change his name

 

[thestopsign]

I think Libertarians manage to be more obnoxious to me than Trump supporters on my social media feeds.

 

[Crocodile]

I never argued this. I know exactly what intellectual curiosity is. The examples you listed can not be used to determine with any significant degree of certainty the lack of intellectual curiousity in a person. There are too many unknown variables.

- we don't know how much some specific errors in knowledge correlate with a person's overall willingness to learn from their mistakes (there is not enough info)
- we don't know a person's internal motivation or agenda for communicating with the public
- we don't know how transparent a person is being with the public about their knowledge
- we don't know if there is a fundamental quirk in a person's learning process that causes them to continue to make certain errors

The logic just isn't there with there being so many other factors to consider. At best, we could conclude that a person doesn't appear to be putting any serious efforts into correcting very specific errors or habits, but nothing definitive can be concluded about their overall lack of intellectual curiosity with only public statements with limited contexts to go on.

Is it the label that bothers you? By the metrics you set, its basically impossible to call anyone you personally don't know (and thus know nearly every detail of how they send their time and how they operate as a learner) lacking in intellectual curiosity. For the "court of public opinion" or as a criteria a voter may use to decide their vote, I don't think the bar is useful if this that high. I think the key distinction is feedback - is the person in question getting feedback (which anyone who runs for public office has to be). If you are wrong on details, too vague, etc. but never receive feedback telling you so, you're not going to be prompted to change and improve. The fact that you didn't receive that feedback is a problem in itself but that's not related to intellectual curiosity. If you receive that feedback and never make improvements, it could certainly be because you are trying to "pull a fast one" on the public or you are making legit attempts to better acquaint yourself with the material and its just beyond your grasp. From the perspective of a voter, does that matter? Is that better? In absence of other evidence, "a lack of intellectual curiosity" feels like the appropriate application of Occam's Razor in most instances.

Whatever the case, I don't consider her to lack intellectual curiosity just because she keeps flubbing her responses to the topic.

No one can say for sure what her reasons are, and that's the point. We just don't know.

Well I don't think the e-mail question, or rather how to better respond to it, is relevant to intellectual curiosity because its not a question of policy, understanding how issues work, etc. Rather it would be an indictment of her skills as an orator and the ability to quickly and concisely communicate messages to others. She has been accused of being someone too eager to use legalese and I don't think that is an unfair critique at all. I'm just personally stumped on how to best answer the email questions in a way that makes the media happy. There is nuance to the situation.

 

[sc0la]

Doesn't work good without a vowel in the middle

Kev needs to change his name

Thanks ampere.
Thampere.

 

[Makai]

 

[benjipwns]

I think Libertarians manage to be more obnoxious to me than Trump supporters on my social media feeds.

The only people more obnoxious than Libertarians are Objectivists.

 

[Foffy]

Intel Institute: Trump’s IQ is 156, Hillary’s is tiny, Obama’s is the worst in history

Intelligence professors at a prominent think thank have weighed in: Barack Obama has the lowest IQ of any President in United States history, which explains why he has been such a failure, and why he endorsed fellow low IQ member Hillary Clinton.

Their about page says it all...

Prntly was founded in 2014 by Alex Portelli, a former libertarian candidate for Mayor, and now political activist. He has been involved with many aspects of the conservative movement, and has recently endorsed Donald Trump. As the blog section of Prntly expanded, the print side of the company took second stage, but was still providing help to candidates like Ben Carson in New Hampshire through beautiful printing supplies.
(If interested, please mail us @ mail@prntly.com)



Prntly is read by Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Stone, Milo Y (Breitbart,) Lou Dobbs, Adam Brown, and various other political activists, elected officials, and policy hawks. 5,000,000 readers have read Prntly each month.

Gutter trash. I come back from a weekend retreat to see the madness of this earth still persisting. Tsk tsk fam.

 

[benjipwns]

Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, may become President if Clinton wins and her health remains an open concern for her family, despite media coverups to suggest otherwise.

Now Kaine is facing heat for a tweet.

If you strip away all the pomp and circumstance surrounding Hillary's campaign, you'd see an awkward woman who engages in very bizarre behavior, and does as much as possible to make sure she stays in a very controlled, and safe environment. In all honesty, if it wasn't for her last name, a friendly media, and her already well established public presence, Clinton wouldn't really be waging a very good campaign.

...

But some actions by Clinton lately have begun to raise questions about it being none of those things.

Between Hillary's repeated coughing fits, incredibly low energy, and very odd reactions that seem more like she's overacting worse than Jim Carrey, people have begun to question both Hillary's physical and mental health. Some speculate that these odd behaviors stem from Hillary's concussion suffered in 2012, after having another one of her fainting spells. Since then, there have been signs that she hasn't been quite right.

One solid example is her sudden seizure when reporters asked her questions simultaneously. Clinton tries to play it off, but to little effect.

This is something sometimes caused by stress or overstimulation. At the end of the DNC, I noticed a very odd reaction of Hillary's to all the things happening around her. At the time I played it off as her attempting to look like a normal person surprised by all the great things, but after a while I started to wonder.

There's more. Clinton's oversleeping during important meetings, odd outbursts of anger, and abusiveness toward those around her as far back as her time as first lady.

It all amounts to a woman who is likely not all there. Someone who is prone to actions not wholly voluntary. No matter how you paint it, Hillary Clinton has some issues we should be very concerned about, and the media should be looking very closely into her health. If she isn't well, then we're going to have a President who will often be MIA, or worse, make decisions that defy logic and reason, pulling our nation into directions we don't want it going.

While speculation about Hillary's health is nothing new, the recent uptick in concern is noticeable. Especially with all the recent footage of Clinton's physical oddities.

it does make u wonder

 

[kirblar]

I'm talking about his internal agenda, and none of us can say for sure what that was.

But we can make a very educated guess. And then make a judgement based on that guess. And that's good enough.

Just like we can't "know for sure" what economic outcomes will be, we can't "know for sure" what's in someone's head, but after looking at enough history, we generally have a pretty damn good guess.

 

[brainchild]

Is it the label that bothers you? By the metrics you set, its basically impossible to call anyone you personally don't know (and thus know nearly every detail of how they send their time and how they operate as a learner) lacking in intellectual curiosity. For the "court of public opinion" or as a criteria a voter may use to decide their vote, I don't think the bar is useful if this that high. I think the key distinction is feedback - is the person in question getting feedback (which anyone who runs for public office has to be). If you are wrong on details, too vague, etc. but never receive feedback telling you so, you're not going to be prompted to change and improve. The fact that you didn't receive that feedback is a problem in itself but that's not related to intellectual curiosity. If you receive that feedback and never make improvements, it could certainly be because you are trying to "pull a fast one" on the public or you are making legit attempts to better acquaint yourself with the material and its just beyond your grasp. From the perspective of a voter, does that matter? Is that better? In absence of other evidence, "a lack of intellectual curiosity" feels like the appropriate application of Occam's Razor in most instances.

That's pretty much what I said. That bar that you're talking about is called 'sound logic'.

If the public wants to take leaps in logic to arrive at their conclusions, that's fine, but I was just calling it like I saw it.

Well I don't think the e-mail question, or rather how to better respond to it, is relevant to intellectual curiosity because its not a question of policy, understanding how issues work, etc. Rather it would be an indictment of her skills as an orator and the ability to quickly and concisely communicate messages to others. She has been accused of being someone too eager to use legalese and I don't think that is an unfair critique at all. I'm just personally stumped on how to best answer the email questions in a way that makes the media happy. There is nuance to the situation.

Intellectual curiosity (or the lack thereof) is not limited to policy detail. Not sure why you think it is.

 

[pigeon]

I never argued this. I know exactly what intellectual curiosity is. The examples you listed can not be used to determine with any significant degree of certainty the lack of intellectual curiousity in a person. There are too many unknown variables.

- we don't know how much some specific errors in knowledge correlate with a person's overall willingness to learn from their mistakes (there is not enough info)
- we don't know a person's internal motivation or agenda for communicating with the public
- we don't know how transparent a person is being with the public about their knowledge
- we don't know if there is a fundamental quirk in a person's learning process that causes them to continue to make certain errors

The logic just isn't there with there being so many other factors to consider. At best, we could conclude that a person doesn't appear to be putting any serious efforts into correcting very specific errors or habits, but nothing definitive can be concluded about their overall lack of intellectual curiosity with only public statements with limited contexts to go on.

This is, again, the Humean froth argument of theory of mind.

It is technically true to say we can't really know anything about other people's mental processes or even that they have mental processes at all. There is no particular reason to assume they're not all just pseudorandom automatons or that you aren't one. But generally people get along fine assuming that other people have minds, that people's minds generally resemble each other's, and that people's choices and actions result from their mental state (and thus that information about their minds can be derived from their choices and actions in various contexts).

Arguing the fundamental unknowability of all things just isn't a useful argument even if it's true.

 

[brainchild]

But we can make a very educated guess. And then make a judgement based on that guess. And that's good enough.

Just like we can't "know for sure" what economic outcomes will be, we can't "know for sure" what's in someone's head, but after looking at enough history, we generally have a pretty damn good guess.

There are degrees of educated guesses. This sits close to the bottom of the barrel. Certainly not enough to definitively declare that someone lacks intellectual curiosity. It's a worthless criticism, imo. Even if we're talking about Bush Jr.

 

[benjipwns]

This is, again, the Humean froth

Enough with the Hillary lesbian rumors already. Bernie lost, fall in line or line up against the wall. Your choice.

 

[Iolo]

Doesn't work good without a vowel in the middle

Kev needs to change his name

Thy2Kev

 

[Retromelon]

if brainchild were a superhero he'd be, "Arguesverboselyabouttediousandmundanetopics Man"
and he would argue about the meanings of words with you until the bad guy cries out in agony just take me to prison please

 

[Crocodile]

That's pretty much what I said. That bar that you're talking about is called 'sound logic'.

If the public wants to take leaps in logic to arrive at their conclusions, that's fine, but I was just calling it like I saw it.

I'm all for railing against baseless speculation but if the bar is "you can't say X unless you know for 35132535132% sure!" then we might as well get rid of like 90% of human communication. This feels like an argument in semantics than anything useful :/

Intellectual curiosity (or the lack thereof) is not limited to policy detail. Not sure why you think it is.

I mean I guess you can argue "why hasn't she taken any classes or seen a coach to be able to speak more concisely" but I feel its pretty obvious that in the context that "intellectual curiosity" is used in politics, or at least that I've ever seen, it speaks more to policy and pushing through quality legislation than the ability to orate. Bush Jr. was mocked for his skills as a speaker and some questioned his intelligence because of it but, as you already know and agree, that different than intellectual curiosity.

 

[brainchild]

This is, again, the Humean froth argument of theory of mind.

It is technically true to say we can't really know anything about other people's mental processes or even that they have mental processes at all. There is no particular reason to assume they're not all just pseudorandom automatons or that you aren't one. But generally people get along fine assuming that other people have minds, that people's minds generally resemble each other's, and that people's choices and actions result from their mental state (and thus that information about their minds can be derived from their choices and actions in various contexts).

Arguing the fundamental unknowability of all things just isn't a useful argument even if it's true.

I just didn't care for how declarative these 'educated guesses' were. They aren't even that valuable as educated guesses to me because the degree to which we can reliably infer internal constructs (or more importantly, the lack thereof) of things like intent/care/motivation is much lower than the degree to which we can reliably infer cognitive processes (or the lack thereof) of things like executive function.

I should make a point that it's much easier to make assumptions about things that have been demonstrated than things that haven't been demonstrated. LACK of intellectual curiosity falls into the latter camp. It would be easier to infer that someone is actually intellectual curious than not because we've been presented with evidence. Inferring a lack of intellectual curiosity works on a basis of at least some lack of evidence, which puts it in an entirely different field of argumentation.

if brainchild were a superhero he'd be, "Arguesverboselyabouttediousandmundanetopics Man"
and he would argue about the meanings of words with you until the bad guy cries out in agony just take me to prison please

Why you gotta be so mean? >:|

 

[pigeon]

I just didn't care for how declarative these 'educated guesses' were. They aren't even that valuable as educated guesses to me because the degree to which we can reliably infer internal constructs (or more importantly, the lack thereof) of things like intent/care/motivation is much lower than the degree to which we can reliably infer cognitive processes (or the lack thereof) of things like executive function.

I should make a point that it's much easier to make assumptions about things that have been demonstrated than things that haven't been demonstrated. LACK of intellectual curiosity falls into the latter camp. It would be easier to infer that someone is actually intellectual curious than not because we've been presented with evidence. Inferring a lack of intellectual curiosity works on a basis of at least some lack of evidence, which puts it in an entirely different field of argumentation.

Yeah, we crossposted and I think your followup argument was better put.

The reason I think Bush lacked intellectual curiosity is mostly traceable to an Atlantic article where they interviewed people who worked with him who said he had no intellectual curiosity. This, I think you will admit, is at least at a higher tier of evidence than the other stuff, because these were people who interacted directly with him over a period of time. Not sure I can find the article, though.

 

[Trouble]

Classic Unselfishly Caring Kaine

 

[brainchild]

I'm all for railing against baseless speculation but if the bar is "you can't say X unless you know for 35132535132% sure!" then we might as well get rid of like 90% of human communication. This feels like an argument in semantics than anything useful :/

Oh they can say whenever they want. But when it comes to statements that I feel are way too presumptuous than they have any right to be, I'm definitely going to challenge it.

There are lots of things I don't mind automatically assuming for convenience and effective communication even without strong certainty (and I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to do so), but a 'lack of intellectual curiosity' isn't one of those things.

I mean I guess you can argue "why hasn't she taken any classes or seen a coach to be able to speak more concisely" but I feel its pretty obvious that in the context that "intellectual curiosity" is used in politics, or at least that I've ever seen, it speaks more to policy and pushing through quality legislation than the ability to orate. Bush Jr. was mocked for his skills as a speaker and some questioned his intelligence because of it but, as you already know and agree, that different than intellectual curiosity.

Well I think you already know how I'd respond to any argument that Hillary Clinton lacks intellectual curiosity:

Yeah, we crossposted and I think your followup argument was better put.

The reason I think Bush lacked intellectual curiosity is mostly traceable to an Atlantic article where they interviewed people who worked with him who said he had no intellectual curiosity. This, I think you will admit, is at least at a higher tier of evidence than the other stuff, because these were people who interacted directly with him over a period of time. Not sure I can find the article, though.

Definitely. Still wouldn't automatically assume it or accept it, but I could see it being a reasonable argument for why he lacks intellectual curiosity (especially if the statement came from a person who knows him personally)

 

[benjipwns]

As senator, Clinton promised 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York. Her efforts fell flat.

upstate job growth stagnated overall during her tenure, with manufacturing jobs plunging nearly 25 percent, according to jobs data.

The former first lady was unable to pass the big-ticket legislation she introduced to benefit the upstate economy. She turned to smaller-scale projects, but some of those fell flat after initial glowing headlines, a Washington Post review shows. Many promised jobs never materialized and others migrated to other states as she turned to her first presidential run, said former officials who worked with her in New York.

Clinton’s self-styled role as economic promoter also showcases an operating style that has come to define the political and money-making machine known to some critics of the former first couple as Clinton Inc. Some of her pet economic projects involved loyal campaign contributors, who also supported the Clinton Foundation, The Post review shows.

The campaign declined to estimate how many jobs Clinton created. Campaign officials cited a line from a chart produced by the New York State Department of Labor, showing “Upstate New York’’ gaining 117,000 jobs during Clinton’s first term.

The Post was unable to confirm that number, and the state agency does not use Upstate New York as a specific regional area to measure employment.

Corning officials said federal legislation passed in 2005 helped create about 300 upstate jobs. But that legislation was introduced by a Republican senator. Clinton was among the 21 co-sponsors. The bill did not reverse the economic decline of Steuben County, where Corning is located. Employment there declined about 7 percent during Clinton’s Senate tenure, data shows.

Corning employees have donated to Clinton’s campaigns at a massive clip, and Corning’s chief executive co-hosted a 2015 fundraiser for her. The company paid her $225,500 in 2014 to speak to Corning executives. Corning also has given more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, its records show.

Clinton also has touted her role in creating an “eBay university’’ that trained New York entrepreneurs to sell products on eBay. The idea was that expanding their sales would allow them to create jobs. Company executives have supported Clinton. Its then-CEO, John Donahoe, hosted a 2015 campaign fundraiser with his wife, Eileen, who worked for Clinton at the State Department. EBay paid Clinton $315,000 for a 20-minute speech last year, and eBay’s charitable foundation has given more than $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Anxious Tata employees said they turned to Clinton’s Senate office, which was unresponsive. “We were calling to try to get a scope on what was happening, what we were going to do as the economy continued to go south,’’ one former employee said. “The phone would go unanswered.”

Tata closed its Buffalo office in 2009 and laid off the eight to 10 employees still there, according to former employees.

Tata spokesman Ben Trounson said the office closed because “local market conditions did not perform as well as we hoped.’’

Although foreign nationals cannot contribute to U.S. campaigns, Clinton has won campaign support from the Indian American community, records show. And Tata has remained friendly to the Clintons. Tata Consultancy Services contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and Ratan Tata, then chairman of the Tata Group, was a speaker at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in 2010.

Clinton holds out the success of a Rochester project called Greenprint, a 2006 alternative energy conference and follow-up report that recommended ways for the city to create economic growth by harnessing green energy.

Clinton said at the time that the effort “holds tremendous economic potential,’’ although there has been no estimate of jobs created.

Clinton’s office worked closely with the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Golisano Institute for Sustainability, named for New York businessman Thomas Golisano, a billionaire philanthropist. Golisano, a Bill Clinton friend, was an original underwriter of the Clinton Foundation, to which he has donated between $10 million and $25 million, records show.

Back in Buffalo, the Artspace project illustrated Clinton’s theory that improved quality of life may draw prospective employers. She secured a federal grant for Artspace, the artists’ residential complex, which also won backing from the Republican administration of then-Gov. George Pataki.

In her 2009 Senate departure speech, Clinton said Artspace had created a “model” for not only urban revitalization but also “economic development centered on cultural projects.’’

Did the project create jobs?

“It’s a really creative use of space,’’ said former Buffalo mayor Tony Masiello, a Hillary Clinton donor.

That's it, I'm done with this chronic alcoholic.

I need someone intellectually curious enough to create an arbitrarily selected number of jobs in Upstate New York through Congressional legislation. Hopefully as jobs that are STOLEN from Michigan.

 

[pigeon]

This is a pretty good article about the media trying to figure out how to cover Idiot Hitler.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/b...ive-presidential-candidate.html?smid=tw-share

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?...

Speaking with me later, Mr. Scarborough, a Republican, said he had not contemplated sharing the anecdote [about Trump asking why they can't use nuclear weapons] with the audience until just before he did.

“When that discussion came up, I really didn’t have a choice,” Mr. Scarborough said. “That was something I thought Americans needed to know.”...

Mr. Scarborough, a frequent critic of liberal media bias, said he was concerned that Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic, and asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?”...

While there are several examples of conservative media criticism of Mr. Trump this year, the candidate and his supporters are reprising longstanding accusations of liberal bias. “The media is trying to take Donald Trump out,” Rush Limbaugh declared last week....

This, however, is what being taken seriously looks like. As Ms. Ryan put it to me, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”

It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

 

[brainchild]

As senator, Clinton promised 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York. Her efforts fell flat.





That's it, I'm done with this chronic alcoholic.

I need someone intellectually curious enough to create an arbitrarily selected number of jobs in Upstate New York through Congressional legislation. Hopefully as jobs that are STOLEN from Michigan.

Hahahaha

 

[benjipwns]

This is a pretty good article about the media trying to figure out how to cover Idiot Hitler.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/b...ive-presidential-candidate.html?smid=tw-share

Patrick Long Island N.Y. 2 hours ago
Television is a circus compared to print journalism. If you want print journalism to survive, stop treating Television as an equal. It is not. You must compete, or you will be gone after a very long storied history of public service as Television takes over as a public cancer.

Pier Pezzi Orlando 3 hours ago
Until we put a modern version of "The Fairness Doctrine" in place, forcing major media outlets to give equal air time to all political candidates --- and until we require public-funding of elections --- we can continue to reap what we show: Political candidates that are Millionaires and Billionaires tied to Corporate Media that is making a fortune from "political advertising" and mud-slinging Reality TV styled election campaigns. This is NOT DEMOCRACY!

all, not just major!

found ur comments pigeon:

craig geary redlands fl 3 hours ago
A Viet Nam draft dodging coward, an ignoramus, a racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, twice divorced, thrice married, either a quadruple or sextuple bankruptee, a serial non tax payer, rent boy wanna be for Putin, presumptious pretender to the Presidency and Commander in Chief.

And journalism's job is what?

Steve Shaw Simsbury CT 3 hours ago
Journalists must ask themselves a simple question when evaluating how to cover the Trump candidacy. Everything being equal, how would the have covered Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s?

The Weasel Los Angeles 2 hours ago
I think journalists would have to place themselves in pre-war Germany and the rise of the Nazi party. If a journalist viewed Hitler as a threat and failed to report those concerns honestly, he or she would not be doing their job. Not only was Hitler a threat, he turned out to be absolutely against a free press. Trump shows a similar contempt for a free press, the cornerstone of a democracy.

 

[Holmes]

adam can get behind a platform of stealing jobs from Michigan.

 

[googleplex]

The only people more obnoxious than Libertarians are Objectivists.

Wash your damned mouth out! We don't allow that type of language around here.

 

[eBay Huckster]

adam can get behind a platform of stealing jobs from Michigan.

I can get behind a platform of stealing sports championships from Michigan.

Spoiler

In addition to jobs.

 

[benjipwns]

Wash your damned mouth out! We don't allow that type of language around here.

accept my apologies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-32-m0_-Sg

 

[watershed]

So has the Trump reboot begun yet?

 

[Milchjon]

Posted?

http://imgur.com/gallery/3fXIM

 

[pigeon]

Self-driving trucks are going to radically upend the American way of life.

FOFFY ALERT

 

[kirblar]

Will have to keep this map in my back pocket the next time the minimum wage comes up: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/real-value-100-each-state-2016 Cost of living is a big deal. (Having lived in both states, that $7 gap between MD and VA is completely obvious after a short while.)

 

[Zereta]

So has the Drumpf reboot begun yet?

Economic policies on Monday, with his economic board filled with Steves who also happen to be his biggest donors.

I can't wait for The Donald Trump to begin.

 

[benjipwns]

Will have to keep this map in my back pocket the next time the minimum wage comes up: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/real-value-100-each-state-2016 Cost of living is a big deal. (Having lived in both states, that $7 gap between MD and VA is completely obvious after a short while.)

Man, look at that great value of the dollar in Trump/Trump-lean states.

Shame about the authoritarian far-left Demoncrat states. Maybe President Trump will help them out, if they ever get over their tantrum they'll throw after the skewed polls make them think they'll get Corrupt Alcoholic.

 

[Beer Monkey]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hannity-responds-to-stelter-criticism-on-twitter-226773

This. Is. Insane.

Yes, there were small precincts where Romney got zero votes in 2012. And the converse is true.

Find me one person in those precincts that says they voted differently and would have broken the 100% unanimity.

One.

You can't. #riggedmyass