Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: A church is burning
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: A church is burning (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
I am always leery of the Washington Post's "Five Myths" on various topics appearing in the Sunday "Outlook" section. They always pick some "expert" who chooses the myths he wants to "expose," and leaves a host of other questions unanswered.
In any case, there have been several studies of, as I mentioned, specifically those districts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that went heavily for Trump in 2016, and probably made the difference, that went for Obama in 2012. The consensus was not that race didn't play a role, but it did not play any deciding role, as their perceived economic well-being drove their choice in each general election: Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016.
It may be that, "after Obama became president, attitudes toward blacks suddenly became linked with people’s views on the economy: the less favorable their view of blacks, the less favorable their view of the economy." But that does not explain the majority of white voters in those particular districts mentioned above in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania voting for Obama in 2012.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2019 17:02:20
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
I don't think anyone would conclude that those districts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that went for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016 did not have voters who held racist attitudes and held to a white identity, even as they voted for Obama. My reading of the studies suggests that they (the voters in those districts) did not allow those attitudes (if they indeed held them) to interfere with their choice of Obama as someone whose policies might improve their economic well-being. When that (at least in their perception) did not prove to be the case, they voted for Trump in 2016.
I do think it is an open question as to whether race and white identity were "decisive factors" (as noted in Richard's comment above) in those specific districts under discussion that went for Trump. They may have played a role, but perceived economic malaise played a huge role that Trump played on. And there was a huge "anti-Hillary Clinton" attitude among Trump supporters. And she didn't help her cause when she doubled down and called Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables." Considering the districts under discussion and their vote in 2012 and 2016, the perceived (and I emphasize "perceived") economic problems they faced, and Hillary's rather inept campaign, I would be reluctant to say that race and white identity played the "decisive" role in their 2016 vote.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2019 17:35:03
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
I was careful to make it clear I was summarizing the conclusions of the authors of the book I cited.
Trained as a physicist and mathematician, and having had a long career in these fields and in engineering, I see political science as a "soft science." I don't mean to devalue its utility. Given the importance of politics, quantitative political analysis is a useful pursuit. I just don't see its conclusions as sharp edged nor as reliable as those of physics, for example.
The political scientists whose views I summarized analyzed the results of opinion surveys and drew conclusions. Of course the results of surveys are known to depend upon the formulation of questions, etc. The authors compound the issue by using shorthand descriptions such as "racism" for a composite of responses to various surveys.
These aren't the only criticisms of basing conclusions on the results of surveys.
After all, the most comprehensive and technically sophisticated surveys ascribed a slim advantage to Clinton for the election.
Having said all that, the authors' conclusions resonate with me because they parallel my impressions of the majority of my friends and acquaintances who supported, and continue to strongly support Trump. I emphasize the word "friends." These people are intelligent hard working individuals who have earned various demanding technical credentials, and as a result enjoy comfortable, stable incomes and good job prospects. They have at various times expressed racist views, neither strongly nor persistently in person, though they do post an occasional meme on Facebook.
A number of my extended family also voted for Trump, but are now at least muted in his support, if not disappointed by his performance in office. These people are highly educated, notably prosperous, economically conservative, and devoutly religious. I interpret their votes as resulting from wedge issues like abortion, same sex marriage, and the like, as well as long running adherence to the Republican party's economic policies--at least the policies professed in the past.
During a good sized family dinner on Easter Sunday, politics didn't come up much. The youngest adult generation are not Trump supporters, nor are they particularly religious. I resisted the temptation to ask about the ballooning deficit, out of respect for the feelings of a thoughtful, loving and generous family.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2019 23:47:28
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
I think I was also careful to make it equally clear that my observations and those of the political scientists mentioned, summarized in my comments above, concerned only those districts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that went for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. I was not by any means extrapolating from those districts to the general populace. The reason I was interested in those particular districts is they were, at least in part, key to Trump's surprising win over Clinton. That they went for Obama in 2012 made them even more interesting.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 25 2019 1:19:58
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Check out what the Russians are supposed to have done, and then read about Cambridge Analytica.
quote:
The company was partly owned by the family of Robert Mercer, an American hedge-fund manager who supports many politically conservative causes.[7][9] The firm maintained offices in London, New York City, and Washington, DC.[10] CEO Alexander Nix has said CA was involved in 44 US political races in 2014.[11] In 2015, CA performed data analysis services for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign.[9] In 2016, CA worked for Donald Trump's presidential campaign[12] as well as for Leave.EU (one of the organisations campaigning in the United Kingdom's referendum on European Union membership). CA's role in those campaigns has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing criminal investigations in both countries.[13][14][15] Political scientists question CA's claims about the effectiveness of its methods of targeting voters.[16][17]
In March 2018, multiple media outlets broke news of Cambridge Analytica's business practices. The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had acquired and used personal data about Facebook users from an external researcher who had told Facebook he was collecting it for academic purposes.[18] Shortly afterwards, Channel 4 News aired undercover investigative videos showing Nix boasting about using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to discredit politicians on whom it conducted opposition research, and saying that the company "ran all of (Donald Trump's) digital campaign". In response to the media reports, the Information Commissioner of the UK pursued a warrant to search the company's servers.[19][20] Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica from advertising on its platform, saying that it had been deceived.[21][22] On 23 March 2018, the British High Court granted the Information Commissioner's Office a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices.[23]
The personal data of approximately 87 million[24] Facebook users were acquired via the 270,000 Facebook users who used a Facebook app called "This Is Your Digital Life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
And about microtargeting and what it could do to mobilize originally passive but susceptible voters through self-distructing communications.
-
Most amazing about it the tidying up afterwards.
With specialists finding that tailored and targeting campaigning couldn´t achieve much. (How in the world could it NOT!)
And media sweeping CA under the carpet, compliantly leaving focus on Russian´s almightiness.
So, fake news (provided they were fake, dunno, after all there is plenty of common dirt around that wouldn´t need any secret service´s fantasy) of thousands of just launched private accounts (= without legacy / foregone following / clicks) are supposed to reach more people and to change their minds to boot, than tailored agitation to thousands of right winger addressees (and again their spreading) as confirmative mobilization in states with bare majorities.
Doesn´t really seem like of sense.
Pretty convincing on the other hand how CA has vanished from public consciousness.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 26 2019 6:33:05
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
Here's the relevant part of the Table of Contents of vol.1 of the Mueller report:
Thanks for that, Konstantin. President Trump's idiot son-in-law and "advisor" Jared Kushner, in an interview Tuesday, characterized Russian interference in the 2016 election as a "couple of Facebook ads" and suggested that Mueller's investigation into it was more harmful to American democracy than the meddling itself. Of course, Trump (and apparently Kushner) consider Vladimir Putin's credibility to be of greater value than that of our US intelligence community.
Former acting director of the CIA Michael Morell disputed that characterization Wednesday and said Kushner was attempting to "downplay" Russia's "significant and extensive interference." "We're talking about ads that reached over 100 million people," Morell said, adding that the attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election included a range of activities from handing over stolen information to WikiLeaks, to trying to get inside voting systems and using overt media to spread disinformation in addition to social media. The US intelligence community has concluded that Russian military intelligence (GRU) is responsible for much of it, operating out of a complex in St. Petersburg.
Trump and Kushner in denial. "A couple of Facebook ads," indeed. As has been demonstrated in his dealings with Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping, all one has to do to roll Trump is flatter him.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 27 2019 12:58:41
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
and said Kushner was attempting to "downplay" Russia's "significant and extensive interference." "We're talking about ads that reached over 100 million people,"
Sorry but I think there are more dumb rednecks than that in USA. Spreading mis info online eh? Wow, kgb is really scary business these days.
I guess I am just bitter about watching my family and friends share nonsense that they honestly believe on a daily basis. I have like 5 facebook friends (that post anything at all, many just post photos) that never do it. When I see this crap I feel compelled to investigate and 9 out of 10 times it’s BS or twisted.
I think I’m one of your Facebook friends, and I don’t post political stuff.. I have friends who do, and when it is easy and fairly non-confrontational to post factual corrections, at times I do, but I am careful to make it only a part of our friendly interactions.
There are people whom I count as friends who post only memes, political and otherwise. For a couple of them it is conceivable that they not only communicate exclusively via cartoons, but that may be just about the only way they think. I doubt that the memes change my friends’ beliefs, but I believe they reinforce and empower them when they see how many others post the same kind of stuff.
The same day, immediately after the “Access Hollywood” tape was broadcast, with Trump boasting of sexually assaulting women, Wikileaks released the first tranche of stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee. Many important Trump supporters, including the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, saw the tape as damaging enough for them to drop him. The emails changed the subject, and the powerful supporters crept back into place.
I held a Top Secret security clearance for 43 years. You might read that “TS” is the highest level. It’s not. TS is just the threshold. The really secret stuff is behind special access codewords and intelligence tickets. If you hold a TS clearance the FBI investigates you every five years. For codeword and intelligence access you get investigated again for each new access. I estimate that I was investigated at least 30 times. Every time you are investigated you receive a threat briefing describing how a foreign agency might try to compromise you, and telling you whom to contact if they do. The threat briefing for initial access to the National Security Agency or the CIA each lasts for a week, with lectures, case studies, movies, etc. I only ever reported two contacts. In one case a Soviet bloc diplomat was sent home. In the other an American citizen who had lived for years in a foreign country, and who had a foreign wife, had his security clearance suspended.
Mueller documented 140 contacts of the Trump campaign and transition team by Russian agents, whom the Trump people knew to be connected to the Russian government in one way or another. The top Trump people received interim security clearances and threat briefings. Nobody called the FBI.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 27 2019 20:25:55
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
In say lesser sophisticated realms (in terms of not necessarily less consumed lecture, but less realized content), which commonly are rather religiously affected ones, there prevails a wrong perception of harmony.
Its deal being to never be in discourse / to always be in agreement. (Think of old couples who live like discrete strangers with each other, by an unspoken set of strictly avoiding procedures.)
It´s second best tradition being to bypass any realm of personal opinion as prophylaxis.
Advance on the other hand being culture of dispute, which takes argument as an opportunity to cooperate on sobriety, factual align and discovery. It is of sporty attitude.
True intimacy means no shunning from any content while trusting in opponents´ actual interest into topical whereabouts. It can bear discourse, tends no sensitivity as an excuse and stays confident in opponents esteem independently of skills and outcome in a debate.
In fact in sophisticated intercourse an opponent in discourse is not equal to a social opponent. To the contrary, the fairness in argument and intimacy that it builds up, makes for the closest and friendliest companion that can be had.
In all sincerity:
I feel bad for people who can´t have such a nearness, let alone throughout their lives. A true pity.
Some of pals here might read a certain book for a shortcut in the matter.
I recall it under the German title "Streiten verbindet", and suppose it might have been this one: https://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Enemy-Dr-George-Bach/dp/0380001861
-
With one of my friends conversation often times roughly starts like: "Hey, fat sow!"
"Howdy, SOB, what´s up?"
hehe
Nothing can make us suspect each other. Not even the most passionate of debates. Goodwill is always definite, no matter how.
---
Piwin,
Thanks, man; that was a truly funny one. Really made me laugh. :OD
Guess, if Macron´s polls were better, he could actually be tempted to vouch for a similar Club med suggestion.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 28 2019 15:51:15
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.109375 secs.
|
Printable Version
