Donald Trump

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

I would have, but it's paywalled because I read some Adam Serwer articles.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

You can't expect people to read every article posted up. Read it yourself give a summary of the salient points (or quote the salient them) and link the article. If you can't then it should be committed to room 101 as waffle.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

Yes, I read it. There were one or two points not about politics, such as having Tom Hanks talk to everyone.

Okay she *actually* said something about the church, but even that misses the issue of the north/south urban/rural divide that means any given religious leader will inevitably have predominantly one audience or the other.

Also' funnily enough I don't recall the discussions in N Ireland prior to 1998 being anything like she represents. I remember it being more about raking over history to find out who threw the first stone.

So as an esteemed journalist perhaps she could have chosen a better example. Post apartheid South Africans, Bosnians, or Rwandans perhaps.

But what do I know.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

I did - it was a good article

I just don't agree with labelling them seditionists, that may have been the plan/hope of some of them but most will have been good old boys caught up in the excitement of the mob.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

Here's a summary:

1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.

Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.


*I made that part up.

I read it now - that's really not a summary of it at all.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Here's a summary:

1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.

Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.


*I made that part up.

I read it now - that's really not a summary of it at all.

Okay. How so?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Here's a summary:

1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.

Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.


*I made that part up.

I read it now - that's really not a summary of it at all.

Okay. How so?

Too well structured.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Here's a summary:

1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.

Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.


*I made that part up.

I read it now - that's really not a summary of it at all.

Okay. How so?

Too well structured.

Sorry.

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Here's a summary:

1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.

Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.


*I made that part up.

I read it now - that's really not a summary of it at all.

Okay. How so?

Too well structured.

One of the things in English O-level when I did it was 'précis', and though it seemed very dry at the time, the skills involved are vital when writing, especially if you've got a tight word limit on something academic with what is, or seems like, a lot of detail. Writing academic essays much later, I generally over-ran by about 100% on first drafts, but I actually enjoyed the process of distilling it down, and making sure that the argument comes in the right order to be easily comprehended (or as easily as possible). Given how easy editing is on word processors, there's no excuse not to CTC (cut the cr@p).

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

Who's getting the "roads, bridges, and railways" built if not politicians?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

Who's getting the "roads, bridges, and railways" built if not politicians?

Elon Musk?

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Here's a summary:

1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.

Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.


*I made that part up.

I read it now - that's really not a summary of it at all.

Okay. How so?

Too well structured.

One of the things in English O-level when I did it was 'précis', and though it seemed very dry at the time, the skills involved are vital when writing, especially if you've got a tight word limit on something academic with what is, or seems like, a lot of detail. Writing academic essays much later, I generally over-ran by about 100% on first drafts, but I actually enjoyed the process of distilling it down, and making sure that the argument comes in the right order to be easily comprehended (or as easily as possible). Given how easy editing is on word processors, there's no excuse not to CTC (cut the cr@p).

I couldn't put it better myself. In fact, I didn't.

Once you've tried to work to an academic journal word limit, or summaried 5 years' of research and a 300 page thesis on one page, you perhaps get overly critical of rambling opinion pieces.

focuszing723

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

Who's getting the "roads, bridges, and railways" built if not politicians?

Elon Musk?

He's a visionary that guy I tell thee!

kingstongraham

I think the big mistake it makes is thinking that all those who suspect that the election was rigged and that Trump actually won are the same level of batshittery as q enthusiasts. In doing that, it gives the seditionists more power than they deserve.

Basically, the most watched news channel in the USA has been saying that the election was stolen, and it's not difficult to see why that's what a lot of people think.

rick_chasey

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

I have more sense than to post links to the guardian op-eds as though they were the 5th gospel.

elbowloh

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

Who's getting the "roads, bridges, and railways" built if not politicians?

Elon Musk?

He's a visionary that guy I tell thee!

Come back when he invents a time traveling car where we don't need roads.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

If you claim any are great writers...

focuszing723

elbowloh said:

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.

Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.

Who's getting the "roads, bridges, and railways" built if not politicians?

Elon Musk?

He's a visionary that guy I tell thee!

Come back when he invents a time traveling car where we don't need roads.

Ok, no probs.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

If you claim any are great writers...

If you want to dismiss her off the back of a column in the Atlantic, that's your loss.

She's been absolutely bang on about how a Trump presidency plays out (genuinely, go look it up, she called it better than anyone), and her books on democracy or history are very highly rated indeed.

There is a reason people in power across the world listen to her on issues on disinformation and fake news and populism and why despots in Eastern Europe go out of their way to slander her.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

as a rule I like the brevity of Economist articles and in 1st para will outline the problem, then run through the options and conclusion in the last para.

It probably deserved my degree more than I did.

focuszing723

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

as a rule I like the brevity of Economist articles and in 1st para will outline the problem, then run through the options and conclusion in the last para.

It probably deserved my degree more than I did.

Reading articles for me is a bit apples and oranges really. I think it's good to just view a selection from different people, otherwise you are left on a bum note with one persons perspective.

surrey_commuter

focuszing723 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

as a rule I like the brevity of Economist articles and in 1st para will outline the problem, then run through the options and conclusion in the last para.

It probably deserved my degree more than I did.

Reading articles for me is a bit apples and oranges really. I think it's good to just view a selection from different people, otherwise you are left on a bum note with one persons perspective.

i just used it as an example as I know Rick reads the Economist yet the majority of articles he posts on here are badly written opinion pieces

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Looking forward to the writing critique of other columnists 👍🏻👍🏻

If you claim any are great writers...

If you want to dismiss her off the back of a column in the Atlantic, that's your loss.

She's been absolutely bang on about how a Trump presidency plays out (genuinely, go look it up, she called it better than anyone), and her books on democracy or history are very highly rated indeed.

There is a reason people in power across the world listen to her on issues on disinformation and fake news and populism and why despots in Eastern Europe go out of their way to slander her.

It's possible to be a brilliant mind on [subject] and slightly less brilliant at writing about it. They are two different skills.

kingstongraham

Trump orbit news. Giuliani is being sued by a maker of voting machines - for $1.3 billion for slander and libel because of all the nonsense he spouted about them being controlled by Hugo Chavez and fixing the election.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Trump orbit news. Giuliani is being sued by a maker of voting machines - for $1.3 billion for slander and libel because of all the nonsense he spouted about them being controlled by Hugo Chavez and fixing the election.

With a bit of luck he will do his own defence.

elbowloh

Bet the black sweat is running down his brow as we speak.

david37

And apparently Dominion may even go for Trump. The Big Lie might actually turn out to be an expensive fib.

epic and more interesting than anything the actual president is doing .

john80

It is going to be epic watching Don and his pal explaining the irregularities in the dock under oath. Sunlight is the best disenfectant.

elbowloh

john80 said:

It is going to be epic watching Don and his pal explaining the irregularities in the dock under oath. Sunlight is the best disenfectant.

But does it treat COVID better than disinfectant? 😉