Post New

Lawrence O'Donnell opened his September 9, 2024 show with a rant about this article published 9/9 by The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/us/politics/deb...

in which their analysis of the growing concerns over recent public statements from Trump also reflected a problem with the media routinely "sane-washing" Trump's words. In other words, Trump's actual utterances are so incoherent in sound byte form and so incoherent in a literal transcription that no viewer or reader will spend the time listening to, watching or reading them. So instead of providing them verbatim to allow citizens to hear for themselves how incoherent the ramblings are, the press is routinely attempting to scrub them into a more compact, coherent form that the press THINKS resembles what Trump was attempting to communicate.

In the NYT article here, Peter Baker cites this now-famous example of Trump's answer to a question about child care:

-----------------
It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that — because the child care is, child care, it’s, couldn’t, you know, there’s something, you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care.
-----------------

then by example illustrates the sane-washing process by offering up this alternate explanation of what Trump PROBABLY meant:

-----------------
What he seemed to be saying was that he would raise so much money by imposing tariffs on imported goods that the country could use the proceeds to pay for child care. In itself, that would be a disputable policy assumption.
-----------------

O'Donnell used THAT as a launching point for a rant about how the NYT itself cannot even STOP contributing to the problem of sane-washing while publishing a story about sane-washing. O'Donnell made the (rhetorical? sarcastic?) point that clearly the political reporters at the NYT do not understand how tarrifs work and they were cementing the false economic understanding that tariffs would be collected from foreign countries and producers and somehow transfer into the US Treasury's coffers.

Of course, if you read that actual paragraph from Peter Baker's story, that's NOT what that paragraph stated. Baker did not explicitly itemize the false economic fact that a tariff is collected from the foreign country / producer. But of course, by NOT explicitly defining his terms in his analysis, Baker's prose could lead a reader with an incorrect understanding of tariffs to assume Baker was restating Trump's false statement as fact and propagating an incorrect claim of cause / effect / benefit by Trump. This is a problem any time an incoherent statement is repeated to a broad audience without context. Doing so risks giving that incorrect statement gravitas by putting it in print, even in an altered form. Haven't we all experienced a situation listening to Party A and Party B having a discussion where

a) both A and B think they understand process X
b) both A and B are actually incorrect in their understanding of process X
c) neither A nor B even understands they are both mis-understanding X in different ways
d) their discussion / argument hinges on the definition of X
e) their discussion continues without either one clarifying their understanding of X
f) the discussion keeps spiraling into idiocy because neither recongizes the gap
g) the discussion solves nothing and neither party is more informed at its end

Do you step in and attempt to referee that discussion and explain to both A and B why they are both wrong using their flawed analogies for process X? Or will refereeing the discussion to a sound conclusion require a complete reset and re-education of A and B about how X truly works? Or will that discussion be pointless because neither A or B is willing to accept they don't understand X?

O'Donnell's rant seemed to become overly fixated on whether the staff at the NYT undrestand economics and tariffs rather than remaining focused on the core issue. It is not the job of an objective news organization to clarify and correct public statements of politicians and public figures of interest. They are free to ask a follow-up question directly to the figure in question and get that figure to clarify, re-clarify or re-re-clarify their position but not to "helpfully" substitute their own interpretation to feed to the public.

The most important reason for avoiding sane-washing should be the most obvious. When someone is this illiterate about a subject and so mentally deficient in communicating any ideas on any topics, it is impossible to accurately extrapolate ANYTHING spoken into a more coherent space. If you ask someone who's certifiably insane if they think it is time to head out to lunch and their answer is:

The moon's out, Columbus just sailed, I need a haircut and The Beatles are playing Shea Stadium next week...

There is nothing you can safely derive from that answer about whether that person wants to head to Panera Bread for a sub. Even though the answer makes no sense in light of the question, if that was a question posed to a candidate running for office, reporting that answer VERBATIM is likely the most appropriate action to take because anyone seeing the question and answer back to back would normally have no trouble recognizing the mismatch between reality and the answer and drawing the correct conclusion (***).


WTH

**** Of course, ADMITTING the consequences of the correct conclusion in public is a different problem for MAGA adherents.

Here's the full video you were referring to. 14 minutes on the MSNBC YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFd4zflqfeA

After watching it, I came away with a much different take on his commentary. Yes, he talked about "sane washing" Trump. But I don't see that as the main point of the commentary. It was a supporting point. An introduction.

The meat of the commentary to me was tariffs. He took the New York Times to task for letting slide the lie that tariffs are paid by foreign companies. As I've commented here multiple times just today, tariffs are paid by the consumers of the imported goods. The point of tariffs is to make foreign goods more expensive than domestic goods so that consumers will prefer the domestic goods. They are a form of economic protectionism.

"Taxing foreign nations" is literally on the screen in the background behind O'Donnell during the entire commentary. That is the main point he's trying to make.

Yes, a deeper economic analysis shows that some part of a tariff is paid by the foreign company. How much depends on the elasticity of demand, which is easy to draw on a chalkboard in a classroom, but notoriously difficult to calculate in the real world. But some, probably not insignificant, part of the tax is indeed paid by the citizens of the country imposing the tariff. It functions much like a sales tax. And like a sales tax, it is a form of regressive taxation.

No wonder Trump and his wannabe oligarch friends like tariffs. They push tax burdens off the rich and onto the rest of society.

--Peter

"It functions much like a sales tax. And like a sales tax, it is a form of regressive taxation."

Had a discussion with an acquaintance this weekend about the Trump Tariff's. He's convinced that it's gonna solve all of the debt issues, including the national debt. I told him that the consumer at the end of the transaction chain will bear the brunt of these tariffs, and he tried telling me that the foreign companies will eat all of the cost.

Gave him an example of, in the Northern States there is no local produce grown in the Winter, except whatever greenhouses can produce. Told him that when I buy fruits and veggies in the Winter, label states that they're from Mexico, or Chile, or whatever Southern Hemisphere warm weather country. Told him that with these products, there is not much choice as to buying from an alternative provider, so the importer will NOT eat the cost of the tariffs. Told him to expect inflation to go much higher. Don't think I got thru to him, but didn't try real hard, not worth the effort.

MAGA wants to follow the ideas of the guy that bankrupted 3 casinos. The House Always Wins is the main adage of the Casino Business. And he bankrupted 3 of them. I'm not religious, but God Help Us All, lol.

UNJ
Had a discussion with an acquaintance this weekend about the Trump Tariff's. He's convinced that it's gonna solve all of the debt issues, including the national debt. I told him that the consumer at the end of the transaction chain will bear the brunt of these tariffs, and he tried telling me that the foreign companies will eat all of the cost.

The economists I've read in the past seem to think that small tariffs of ~10-20% on certain items won't have much of an effect, but 60-100% across the board will be extremely bad for the economy. I would think the economy would slow, and that it might have an effect on the global economy. If it slows, recession is in the offing. So the normal MAGA solution is to say that's just campaign rhetoric, he won't do that. Pretty risky.

Trump's tariff proposals are reckless and the poor will suffer most methinks.

"I would think the economy would slow, and that it might have an effect on the global economy."

It is a 2-way street with tariffs. I highly doubt that foreign countries are just going to bend over and accept the "foreign tax", as Trump calls it. They will almost certainly enact tariffs on USA goods imported into their countries. Pretty soon we'll have a "tariff snowball" careening out of control downhill, all because of "the genius that is Donold Trump", lol. God Help Us All.

UNJ:It is a 2-way street with tariffs. I highly doubt that foreign countries are just going to bend over and accept the "foreign tax", as Trump calls it. They will almost certainly enact tariffs on USA goods imported into their countries. Pretty soon we'll have a "tariff snowball" careening out of control downhill, all because of "the genius that is Donold Trump", lol. God Help Us All.

He's talking using tariffs as threats too. It obviously appeals to your friend. BTW, I'm happy you can talk to him. Politics can't be brought up with my brother - he just blows up. The problem is that almost everything is political today. His wife sometimes strays onto political topics and it's very awkward changing the subject.

...all because of "the genius that is Donold Trump", lol. God Help Us All.


It's a simple fix: elect Harris. She's not a convict felon, not an adjudicated rapist, not suffering dementia, and not incredibly stupid. Problem solved.

It is a 2-way street with tariffs. I highly doubt that foreign countries are just going to bend over and accept the "foreign tax", as Trump calls it. They will almost certainly enact tariffs on USA goods imported into their countries.

Pretty sure I’ve seen this movie.

In 2018 Trump slapped tariffs on a bunch of stuff coming from China. In retaliation China put 25% tariffs on soybeans, the #1 export from the US to their country. Exports dropped 75%, from $17B to $6B.

The #2 category, civilian aircraft and aircraft parts also dropped 75% following Chinese tariffs. US exports went from $21 billion in this sector to $5 billion, and have never recovered.

So it appears that farmers and transportation workers (auto parts were also tariffed) took the brunt of it. Soybean exports have recovered, the factory jobs for aircraft and automotive have not.

It’s hard for some to imagine that other major powers (like China, among others) are not just going to sit back and “take it”, that they have levers of their own to pull. And, of course, when things get too bad, well, that’s when the actual fighting breaks out.

https://usafacts.org/articles/what-are-the-top-us-...

She's not a convict felon, not an adjudicated rapist, not suffering dementia, and not incredibly stupid. Problem solved. - 1pg

--------------

That she is not a convict felon, nor an adjudicated rapist, nor suffering dementia, and is not incredibly stupid does not shed any light on if she has any idea at all about how to solve many of the problems facing our country.

Maybe she does, but repeatedly telling us she is not a rapist doesn't tell us anything about her ideas for keeping Iran in check, for example.

That she is not a convict felon, nor an adjudicated rapist, nor suffering dementia, and is not incredibly stupid does not shed any light on if she has any idea at all about how to solve many of the problems facing our country.

Well, listening to the convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, demented, and stupid candidate doesn't give me the impression that he has any idea at all about anything, let alone complex problems. He makes sure we know he's clueless every time he opens his mouth.

Question posed: How would you deal with child care?
Answer: several minute ramble that makes absolutely no sense at all, but did include the words "child care" a couple of times, along with the word "numbers".

The only topic on which he seems to be able to compose a coherent sentence is the 2020 election, which he often claims was stolen from him.

Which brings up another topic. You have asked multiple times, Michael, for your opponents to talk about Harris' position on a variety of topics. And you get answers. How about you address your candidate's position on a topic that many consider important? Here's a couple I'd like to know more about. Pick any one you'd like.

-His criminal conviction in New York, specifically why that conviction isn't disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
-Or his other open criminal cases, Georgia, DC federal court, FL federal court. Why aren't those disqualifying?
-How about his position on the 2020 election. He has claimed on a great many occasions that the election was stolen from him. Yet he cannot provide any evidence of that which has stood up to scrutiny in court? Why does he persist in his claims despite the lack of evidence?

--Peter

That she is not a convict felon, nor an adjudicated rapist, nor suffering dementia, and is not incredibly stupid does not shed any light on if she has any idea at all about how to solve many of the problems facing our country.


That is true. But a) those are several "red lines" for me. I wouldn't vote for a Dem that had a CV like that. And b) the convict has no idea how to address them, as he ably demonstrated from 2017-2021.

Let's suppose Charles Manson was alive, running for office, and said everything you wanted to hear. Would you vote for him? I wouldn't, even if he was in favor of universal healthcare, a minimum basic income, a hard-line for China and Iran and DPRK and Putin, etc. I still wouldn't vote for him.

Yes, Manson is an extreme example, but I'm sure you get my point. You cross a red line, I don't vote for you.

-His criminal conviction in New York, specifically why that conviction isn't disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
-Or his other open criminal cases, Georgia, DC federal court, FL federal court. Why aren't those disqualifying?
-How about his position on the 2020 election. He has claimed on a great many occasions that the election was stolen from him. Yet he cannot provide any evidence of that which has stood up to scrutiny in court? Why does he persist in his claims despite the lack of evidence?

I assume you mean "disqualifying for Mike". Because I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about that. In fact, I think you could be incarcerated and still run for POTUS as long as you're a natural born citizen over the age of 35.

In fact, I think you could be incarcerated and still run for POTUS as long as you're a natural born citizen over the age of 35.

Indeed. And there's not even any sort of mental health, sanity or competence test. You could be Jeffrey Dahmer, or be a low functioning Asperger's or Down Syndrome sufferer requiring 24/7/365 care to keep you from hurting yourself, and still become president. All you need is the requisite 271 electoral college votes.

I assume you mean "disqualifying for Mike".

Yes. I mean disqualifying in the same sense you used your "red line" about Manson.

In fact, I think you could be incarcerated and still run for POTUS as long as you're a natural born citizen over the age of 35.

I agree with your reading. My suspicion is that the framers never anticipated their Electoral College even considering a criminal to be President.** Therefore, there was no reason to put such things into the Constitution.

--Peter

**Note:
After all, the whole idea of the Electoral College was to put a layer of elites between the ignorant masses and the selection of a President. The Presidency was far too important a position to allow the citizens to directly elect their President. It was in my lifetime that the name of the Presidential candidate did not appear on the ballot, only the names of the Electors.

-His criminal conviction in New York, specifically why that conviction isn't disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
-Or his other open criminal cases, Georgia, DC federal court, FL federal court. Why aren't those disqualifying?
-How about his position on the 2020 election. He has claimed on a great many occasions that the election was stolen from him. Yet he cannot provide any evidence of that which has stood up to scrutiny in court? Why does he persist in his claims despite the lack of evidence?

--Peter

===========

Well Petey, here are my thoughts...

His criminal convictions are questionable until all the appeals are finished, so until then, they are not a factor. These will play out in court and until they do, they do not inform whether Trumps policies are any good or not.

Regarding the 2020 election. He is wrong and should shut up about it.

Let's suppose Charles Manson was alive, running for office, and said everything you wanted to hear. Would you vote for him? I wouldn't, even if he was in favor of universal healthcare, a minimum basic income, a hard-line for China and Iran and DPRK and Putin, etc. I still wouldn't vote for him.

---------------

I hereby declare under no circumstance would I vote for Charlie Manson for president, even moreso since he died in 2017.

Let's suppose Charles Manson was alive, running for office, and said everything you wanted to hear. Would you vote for him? I wouldn't, even if he was in favor of universal healthcare, a minimum basic income, a hard-line for China and Iran and DPRK and Putin, etc. I still wouldn't vote for him.

Yes, Manson is an extreme example, but I'm sure you get my point. You cross a red line, I don't vote for you.

The key to remember is that many Republican voters will regard any Democrat that could possibly win the GOP nomination the same way that you regard Charles Manson. That many standard Democratic positions (pro-choice, pro-trans rights, gun control) are morally indefensible to them, even if they are morally indefensible in a different way than Manson's murders are.

There are plenty of Democrats who feel the same way about any Republican candidate who could win the nomination as well.

That's what enables many (most?) Trump supporters to view his elections as contests between two Charles Mansons....and gives them the ability to vote for the Manson that has the policies they prefer.

Regarding the 2020 election. He is wrong and should shut up about it.

Hey! We're making progress, Michael. We agree on something.

However, I do have a concern here. He hasn't shut up about it. And he's been talking for a while as if he might repeat the 2020 claims in 2024 should he lose. That doesn't sound like a fully sane man to me. How about to you?

--Peter

That doesn't sound like a fully sane man to me. How about to you?

--Petey

-----------

Wel Petey, I don't think it says anything about his sanity. He probably thinks it enhances his re-election propects. I think it has the opposite effect.

That many standard Democratic positions (pro-choice, pro-trans rights, gun control) are morally indefensible to them, even if they are morally indefensible in a different way than Manson's murders are.

But that is incoherent. You (or, more specifically, the people you are referring to) are comparing actual crimes to policy positions. Mike and I can debate policy positions all day. We could spend an evening over dinner and not agree on anything, and probably get along just fine. I don't view him as a monster, and I hope he doesn't view me that way either. It's just policies. Neither of us (to my knowledge) has committed any crimes worse than perhaps a speeding ticket. Manson was a monster**. The convict is a monster of a different sort (i.e. I'm not aware that he has orchestrated multiple murders); being guilty of rape and up to 34 felonies (I'll grant that he may prevail on the appeal of some subset of those felonies, but probably not all of them). Rape is pretty monstrous, IMHO. More felony convictions are pending.

There are positions, and there are actions. I red-line actions (like...oh...rape). I won't refuse to meet up with Mike if he were to come to Phoenix just because we don't agree on a universal minimum basic income. I would refuse to meet the convict, even if he offered to pay.

Plus, Mike just said he wouldn't vote for Manson (were he alive) even if he agreed with all of Mike's positions. So there are red-lines present for Mike, also.

If neither candidate has crossed a red line, then I start looking at policy positions. But some things are disqualifying for me as a human person, nevermind policy or politics. IMO, a vote for a rapist and convicted felon is pretty much indefensible, no matter which party they claim to be. I said before, I wouldn't vote for Menendez, either, and he's a Dem (and didn't rape anyone, or at least hasn't been accused of that).




**Though it is interesting to note that he didn't actually kill anyone. He directed his followers to do it, and I believe was present only at one of the murder scenes (the La Biancas, as I recall, because the Tate murders were too messy for his liking).

Mike and I can debate policy positions all day. We could spend an evening over dinner and not agree on anything, and probably get along just fine. - 1pg

---------------

Thanks for that. We would have get in a few towel snaps about politics but we could also talk about quantum physics, light speed propulsion, and favorite barbecue recipes and techniques.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.