The “grauniad” is what people (mostly politically conservative leaning) use to (derogatorily) refer to the Guardian newspaper. The Guardian, politically speaking, is a biased left-wing news organisation, but it does have some very fine non-political articles. I read the Guardian often.
The term “grauniad” originally arose because of the perceived misspellings in the newspaper’s content.
“groupthink” arises when dissenting or differing opinions are ignored or censored. If you post links to the grauniad - in your first two posts - then, perhaps, you may be at risk of ignoring differing opinions?
Anyway, I have replied with a link of my own (specifically to the grauniad) showing that US-Japan trade protection works both ways.
Since it was also a Guardian link, I thought this would pass through Lingq’s groupthink filter, but it actually didn’t.
“big orange meanie” = Trump. It is an accurate physical and personal description.
I am not “anti-liberal”, in Australian federal elections I vote for the Flux political party.
I do not like aspects of the liberal-left’s political agenda - including political correctness as a tool to shut down dissent.
“An analysis of his tweets by Politico earlier this year showed that he used words like ‘great’, ‘loser’, ‘winner’, and ‘stupid’ twice as much as other presidential candidates.”
I never find these sorts of factoids persuasive in any way. They’re fairly arbitrary. Had he not used those words twice as much as other presidential candidates, they would have found he had shorter sentences, longer sentences, matched his used vocabulary with a 6th grader or something.
I feel the conclusions are like flipsides of the same coin.
Were he to, for example, use shorter sentences then critics would imply his short sentences demonstrate a lack of intelligence. Were his sentences longer than other candidates, critics would imply he is confused and incoherent.
I don’t have a lot of respect for the man (Trump, that is) but the myriad of bizarre insults levied against him make me feel like I’m back in primary school. The problem (in my opinion) with school-yard insults is that they detract from or water down the more substantial criticisms which I think are more genuine concerns.
I think that on some occasions people who attack what they call “liberals” demand “political correctness” in their own biased, “conservative” style to “shut down dissent.” The point is that you are responsible for what you say. Say what you want to say at your own risk. Surely you would never intentionally propose a politically incorrect, unjustifiable agenda.
I think you’ve conflated the issue a bit here. By recasting a silly argument (that Trump uses certain words more than other presidential candidates) into “Style matters”, it brings in many other potentially more reasonable arguments under the same umbrella.
I don’t want to get into the situation where reasonable arguments are being used to legitimize silly accusations.
Silly arguments examples (IMHO):
He uses certain words more than other presidential candidates.
He has short fingers.
His appearance is very orange.
Reasonable arguments examples (IMHO):
His unfiltered comments via Twitter may hurt US relations.
There don’t appear to be means with which he can fulfill a promise.
Because of X, he can’t reasonably separate his business interests from his presidential responsibilities.
Incidentally, on the wall along the border issue, Mexico don’t necessarily have to consent or agree to a payment. Were Trump to say that Mexico have agreed to pay for the wall, that would be a lie (or at least demand evidence of some conversations in secret which contradict their public position on the matter). Were he to say that the US will be reimbursed in some form for the wall, then you can’t really evaluate that claim until the intended form of reimbursement is made public.
I haven’t followed all of his speeches that closely, so I don’t know what he has claimed and what he has not. If I must know, I try get the mans original sentences in the context they were said.
"Trump has said he’ll hike taxes on imports to punish companies that offshore production, something that hundreds of companies do every year. Many economists say automation is responsible for most of the job losses in manufacturing over the last few decades. "
Companies that Trump attacked are still firing people Companies That Trump Attacked Are Still Firing People | HuffPost Latest News via @HuffPostPol
In the past, Republicans in the US used to believe in free trade. Free trade and globalization of economy have been beneficial to MNCs in the US. They did not appear to be embracing protectionism. Trump’s positions are drastically different from those of his party, although some of his ideas are completely wrong.
Actually, I don’t disagree with “moderate” or “mild” protectionism for the purpose of regulating the behavior of MNCs of the world. The rights of the workers as well the rights of the consumers of each country should be prioritized to some extent.
“Japan eliminated the 6.4-percent tariff on auto imports in 1978. But the United States still slaps a 2.5-percent tariff on Japanese auto imports. About 30 years ago, the trade war led to threats of higher tariffs on luxury Japanese autos as well as other trade restrictions. In response, Japanese automakers eventually began voluntarily building factories in the United States.”
Trump ignores facts in claiming ‘unfair’ auto industry：The Asahi Shimbun http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201701250043.html
“Trump’s trade plan is clearly focused on reducing the trade deficit. The logic goes that by reducing the trade deficit — or even turning to a surplus — jobs will magically appear in the US. More likely are increased prices, reduced consumer demand, and a general economic slowdown that won’t be making anything great again.”
Trump and Apple are on a dangerous collision course