The Gestapo ain't coming for me so who cares, right?

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/nea ... 1105174661

So, an acquaintance of mine has been totally pro-Trump backing everything he spouts. Well, in the article I linked to above, the guy that owns that establishment is a good friend of my acquaintance. Indeed, he’s been selling cattle to him for years and was one of his very first clients to do so. Well, the plant is now closed and my acquaintance is all sad and bummed and is now saying we NEED these immigrants to work jobs our own people won’t fill and now thinks they just need to all become citizens so they don’t have to deport them.

Quite an about-face.

This result is part of my point. Looking at the biggest change in the tax code in decades, effecting the entire global economy, and the collective response from the voting public is "whatevs". If it wasnt for a large part of the media constantly screaming *ist and *ism, would most Americans even have noticed the idiotic changes he has made?

For example, what are the 5 Trump policies that have most effected you daily life?

It's a powerful example of privilege to be able to spend time any significant amount of time caring about things that don't effect you.

FTFY

Or when you don't have to face the consequences of your do-gooder bullshit, and can instead offload them on someone else, and then criticize them for having a lack of empathy.

i genuinely don't understand this sentence, can you rephrase?

Too many pronouns.

Sorry, I think this is where I'm getting lost. Doing good is bullshit? Or hollow? And are you implying there are inherently negative consequences to doing good?

No. I wouldn't say inherently. But more often then not there are negative consequences to any policy, and the negative consequences can be catastrophic. Well meaning but ignorant buffoons trying to the right thing (usually in the form of radical, poorly thought out and coercive change) are responsible for a good chunk of the world's misery. It's made worse when privileged do-gooders are sheltered from the mess they create.

"First do no harm" is probably a good thing to remember before storming the Bastille.

When we discuss "policies" that effect us do we count executive orders? If so these four have been pretty bad for me and my family:

Trump EO #1 - defund Obamacare
Trump EO #7 - ending new regulations
Trump EO #8 - gutting the Consumer Fin. Proctection Agency
Trump EO #14 - Eliminating the Clean Water Rule

And these were just his first month in office. Also, I for one don't understand how a tax cut (that mostly benefits the top) is going to help fund the massive issues that this country already collectively shares.

Hm, I guess I would say first that it's a bit of an odd way to frame the question of impact. I see the point you're making in terms of how it affects "your daily life," but I'm not sure how realistic that is. It was really well over a year before the Iraq war hit fairly close to home for me, so to speak, but it would be bizarre to presume I shouldn't have had an opinion on how the war was affecting the country because it wasn't affecting me. No one thinks it odd to judge Bush on Katrina or Obama on Syria just because they don't live in New Orleans or Aleppo; I don't see how it would it be different now. But if your argument is that the major impacts of the Trump presidency are likely years and decades away, I agree entirely, but that's probably true of most presidencies.

I also find it tough to view a president's impact on someone's life as micro-targeted as opposed to cumulative. I don't need to be incinerated by a nuclear skirmish to view Trump's foreign policy approach as having a corrosive impact on my life; I hold certain opinions in hopes to prevent problems. It just seems like I'd be measuring Trump's impact on the present and future with the litmus test on whether or not he's personally shit in my front yard in the last 13 months. People are fighting these policies because of the cumulative disastrous effect they believe this presidency will have; I don't see most people arguing, especially now, that the next tweet will turn the country into Mad Max tomorrow.

With all of that being a pretty big disclaimer, I'm also probably not the right person to ask that last question, as I'm often speaking to people and organizations more directly impacted, so I'd say my day-to-day interacts with these issues somewhat often. Additionally, as you mentioned, I'm probably not the person who would be most adversely affected anyway; he wasn't after me. If you're looking for a recent way in which its impacted my decision making, the administration's haphazard messaging on whether or not they are going to eliminate the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness program has been aggravating. But again, to me it just seems like it might be the wrong question; I don't think, for example, it's unreasonable to assert that the gutting of the CFPB is going to be a long-term problem even if I can't yet point you to the dollars and cents.

I understand everything you said and it makes sense, but we drifted a bit from the original context which was along the lines of "how can anyone be complacent?", and my proposition was that when it doesn't effect you personally, it's easy to put on the backburner and move on (we see the same approach with things like the national debt and SS insolvency), and if it weren't for people telling average joe mcpatriot the sky is falling, i'm not clear that perception would exist because like the tax code change, it has no present effect on them, and most if it could be restored in 2020 anyway. This too shall pass.

JHC it's "affect."

The rise of the 24 hour news channels has created a hyper partisan landscape the past two decades plus. I don't see that going away anytime soon, if any thing the reds will get redder and blues will get bluer.

My balls are betting bluer.

Whatever you think of CNN, MSNBC, and key print media players, they don’t intentionally engage in misinformation campaigns. Their reporting is exactly that...reporting.

I would argue that it’s not a case of media making the blue a deeper blue...society continues to change, but organizations like Fox have not budged an inch from positions and threat-claims initiated in 1998. If that’s your right-side “anchor,” then basic factual 2018 reporting looks “liberal” simply by *being* factual reporting.

Ehh...I agree that CNN and MSNBC specifically are doing a good enough job of "reporting." But the NYT has made basically no attempt to hide their liberal bias, nor their preference for HRC in the 2016 election. FoxNews is certainly much more obvious in their bias (and in my personal view vis-a-vis their agenda, downright evil), but the NYT is the definition of a liberal-elite rag:

"REAL ESTATE: Here's what you can buy in Brooklyn for $1.5M!"

"ARTS: ‘The Simpsons’ Responds to Criticism About Apu With a Dismissal
On Sunday night’s “Simpsons,” the writers finally responded to criticism that its character of Apu is an offensive stereotype. It was unsatisfying to many."

And then their reporting on Dem candidates during the 2016 primaries was fifty shades of "Hillary rules the roost while Bernie struggles to keep up."

Nobody reads papers anymore anyway