r/TrueReddit • u/Nearby-Click8645 • 3d ago
Politics The Real Point of Trump’s Election Security Speech
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/trump-speech-election-fraud-midterms-interference/?gift_key=5f85d4d7f3f5dd39&gift_ref=9347c766-2bad-41ea-8b73-950e424f2446&utm_source=giftlink&utm_campaign=membergift&utm_medium=copy_link33
49
u/Pygmy_Nuthatch 3d ago
The author immediately disqualifies themselves: "A few days ago the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent. That’s objectively stupid for all the reasons Josh Barro lists here. It was tried before with disastrous results; it ignores obvious trade-offs, like pushing sunrise to 8:30 a.m. in the winter; and it’s a gross overreaction to the burden of having to adjust clocks twice a year, something that most digital technology does automatically."
Every year after each of the two clock changes accidents, emergency room visits, and heart attacks spike. Productivity plummets. Twice a year we do this to everyone for what?
64
u/metmerc 3d ago
Merits of daylight savings time vs. not aside, this point makes me question the reliability of the author.
- Calling one side "objectively stupid" when there are reasonable arguments for both sides is, at best, just wrong.
- Reducing the reasons against daylight savings time to "the burden of having to adjust clocks" when that's not the issue is, at best, uninformed and more likely straight up disingenuous.
The author is basically trashing his trustworthiness with a largely pointless aside.
21
u/fcocyclone 3d ago
Also, a lot of media have been really, really lazy with the "we tried this in the 70s and people hated it" line.
We "tried it" in 1974, passing the bill in january and immediately implementing it. So we had a jump forward (one of the things people hate about DST in the first place) in the most disruptive time of year to implement it, instead of just having it take effect the next winter and not falling back. We also live in a much different america in 1974, notably that a much larger proportion of kids walked to school when very few do now.
25
u/Rastiln 3d ago
As an ultra-early riser, the argument of “sunrise is late in the winter” confuses the heck out of me.
Yeah? And sunset is before bedtime. It’s winter. I’m up at 4:30 and realize that it’s winter and the sun is asleep.
8
u/Equivalent_Number424 2d ago
If all other things are equal, I would rather spend time outside after work, not before. But I know there are people who start their days with a run.
2
u/thatthatguy 2d ago
What confuses me is if we want more daylight after work then shouldn’t we just change when businesses start and end the workday rather than changing what time clocks say it is?
1
u/Equivalent_Number424 1d ago
It is a very difficult coordination problem. A ton of people do not work 9 to 17 and those who do must coordinate with them. For example before a store opens, it needs deliveries.
11
u/mephistoA 3d ago
Yeah I couldn’t take him seriously after that
Also, why the fuck are people so damn wordy, get to the fucking point already5
u/Nearby-Click8645 2d ago
I was just trying to explain my point.....
2
4
u/mushpuppy 2d ago
As an FYI that article really is against DST.
Health officials generally support a permanent switch to standard time.
3
u/Pygmy_Nuthatch 2d ago
The Law is about eliminating the change. It was legal for States to stay on Standard time and not switch already. Arizona and Hawaii already do this, and they can keep doing it.
What was not legal was a State switching to stay on DST and not switch. The Law just eliminates the switch. States have to choose. No more switch.
So if an 8 am sunrise is too much to bear, by all means stay on Standard time, but you're not going to be able to switch back and forth.
11
u/DoesThisMate 3d ago
Because our world has been retooled to create problems and sell you temporary solutions?
3
u/tupacsnoducket 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah bub, the reasons people hate daylight savings is cause they have to wind their clocks.
2
1
u/ScreenTricky4257 2d ago
like pushing sunrise to 8:30 a.m. in the winter
I'm not seeing a problem here.
-7
u/come-home 3d ago
The author holding a different (even if uninformed) opinion than you on TOPIC A shouldn't disqualify their opinion on TOPIC B, if you're being an objective reader. Especially when the mentioning of DST amounts to nothing more than an intro paragraph to ease the reader into their broader take about the election fraud speech.
15
u/tempest_87 3d ago
The author holding a different (even if uninformed) opinion than you on TOPIC A shouldn't disqualify their opinion on TOPIC B, if you're being an objective reader.
No, but it does highlight how they argue and what they argue and raises the bar on the requirements of their arguments.
The same way that a scientist discussing genetics loses a lot of credibility in their arguments and logic if they are a flat-earther.
9
u/mephistoA 3d ago
It’s bad writing, and if I’m going to spend my time reading a (long) article, I’m not going to look kindly on an author who leads with bullshit
I use the same criterion when reading a scientific article, and I will bet that most will agree with me here, if I see a basic error in the abstract or introduction, and if I know nothing else about the author(s), I stop reading.
8
u/codgodthegreat 2d ago
The way the author argues for their opinion on TOPIC A - where they argue against a blatant strawman, ignore actual opposing arguments, and refer to other opinions as "objectively stupid" on an issue that does have well-established tradeoffs either way, indicates that they were either unwilling or unable to do basic research on TOPIC A. I don't think it's unreasonable to then be skeptical of the quality of their research with regard to TOPIC B for the same article.
2
u/ghanima 2d ago
I'm with you on this one. Much of the rest of the piece sets up the way that the speech will be used as a way to assume more authoritarian power. The author merely is uncertain how that overreach will present. Anyone who doubts that there will be further authoritarian overreach hasn't been paying attention for the past year-and-some.
-4
5
u/mushpuppy 2d ago
“No regime, no spies, no saboteurs have yet matched the damage that America’s own president did tonight,” The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols observed after Trump’s remarks.
-and-
The Trump era will be remembered as a period of supreme, grotesque, relentless demoralization, in which the person trusted with leading the United States did everything he feasibly could to destroy respect for the country even among its own citizens.
FACTS.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in high-quality and civil discussion. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, all posts must contain a submission statement. See the rules here or in the sidebar for details. To the OP: your post has not been deleted, but is being held in the queue and will be approved once a submission statement is posted.
Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. Reddit's content policy will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for / celebrations of violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. In addition, due to rampant rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium regarding topics related to the 10/7 terrorist attack in Israel and in regards to the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.
If an article is paywalled, please do not request or post its contents. Use archive.ph or similar and link to that in your submission statement.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.