Aren't Americans concerned by the loss of trust? (No visible reaction from the public?)

[TT2025]

1 hour ago, NWUSHorny said:

...Democratic elected officials are afraid to speak out...

And so aren't they dodging their duty? It will not cost them dear in the next elections? They sit there, do nothing, say nothing - what a good representation. (Would you vote for someone like that?) My reasoning is that if you're loud enough, people get notice. Isn't that opportunity to show some moral fortitude and consistency?

These people weren't voted for office just to be passive enablers..

Edited 19 hours ago by TT2025

[meetme]

11 hours ago, TT2025 said:

You, my friend, should give some people more credit. Sure not all the supporters of Donald are dumb sheep...

The problem as I see it is lack of meaningful public discourse - political opposition used to be good for that some years back (least in my country). If there are people who are showed propaganda in the face constantly, they might stop thinking critically and someone must remind them that.

Here in EU we have this 'Green Deal' thing - lot of dogmatic supporters and dogmatic opponents, well I'm none of them, so I tried to discuss with the opponent of this. Using this kind of reasoning: 'It sure has some good stuff in it and must be implemented (if at all) with a great consideration. By the way you installed heatpump a decade ago without anyone telling you to do so.' He was, yea, right then spit out some made up stuff circulating the news and internet. So I said: 'You must see, that these things are not feasible if not paid by the government or even ever.' And he was: 'Yea, thought it might be exaggeration.'

So you can't just rule vast majority out as lunatics... You are risking their future actions to be fuelled out of spite towards you. - Does Brexit ring any bells? 😉

Anyone who can’t see that Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, is a dumb sheep. The blind trust given people in the public eye and elected officials is an abdication of the responsibilities of an American citizen. There is no supportable reason for the damages the current administration is causing.

[NicNorth]

I’ve seen pictures of protests which seem to be growing and well as reports of some stormy town hall meetings 

[nanana]

21 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Now as a critical care nurse, i continuously encounter people who push back against doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, ________, because of something they read on the internet or saw on youtube. Many of these are intelligent, educated people, but they do not have a scientific or medical education, so they do not realize how much knowledge and background it takes to reach a diagnosis. Even if the information is from a good source, it doesn't mean that the info is being applied correctly.  Again, trust factors in. 

Some doctors are phenomenal communicators and are able to integrate their expertise and their humanity and tell a credible humble grokable explanation of why they are making a recommendation.  Unfortunately, many are not.  Furthermore, being aware of their rhetorical (and maybe ethical) limitations, many fall back into their expertise to try to over generate trust in their recommendations.  Even furthermore, the amount of detail to master in any one subject is so great that everything involving experts becomes a trust game.  So, the real question is, WHAT makes a medical professional trustworthy?

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, nanana said:

Some doctors are phenomenal communicators and are able to integrate their expertise and their humanity and tell a credible humble grokable explanation of why they are making a recommendation.  Unfortunately, many are not.  Furthermore, being aware of their rhetorical (and maybe ethical) limitations, many fall back into their expertise to try to over generate trust in their recommendations.  Even furthermore, the amount of detail to master in any one subject is so great that everything involving experts becomes a trust game.  So, the real question is, WHAT makes a medical professional trustworthy?

@nanana  i think ^^^THiS^^^ is so well assessed and summarized.

i work at a teaching hospital and have found that helps moderate the culture. It's estimated that it takes about 20 years for new research to become part of medical practice. i believe having a continuous influx of newly educated doctors into a hospital results in some of that new info reaching doctors who have been out of school and may not be up on all the journals ("all" being an impossible task).  

And that is just one example of the medical profession and practice.   In mid life, i made shift from one profession to a wholly new and different profession. One thing that change has helped me see is how your question of trustworthiness is a universal one. i think the same question exists for all professions, from housekeeping to doctor, from DMV employee to president: what makes any professional trustworthy?

While i do not feel any trust for Trump, i didn't have much of what i'd call "trust" for our former leadership, so it's impossible for me to make a holistic judgement.  i think most Americans would agree we need change. i have been disappointed by the status quo and corruption. Going after corruption and waste resonates with me in a big way, but we have to be able to trust the people doing it.

i think an answer to the question is what makes any professional trustworthy is numbers of eyes on. For instance, one of the reasons i like science based professions is because there is (ideally) rigorous method and approach applied at the front end, scrutiny of conclusion at the back end, and ongoing research.  In its ideal state, the scientific method is about many professionals scrutinizing and having the opportunity to weigh in to ultimate decision and subsequent policy. 

To me, that seems to be the intent of the American government structure. A system of checks and balances where no one person, or even branch of government, gets to make policy independent of scrutiny or debate. 

Back to the example of the medical profession.  What makes a medical professional trustworthy? In my opinion, it is that persons continuous intent to be participant and a part of a system where they purposefully submit to scrutiny, debate because they do not want to make decisions independently. I.e, they are consider themselves as part of a process, and do not consider their self the process. 

i don't think any person or system can be 100% trustworthy, but i see more trustworthiness in a system that employs all qualifying professionals as part of the decision making process than just one lone person have much, most or all of that power. 

 

 

 

[TT2025]

2 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

@nanana  i think ^^^THiS^^^ is so well assessed and summarized.

i work at a teaching hospital and have found that helps moderate the culture. It's estimated that it takes about 20 years for new research to become part of medical practice. i believe having a continuous influx of newly educated doctors into a hospital results in some of that new info reaching doctors who have been out of school and may not be up on all the journals ("all" being an impossible task).  

And that is just one example of the medical profession and practice.   In mid life, i made shift from one profession to a wholly new and different profession. One thing that change has helped me see is how your question of trustworthiness is a universal one. i think the same question exists for all professions, from housekeeping to doctor, from DMV employee to president: what makes any professional trustworthy?

While i do not feel any trust for Trump, i didn't have much of what i'd call "trust" for our former leadership, so it's impossible for me to make a holistic judgement.  i think most Americans would agree we need change. i have been disappointed by the status quo and corruption. Going after corruption and waste resonates with me in a big way, but we have to be able to trust the people doing it.

i think an answer to the question is what makes any professional trustworthy is numbers of eyes on. For instance, one of the reasons i like science based professions is because there is (ideally) rigorous method and approach applied at the front end, scrutiny of conclusion at the back end, and ongoing research.  In its ideal state, the scientific method is about many professionals scrutinizing and having the opportunity to weigh in to ultimate decision and subsequent policy. 

To me, that seems to be the intent of the American government structure. A system of checks and balances where no one person, or even branch of government, gets to make policy independent of scrutiny or debate. 

Back to the example of the medical profession.  What makes a medical professional trustworthy? In my opinion, it is that persons continuous intent to be participant and a part of a system where they purposefully submit to scrutiny, debate because they do not want to make decisions independently. I.e, they are consider themselves as part of a process, and do not consider their self the process. 

i don't think any person or system can be 100% trustworthy, but i see more trustworthiness in a system that employs all qualifying professionals as part of the decision making process than just one lone person have much, most or all of that power.

Would love there was some communication-empathy courses for medical personal in my country. 

I witnessed how my friend was informed about proceedings about his mother death standing like 20 minutes in a hallway of hospital. (I thought: what a heck! You can't have some place quiet, to sit?) He was near collapsing when I dragged him from the hospital... (And yes, and I have some other horrific experiences with healthcare.)

The thing is when trust is lost it is very hardly (if ever) regained back. But back to the topic - it looks like that it doesn't apply to US politics. Maybe it is for the reason you practically have only two political parties to choose from. There is no way to somehow stop voting for one ever, cause it will by totalitarian (One party system? We had that, don't recommend it.) So even after some interesting things (Nixon, Kissinger era) people didn't stop voting Republican.

Edited 2 hours ago by TT2025

[nanana]

Nixon was set up by Deep State operatives because he was going soft on Viet Nam and China. 

[nanana]

Oops maybe I’ll get suspended. 

[hntnhole]

On 4/19/2025 at 8:20 PM, Westhamsmoker said:

afraid of Putin who sadly has made Trump look like an idiot

Actually, I think it's Trump that has made Trump look like an idiot.  

Anyone that pays the slightest measure of attention to world affairs knows that Putin is a guileless thug, and plays the other one like a fiddler at a barn dance.  

It appears, however, that one of T's most egregious errors (Hegseth) is about to be ameliorated.  That drunken idiot (apologies to all the other idiots) has managed to fuck up again - and the tv is full of commentaries about how soon he'll be bounced.  Sounds like it might be a day or three.  

To our RC friends, the rest of us are sorry for your estimable loss.  He was a truly good and decent man.  Pax.  

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, TT2025 said:

Maybe it is for the reason you practically have only two political parties to choose from

Actually, there are indeed a number of political 'parties' here in the US.  You're correct though, in stating that there are only 2 "major" political parties: the conservatives and the liberals, with the majority of Americans belonging to one or the other.  That history (conservative vs liberals) has occurred in dozens and dozens of countries through the centuries, and that's as it should be.  Power should shift between the two, which keeps the nation(s) on a more steady course than if one party dominated most of the time.  

I don't know where in the EU you are, and I'm not asking - n.o.m.b.  That said, there are almost certainly a couple of "major" parties and a handful of "minor" political parties in most, if not all, of the EU nations.  The minor parties seldom get as much press as the major ones, which is also the case here in the US.  We have a number of minor parties (numerically), and they offer insights from the far, far right to the even farther left.  Every one gets to assess on their own, and join (or not) whatever political mess that appeals most to them. 

I would think that in almost every modern nation there is a similar situation.  Conservatives, Liberals, nutcases, idiots, carnival escapees, the whole wax ball of humanity.  Regrettably however, occasionally a mickey slips through - which is what happened here in the US.  What's interesting though, is the why .....

[NWUSHorny]

On 4/20/2025 at 8:35 AM, tallslenderguy said:

Now as a critical care nurse, i continuously encounter people who push back against doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, ________, because of something they read on the internet or saw on youtube. Many of these are intelligent, educated people, but they do not have a scientific or medical education, so they do not realize how much knowledge and background it takes to reach a diagnosis. 

While I mostly trust my medical practitioners to keep my best interests at heart to the extent they can based on available medical knowledge. There are definitely occasions to push back and do research on your own, while I didn't feel qualified to fully understand what I was researching on my cancer treatment or ongoing HIV treatment, I still ask questions and tried to do some research. However when it comes to my Gastroenterologist, they have recommended several treatments that ultimately made my situation worse, and in those cases I have pushed back and have been able to work with them to find a result that was better. If it is life or likely death I tend to go with the practitioners diagnosis, if it is primarily for my ongoing comfort I am more willing to try to take the lead.

I can't say that politicians will ever earn that level of trust from me, although there are individual politicians that based on past records, both political and non-political professional accomplishments, that earn more benefit of the doubt than others.