leicsmac Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 6 hours ago, Strokes said: Yeah you have got us there, a bit inconsistent tbf. Whereas you guys, (hats off to you by the way) you don’t care about Gitmo but it’s just important it looks like you do. Which of course is entirely consistent with your default. Keep fighting the good fight brother. Can't really speak for others on here but oddly enough I personally care about and am rather interested in US politics (Gitmo included), for obvious reasons. 5 hours ago, toddybad said: No, he was still trying to get the reforms done in 2016/2017. A combination of Republican opposition nationally, coupled with individual states refusing to take prisoners, as they'd have had to, was to blame. That said, he didn't win over the liberals either as he still tacitly supported military courts and, in some cases, unlimited detention, just on the us mainland. I'll be honest, given the friendly Congress that he had at the start of his term he probably could have got it done. Let's not make it out that he was hamstrung all the way by hawk Repubs - even though that became a factor later on. 2 hours ago, Webbo said: I've not criticised Obama, just pointing out the hypocrisy in the hysterical virtue signalling that happens every time Trump does anything. So keeping it open is the right thing to do, then? Regarding hypocrisy, perhaps some gestures towards specific logically inconsistent positions on here might be called for rather than a blanket generalisation - I mean, I'm hoping that reasoned concern for policy decisions and virtue signalling (whatever that means and if indeed it's a pejorative) aren't getting conflated here. Personally, I'm still waiting for someone with less antipathy towards Trump that me to either put forward reasoning why his scientific policy, in particular, is correct and defend it or simply say that there is no defence, rather than pleading ignorance or ignoring the topic. 25 minutes ago, Buce said: Really? How are the healthcare reforms going? How much of that wall has been built? Trump only has the economic card to point to in terms of success - we'll see how successful that is come later this year and 2020. Given the division that has developed, I think identity might become a key thing again rather than economics, but only time will tell. 25 minutes ago, Strokes said: Yeah it’s the without trial bit that bothers me, I’ve no problem with the rest of it. This. Can't be a good guy and then do bad guy things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 15 minutes ago, leicsmac said: So keeping it open is the right thing to do, then? Regarding hypocrisy, perhaps some gestures towards specific logically inconsistent positions on here might be called for rather than a blanket generalisation - I mean, I'm hoping that reasoned concern for policy decisions and virtue signalling (whatever that means and if indeed it's a pejorative) aren't getting conflated here. I don't care about Trump and I don't care about Obama. We get a lot of comments on here, by people who would presumably preferred Obama to still be President, complaining that Trump hasn't stopped things that Obama didn't either and yet I don't remember anyone complaining about these issues before Trump became Prez . I'm not aiming this at you personally but has Trump ever done anything that you (anti Trumpers at large) are just "meh" about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: I don't care about Trump and I don't care about Obama. We get a lot of comments on here, by people who would presumably preferred Obama to still be President, complaining that Trump hasn't stopped things that Obama didn't either and yet I don't remember anyone complaining about these issues before Trump became Prez . I'm not aiming this at you personally but has Trump ever done anything that you (anti Trumpers at large) are just "meh" about? I think even the most ardent anti-Trump supporter would still acknowledge they hold him to far different standards than Obama. It's the same with all Republicans, they went for Bush and Reagan as well with a different moral compass than they do for their own. Can you imagine Donald continuing in his job if a lower ranked worker was known to have sucked him off in the office and he then lied about it like Bill did? Would never happen in a million years. Edited 1 February 2018 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 2 minutes ago, MattP said: I think even the most ardent anti-Trump supporter would still acknowledge they hold him to far different standards than Obama. It's the same with all Republicans, they went for Bush and Reagan as well with a different moral compass they do their own. Can you imagine Donald continuing in his job if a lower ranked worker was known to have sucked him off in the office and he then lied about it like Bill did? Would never happen in a million years. Unfortunately that sums up the left to a tee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, MattP said: Got his tax reforms through. America is going to absolutely boom on the back of it. I agree there is logic to the idea that those with capital will benefit and I'm certainly staying invested in US stocks. Not sure I'd want to be a worker over there though. Boom it might, but that doesn't necessarily make the people doing the work any better off. See the slave trade & the industrial revolution, both created a booming economy but absolutely dreadful lives for the majority of workers. Edited 1 February 2018 by Rogstanley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: I don't care about Trump and I don't care about Obama. We get a lot of comments on here, by people who would presumably preferred Obama to still be President, complaining that Trump hasn't stopped things that Obama didn't either and yet I don't remember anyone complaining about these issues before Trump became Prez . I'm not aiming this at you personally but has Trump ever done anything that you (anti Trumpers at large) are just "meh" about? Far from being just "meh", I'm actually enthusiastic about the noises he's making towards NASA, and I said as such at the time. Can't speak for others, though. I'm pretty sure you can find criticism about Gitmo and various other topics in Obama's policy if you go back far enough, though I'd have to do some digging on that one. The accusations of hypocrisy might in a few cases be justified but I'm thinking they're the exception rather than the rule. I don't like to address things personally, but here's a personal question: do you believe your purpose on this thread is just to point out the double standard and you honestly, truly, have no strong feelings one way or the other when it comes to US policy of most kinds? I agree that the coverage of Trump on this thread has been categorically, almost overwhelmingly negative - but again, it would be nice to actually hear some counterpoints to that just for the sake of debate - like I said, the science stuff, in particular, gets almost no one saying why it might instead be a good thing (apart from Darkon raising some good points a while back), and it would be nice to be able to debate it rather than letting such points go unchallenged. 5 minutes ago, MattP said: I think even the most ardent anti-Trump supporter would still acknowledge they hold him to far different standards than Obama. It's the same with all Republicans, they went for Bush and Reagan as well with a different moral compass they do their own. Can you imagine Donald continuing in his job if a lower ranked worker was known to have sucked him off in the office and he then lied about it like Bill did? Would never happen in a million years. All humans do have bias, and being able to overcome that is difficult. But if we're talking about hypocrisy, please don't imply that those on the right don't hold Clinton or Obama to a different moral standard than they do Bush, Reagan or Trump (Iraq, Iran-Contra and sex with a porn star, anyone?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 6 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Far from being just "meh", I'm actually enthusiastic about the noises he's making towards NASA, and I said as such at the time. Can't speak for others, though. I'm pretty sure you can find criticism about Gitmo and various other topics in Obama's policy if you go back far enough, though I'd have to do some digging on that one. The accusations of hypocrisy might in a few cases be justified but I'm thinking they're the exception rather than the rule. I don't like to address things personally, but here's a personal question: do you believe your purpose on this thread is just to point out the double standard and you honestly, truly, have no strong feelings one way or the other when it comes to US policy of most kinds? I agree that the coverage of Trump on this thread has been categorically, almost overwhelmingly negative - but again, it would be nice to actually hear some counterpoints to that just for the sake of debate - like I said, the science stuff, in particular, gets almost no one saying why it might instead be a good thing (apart from Darkon raising some good points a while back), and it would be nice to be able to debate it rather than letting such points go unchallenged. You'll have to forgive me for that, I feel obliged to read every thread in Gen chat as one of the mods for this bit of the forum. If I wasn't I doubt I even browse it more than just occasionally. I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about double standards ( someone will now accuse me of that ). Your entitled to your opinion, it's nothing personal against you, you're a very pleasant person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: You'll have to forgive me for that, I feel obliged to read every thread in Gen chat as one of the mods for this bit of the forum. If I wasn't I doubt I even browse it more than just occasionally. I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about double standards ( someone will now accuse me of that ). Your entitled to your opinion, it's nothing personal against you, you're a very pleasant person. Yeah, I'm not big on hypocrisy either, and I've pointed that out on here a few times too. Honestly, as I'm not that interested in economics and much more interested in social and scientific issues (though I know money often directly affects them both) pretty much everything I'm seeing from Trump only furthers division along demographic lines (the problem with Us and Them is that if there wasn't a Them before there tends to be one very shortly) and looks for short-term material gain at the expense of long-term future. I honestly wish I could write more complimentary stuff (like the NASA stuff) about how there's more inclusion going on, more empathy rather than confrontation, more planning for the future rather offering the opportunity to tear things up in the present...but it simply isn't there to write about. Perhaps he'll end up like Reagan - he started off more fire and brimstone and tempered towards the end of his Presidency - but I guess only time will tell on that one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 When the cap fits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 30 minutes ago, Buce said: When the cap fits... Yep. We all do it. It's never been more greatly on show though than during the Trump presidency. I was talking to someone last night about him, the guy guaranteed me we would be at war by July last year in charge. He's actually doing a pretty good job, just wish he would act a bit more statesman like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 5 minutes ago, MattP said: Yep. We all do it. It's never been more greatly on show though than during the Trump presidency. I was talking to someone last night about him, the guy guaranteed me we would be at war by July last year in charge. He's actually doing a pretty good job, just wish he would act a bit more statesman like. 3 I'm interested to hear if there are other reasons than economic ones as to why you think this, or are economic issues the ones that should be prioritised and they outweigh other stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'm interested to hear if there are other reasons than economic ones as to why you think this, or are economic issues the ones that should be prioritised and they outweigh other stuff? Economics comes above everything, only those who disagree with that have the privilege of wealth or living in a society that has created wealth. You wouldn't find a Tibetan shoeshiner complaining about only recognising 2 genders whilst he's relying on someone saying yes so his children can eat. I think overall it's been good so far, he's given a tax cut for all, finally reducing the absurd corporation tax they had and he is making moves to stop giving money to countries that hate the West, he's backed the only liberal regime in the middle east unequivocally and his aggressive stance towards North Korea seems to be paying dividends. We've seen no intention to get into war that has no concern of the West and he seems to be finally taking a recalcitrant attitude towards the UN which is long overdue, he's also far less opposed to free trade as he is portrayed as, he just wants a fairer deal as he should for a country that provides so much. To put it in a simply, the USA finally seems to have a leader who does what he says rather than kick the can down the road like the last guy who cared about his popularity more than anything. I still wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 as I've said numerous times, but if the election were tomorrow and I was a US citizen and the Democrat candidate was anywhere the quality of Clinton, he would be getting my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2018 Share Posted 1 February 2018 47 minutes ago, MattP said: Economics comes above everything, only those who disagree with that have the privilege of wealth or living in a society that has created wealth. You wouldn't find a Tibetan shoeshiner complaining about only recognising 2 genders whilst he's relying on someone saying yes so his children can eat. I think overall it's been good so far, he's given a tax cut for all, finally reducing the absurd corporation tax they had and he is making moves to stop giving money to countries that hate the West, he's backed the only liberal regime in the middle east unequivocally and his aggressive stance towards North Korea seems to be paying dividends. We've seen no intention to get into war that has no concern of the West and he seems to be finally taking a recalcitrant attitude towards the UN which is long overdue, he's also far less opposed to free trade as he is portrayed as, he just wants a fairer deal as he should for a country that provides so much. To put it in a simply, the USA finally seems to have a leader who does what he says rather than kick the can down the road like the last guy who cared about his popularity more than anything. I still wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 as I've said numerous times, but if the election were tomorrow and I was a US citizen and the Democrat candidate was anywhere the quality of Clinton, he would be getting my vote. Thank you. Actually been thinking about the economics-social snafu recently, and it seems like a very chicken and egg scenario to me - do economic issues lead to social issues, or did the idea that humans are tribal exist before money was a thing and economics was just another way of exercising it? I've said it before and I'll say it again - economics is only any good to a civilisation that is stable enough to run an economic system in the first place, which implies there are higher-priority things. I'll add my own take on your points one at a time: - I'm thinking the tax cut stuff he's doing might be successful in the future, but in such a field the very definition of success is so subjective you could get ten different definitions from five different economists anyway. Very nebulous. - Backing Israel is obviously good for business and they are the only stable democratic country in the area, but not backing off from the Saudis at the same time makes that look a mite hypocritical. - No reason to suggest his moves have had any effect on what North Korea is doing now - could be coincidental and again if you ask different people you'll get different answers. If they are having an effect, however, answering threats with like threats is a pretty dangerous game - I know we possibly disagree on this point but the NK's are going to do nothing overt unless the US attacks them first, so why make them believe that you will? - Why exactly does the UN deserve to be browbeaten? If the US wants to change the way that it does things, surely it would be better off convincing them as to a better course of action rather than doing the diplomatic equivalent of taking their ball and going home. Saying that they won't be a part of discussions unless the world dances to the US tune isn't productive when there is so much work to be done. - As I said to Webbo above, I'm not sure why heinous acts are any less heinous because folks have told you they're going to do them beforehand I do appreciate the discussion, debating about this and having some defence of what he's is interesting rather than no reply at all. Any take on scientific policy, at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Share Posted 2 February 2018 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42914961 Well, this keeps getting more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FriendlyRam Posted 2 February 2018 Share Posted 2 February 2018 Hes surely not going to win this fight? This is a fight hes picking that he simply cant win imo, its ok attacking certain media outlets, he can have his other media buddies defend him, but hes attacking the fbi and the cia, surely even fox cant suger coat this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Blues Posted 2 February 2018 Share Posted 2 February 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, MattP said: Economics comes above everything, only those who disagree with that have the privilege of wealth or living in a society that has created wealth. You wouldn't find a Tibetan shoeshiner complaining about only recognising 2 genders whilst he's relying on someone saying yes so his children can eat. I think overall it's been good so far, he's given a tax cut for all, finally reducing the absurd corporation tax they had and he is making moves to stop giving money to countries that hate the West, he's backed the only liberal regime in the middle east unequivocally and his aggressive stance towards North Korea seems to be paying dividends. We've seen no intention to get into war that has no concern of the West and he seems to be finally taking a recalcitrant attitude towards the UN which is long overdue, he's also far less opposed to free trade as he is portrayed as, he just wants a fairer deal as he should for a country that provides so much. To put it in a simply, the USA finally seems to have a leader who does what he says rather than kick the can down the road like the last guy who cared about his popularity more than anything. I still wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 as I've said numerous times, but if the election were tomorrow and I was a US citizen and the Democrat candidate was anywhere the quality of Clinton, he would be getting my vote. You're certainly free to have this point of view. In fact, I wish most republicans could articulate why they would support a Trump presidency like you do. Normally it just comes down to the talking points from Fox news and hatred of Hilary, as if they couldn't have choose a different republican in the primary election. I do disagree however, with the facts you put forth. Reducing taxes has been proven, time and again, to be lousy economic policy. The reduction in the corporate tax will do 2 big things: 1) It will further widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Corporations will not pass 100% of these tax benefits down to the common worker. Rather, the additional revenue will be paid out to shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends. Those at the top, that own the most equity will profit, the middle class will get a few table scraps, and the poor will be left wanting. Increases the gap of wealth disparity between the elite and the poor has large social implications. The funny thing is, this is text book income re-distribution. Most of the time this word comes up, it relates to socialism - when we tax the rich and give it to the poor.. The opposite though, is true. By reducing taxes that primarily impact the rich, and not the poor, we are doing the same thing. At the end of the day, what is fair? The effective tax rates within the united states are very low compared to the rest of the industrialized world. If we want to keep a defense budget that is higher than the rest of the world by per capita GDP, how can we afford to have such a low tax rate? How can we justify reducing this tax rate further? 2) It will further increase the budget deficit, and therefore, the national debt. The amount of spending the US government does will not be reduced by the amount of tax revenue we forgo through in the new tax structure. To say that economic growth will make up the difference in tax revenue is absurd. The amount of extra taxable income to be generated to cover the drop in tax revenue would be staggering. In order to have a balanced budget, social programs that support the poor are the first to be cut. Medicare, Medicaid benefits will be cut. Health care premiums will rise. Programs that are funded to act as a social net will be scrapped. These changes wont effect those who benefit most from the new tax care bill. What does it matter if you save $200 in taxes, if your health care premiums raise by 25%? A large portion of Americans are just barely getting by, what happens when they suddenly can't pay their bills or afford health care coverage? How will America look when it's poor get more and more desperate? Edited 2 February 2018 by Detroit Blues 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Share Posted 2 February 2018 Read an interesting comment on the current political situation, sort of highlights where we're at now for me: "I guess what's hard to accept is that there is no bargain that can be struck in the present for future progressivism. Trump and Obama have sort have proven that. You can rally behind a centrist who faces a hurricane of opposition for eight years while they get, like, 7% of what they wanted to get done done. And then it collapses like a sandcastle and burns to the ground in a few years time because teh white men feels. The check guaranteeing that we can accept the unacceptable now as a means to the end of achieving the acceptable later seems to have bounced." As someone who does want to see progress in social and other fields, that is difficult to take, and I hope it doesn't remain true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 3 February 2018 Share Posted 3 February 2018 On 01/02/2018 at 15:29, MattP said: Yep. We all do it. It's never been more greatly on show though than during the Trump presidency. I was talking to someone last night about him, the guy guaranteed me we would be at war by July last year in charge. He's actually doing a pretty good job, just wish he would act a bit more statesman like. On 01/02/2018 at 15:51, MattP said: Economics comes above everything, only those who disagree with that have the privilege of wealth or living in a society that has created wealth. You wouldn't find a Tibetan shoeshiner complaining about only recognising 2 genders whilst he's relying on someone saying yes so his children can eat. I think overall it's been good so far, he's given a tax cut for all, finally reducing the absurd corporation tax they had and he is making moves to stop giving money to countries that hate the West, he's backed the only liberal regime in the middle east unequivocally and his aggressive stance towards North Korea seems to be paying dividends. We've seen no intention to get into war that has no concern of the West and he seems to be finally taking a recalcitrant attitude towards the UN which is long overdue, he's also far less opposed to free trade as he is portrayed as, he just wants a fairer deal as he should for a country that provides so much. To put it in a simply, the USA finally seems to have a leader who does what he says rather than kick the can down the road like the last guy who cared about his popularity more than anything. I still wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 as I've said numerous times, but if the election were tomorrow and I was a US citizen and the Democrat candidate was anywhere the quality of Clinton, he would be getting my vote. His choices on environmental policy, Israel, and his needless ratcheting up of problems with Korea and Iran are all big negatives. As is the loss of American idealism and leadership internationally. Where once the US would have been at the forefront of international consensus it's currently less valued than it was 12 months ago. You look at climate change or Iran and other countries are now looking at how to take ownership without, or despite, America. Soft power is important. It greases the wheels of world politics in favour of the West. Hard right Americanism is losing this soft power and Russia and China are filling the gaps. This is making both the us and the rest of the world less safe than 12 months ago. As for his economic policies, it makes me smile somewhat that Matt is cheerleading a budget that's added something like £1.5 trillion to the American national debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 February 2018 Share Posted 3 February 2018 (edited) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42931269 This sounds dangerously like the US think that if the nuclear weapons they use are small enough, such a use would be limited and therefore a nuclear war would be "winnable". Like Reagan with SDI in the 80's, and equally foolhardy. Edited 3 February 2018 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 3 February 2018 Share Posted 3 February 2018 12 minutes ago, leicsmac said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42931269 This sounds dangerously like the US think that if the nuclear weapons they use are small enough, such a use would be limited and therefore a nuclear war would be "winnable". Like Reagan with SDI in the 80's, and equally foolhardy. My perception - this is about the North Korea threat, more than Russia (although pissing off Russia has bonus points). The US know if they have to respond to North Korea somehow, they will have to be precise given the neighbouring countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FriendlyRam Posted 4 February 2018 Share Posted 4 February 2018 Hes tweeting in the 3rd person Hes going to do something quite soon that might make matters worse for himself. Hes justified it to himself that hes been cleared of any russian wrong doing because of that memo ,, hes going to sack rosentein perhaps? We all know where that leads if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 February 2018 Share Posted 4 February 2018 5 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: My perception - this is about the North Korea threat, more than Russia (although pissing off Russia has bonus points). The US know if they have to respond to North Korea somehow, they will have to be precise given the neighbouring countries. I would agree with you, but quite frankly any move that destabilises the nuclear balance - intentional or not - isn't really a good thing. I'm as much in favour of pissing off Putin as the next guy, but the day that one side gets an upper hand in such things, or even believes that they can, or the other side thinks that they have...could be troublesome. I'd much rather the status quo be maintained - it's not like the US don't already have precision nuclear munitions and it's not like they're not competent enough to keep them away from the Chinese border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 5 February 2018 Share Posted 5 February 2018 Discuss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 5 February 2018 Share Posted 5 February 2018 A lot going on I need that info graphic. Who produced it? Daily Mail should be closer to garbage ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 5 February 2018 Share Posted 5 February 2018 And Trump disagrees with CNN’s position! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts