President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, Lionator said:

From what I've seen I think Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand are good potential candidates, Harris especially seems to be becoming more prominent. 

Harris would be my first pick too at the present time, but there's a long way still to go.

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behaving-like-a-2020-presidential-candidate/

 

Further to earlier discussion, of the 20 Dem candidates fivethirtyeight thinks "most likely" to run in 2020, only three are women and over three-quarters are white.

 

Not exactly identity politics at play here, IMO.

Not to mention the amount of men aged 60 and above. Moulton and Buttigieg are way too young. Swalwell didn't perform well with his Trump attacks recently.

Seems to me, the Democrats especially are struggling to nominate anyone worthwhile and competent enough.

Some of these names are born out of sheer desperation more than anything.

 

Avenatti.  Guy's a despicable human being.

 

Garcetti seems likeable, Paul Ryan wouldn't be a bad shout, either.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Not to mention the amount of men aged 60 and above. Moulton and Buttigieg are way too young. Swalwell didn't perform well with his Trump attacks recently.

Seems to me, the Democrats especially are struggling to nominate anyone worthwhile and competent enough.

Some of these names are born out of sheer desperation more than anything.

 

Avenatti.  Guy's a despicable human being.

 

Garcetti seems likeable, Paul Ryan wouldn't be a bad shout, either.

I think you can narrow that lot down a lot right away as you imply, was just making the point that for all the identity politics talk it could still well be a white guy getting the Dem nomination next time round. Ryan is a decent shout.

 

Speaking of the Dems struggling, you're not big on Harris, Booker et al then?

[MC Prussian]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think you can narrow that lot down a lot right away as you imply, was just making the point that for all the identity politics talk it could still well be a white guy getting the Dem nomination next time round. Ryan is a decent shout.

 

Speaking of the Dems struggling, you're not big on Harris, Booker et al then?

Harris didn't endear herself to the public during the Kavanaugh hearing.

 

I like Booker's attitude, although sometimes he doesn't reflect upon his actions - it was a bit foolish of him to release confidential E-Mails by Kavanaugh on his own behalf, that could cost him dearly.

 

Still don't think the Democrats have much to offer - 2020 may come too soon.

If they decide to push a handful of people they put their trust in, the candidates ought to represent integrity, decency, grit, determination, clarity (of idea and mind), intelligence, competence, vision, modesty.

Very few of the people on show are close to that character.

 

In the end, I will still mourn the lack of a viable third party as an alternative.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Harris didn't endear herself to the public during the Kavanaugh hearing.

 

I like Booker's attitude, although sometimes he doesn't reflect upon his actions - it was a bit foolish of him to release confidential E-Mails by Kavanaugh on his own behalf, that could cost him dearly.

 

Still don't think the Democrats have much to offer - 2020 may come too soon.

If they decide to push a handful of people they put their trust in, the candidates ought to represent integrity, decency, grit, determination, clarity (of idea and mind), intelligence, competence, vision, modesty.

Very few of the people on show are close to that character.

 

In the end, I will still mourn the lack of a viable third party as an alternative.

I think the Kauvanagh matter might not hurt those involved in it as much as one might think tbh - it was turned into such a overwhelmingly partisan issue that the confrontational actions of most everyone on all sides was almost to be expected and so I think there will be hotter issues when 2020 rolls round. Look at it like this - if someone wasn't going to vote for Harris or Booker after the whole thing, I doubt they were going to before either.

 

I do think that if they put someone up just as a "they're not Trump" candidate that they'll lose - whoever is chosen needs to stand on their own merits. It's not too soon to go after Trump for the way this administration has gone so far on certain matters and be successful though IMO. Definitely agree that a third party option would be nice, but what ideological area would that one occupy, I wonder?

[Jattdogg]

Dems have every reason to win this election but so far seems like nobody has the real goods to challenge donald. 

 

Donald will just throw lies, talk about economy,  how angry dems couldn't find collusion and sore losers and his base with lick it up. When it comes down to it people know he is a cvnt but if they have jobs he will get the votes.

 

Dems just seem bitter right now . You lost, get over it and get a plan.

 

Agree on there being a 3rd and/or 4th party. I've mentioned this before  nobody is truly dem or repub. Sure some are hardcore but the rest of them are sway votes that align loosely with principles from both parties. There's a market for a 3rd party to sit in between the two but so far they haven't evolved lol.

 

Can't see donald losing in 2020.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

n the end, I will still mourn the lack of a viable third party as an alternative.

I agree, the lack of it can only lead to more incompetence from the leading two if there is nobody there to challenge them, something we are seeing in Britain.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45859325

 

You might be right in that there's an agenda here, Don.

 

And that agenda is attempting to suggest a course of action that will help humanity either avoid or mitigate a problem that would in time render all those economic billions meaningless.

[Carl the Llama]

Utterly devastating to think he could at any moment snap his fingers and receive a detailed breakdown of the data from the world's top scientists but he still chooses to ignore the problem in favour of pursuing economic supremacy and making groundless remarks about it not necessarily being permanent.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Utterly devastating to think he could at any moment snap his fingers and receive a detailed breakdown of the data from the world's top scientists but he still chooses to ignore the problem in favour of pursuing economic supremacy and making groundless remarks about it not necessarily being permanent.

 

Well, to be fair to him, it's not.

 

We'd see a natural shift to restore some kind of equilibrium that would be amenable in...oh, about half a million years, perhaps.

[Guest MattP]

Just watch the Democrats pick her.

 

 

[Jattdogg]

I suppose if you grow up telling people you are native american and people know (especially back in the day) then its possible they were discriminated against.

 

With the amount of native american dna in her i wouldnt play that card though (to say you are some sort of minority or something). If you are 3/4, 1/2 or 1/4 sure. Beyond that you are very mixed race and probably identify with just one of those.

 

I still think its highly inappropriate of the president to call her pocahontas. The guy is borderline racist or a straight up cvnt. 

 

Dems will still lose 2020 though.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Couple of interesting opinion pieces at the Beeb.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45871362

 

I can see why Trump might be feeling confident right now for the reasons the article lays out, though I wouldn't really want to make a prediction about where things go from here - so much time between here and the midterms, let alone 2020.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45661176

 

Just because Obama could make it, doesn't mean the white supremacists still aren't getting their way quite often now.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

I suppose if you grow up telling people you are native american and people know (especially back in the day) then its possible they were discriminated against.

 

With the amount of native american dna in her i wouldnt play that card though (to say you are some sort of minority or something). If you are 3/4, 1/2 or 1/4 sure. Beyond that you are very mixed race and probably identify with just one of those.

 

I still think its highly inappropriate of the president to call her pocahontas. The guy is borderline racist or a straight up cvnt. 

 

Dems will still lose 2020 though.

 

 

Have to disagree there. I think that is funny

[MC Prussian]

Mme Clinton calling for civility in American politics, but only if the Dems are in charge.

Quote

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about."

Ok, so what exactly do you care about? Earnest discussions, dialogue about some of the most pressing issues of the coutnry or lessons in protest, violence, disobedience, lies in order to distract from the fact that you have little to nothing to offer in terms of content?

 

Meanwhile, they're encouraging their front leaders to stage protests, going as far as harassing Republican senators and House representatives by the use of physical force.

"They go low, we go higher" is a thing of the past.

Now it's all about following Republicans into grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations and the likes and shouting them down.

 

It's a wonderful world. 

[MC Prussian]

24 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Have to disagree there. I think that is funny

I found protestors trying to pry the Supreme Court doors open during the Kavanaugh installation funnier.

[MC Prussian]

Meanwhile, logic has passed by this individual:

Quote

"Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is a message to women in this country that they do not matter."

Of course, women do matter.

Sadly, Christine Ford's case was thrown out of the court because there was no substantial evidence Kavanaugh sexually assaulted or raped her.

 

All just demands, but what do you give back, Emily?

Virtue signaling at its finest. Same with Amy Schumer protesting in DC.

That's why she's failing at the box office and in TV. Never was funny in the first place, I'm afraid.

Edited 17 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

I definitely agree that it's unfortunate some civility appears to have been lost. Compromise and negotiation are the best ways for things to actually get better.

 

That being said, look at what is attempting to be done to the legacy of the guy who coined the term "when they go low, we go high" in the first place - obstruction and now flat-out dismantling by the next guys in office. You've got to be idealistic but what's happened here isn't exactly a great advertisement for it.

 

On a similar note, while getting your hands dirty and "direct action" as talked about in the post above this one often causes more problems than it solves in the long term, I can understand the anger that feeds into it. Look at it this way - for pretty much the entire history of the majority of the Western nations, women and those of nonwhite skin colour have been treated as second-class, lesser citizens, firstly by the laws of those nations themselves, and then, when laws were changed, still often by society itself in a variety of expressed ways. The people in charge of legislature, of industry, of politics...all, overwhelmingly, one demographic, holding all the power and feeling no need whatsoever to let go. Women, for instance, were homemakers, the property of husbands and fathers - if not by law, then at least by popular expressed sentiment.

 

Still, over time, progress happens, and things start to get better for those demographics - more representation, less derogation, more chances to have an active, rec say in the way power works in these nations. Things are looking more equitable.

 

And then, one day, all that progress seems to want to stop entirely. Or even, to backslide.

 

Can you really convince those involved in all this that this isn't happening and/or they shouldn't get angry about it?

 

If some of the alt-right are getting pissed off that white guys aren't getting a fair go and haven't been for the last few years, how pissed off should a person be when their demographic has only recently gotten a fair go after not getting one for the better part of a few centuries - or most of recorded human civilisation - and now might (emphasise might) not be getting one anymore?

Edited 17 October 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Have to disagree there. I think that is funny

It's absolutely hilarious - even more so now. I really hope she runs.

 

South Park from a couple of years ago, so ahead of its time taking the piss out the desire for victimhood.

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's absolutely hilarious - even more so now. I really hope she runs.

 

South Park from a couple of years ago, so ahead of its time taking the piss out the desire for victimhood.

 

 

I was thinking of that aswell  

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45883174

 

Pertinent point: "is the West's relationship with Saudi Arabia so important that it outweighs the need to condemn and punish what many believe was a state-sponsored murder of a journalist inside a consulate?"

 

I mean, what filth do the Saudis have to do that the US (and to a certain extent the UK) finally say that they've had enough?

[leicsmac]

And on a rather different food-related note:

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-uk-must-bin-unjustified-food-standards-for-brexit-trade-deal-2018-10

 

Of course this administration is going to ask for terms that benefit them and no one else - did anyone really think they wouldn't?

[MC Prussian]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I definitely agree that it's unfortunate some civility appears to have been lost. Compromise and negotiation are the best ways for things to actually get better.

 

That being said, look at what is attempting to be done to the legacy of the guy who coined the term "when they go low, we go high" in the first place - obstruction and now flat-out dismantling by the next guys in office. You've got to be idealistic but what's happened here isn't exactly a great advertisement for it.

 

On a similar note, while getting your hands dirty and "direct action" as talked about in the post above this one often causes more problems than it solves in the long term, I can understand the anger that feeds into it. Look at it this way - for pretty much the entire history of the majority of the Western nations, women and those of nonwhite skin colour have been treated as second-class, lesser citizens, firstly by the laws of those nations themselves, and then, when laws were changed, still often by society itself in a variety of expressed ways. The people in charge of legislature, of industry, of politics...all, overwhelmingly, one demographic, holding all the power and feeling no need whatsoever to let go. Women, for instance, were homemakers, the property of husbands and fathers - if not by law, then at least by popular expressed sentiment.

 

Still, over time, progress happens, and things start to get better for those demographics - more representation, less derogation, more chances to have an active, rec say in the way power works in these nations. Things are looking more equitable.

 

And then, one day, all that progress seems to want to stop entirely. Or even, to backslide.

 

Can you really convince those involved in all this that this isn't happening and/or they shouldn't get angry about it?

 

If some of the alt-right are getting pissed off that white guys aren't getting a fair go and haven't been for the last few years, how pissed off should a person be when their demographic has only recently gotten a fair go after not getting one for the better part of a few centuries - or most of recorded human civilisation - and now might (emphasise might) not be getting one anymore?

First of all, the phrase "When they go low, we go higher" was coined by Michelle Obama in 2016, who was First Lady at the time.

But she has/had little to no political power or influence in the grand scheme of things, so it was meant as an inspiration more than anything.

 

I'm disappointed in the Dems that they are now abandoning that credo, instead go even lower. That's just shameful.

None of their representatives have openly come out and shamed the protesters, Antifa or their actions. Only Bernie Sanders to some extent, and that only after broadly endorsing the need for standing up and fight still.

 

How much of that "anger" is real and how much is fake/fabrication? We've got proof that some of these outrages have been staged, with protesters paid off.

And what is there really to be "angry" about? No war initiated by the US (no air raids like under Obama) as of right now, unemployment continues to dwindle and the economy continues to thrive.

The Democrats in my eyes care more about social justice warriors, pandering to minorities and loudmouthing everybody to the right of them more than anything, I want to see real political issues to be addressed by them and real policies to be brought forward.

It's their job as the opposition to criticize the GOP for their failures, not to get lost in skirmishes that only act as smokescreens.

 

As for the "women and minorities have been treated shit for so long in the past" argument - did (white) men fare any better? Wars, infant mortality, lack of education, violence, shit jobs, poverty affected everybody. Great ages for men also, sure. And I'm not convinced you can claim women and minorities in general were worse off, they pretty much had their place in society and understood their roles as it was demanded at the times. How much of it was real oppression and how much of it simply people trying to get by, sharing traditional duties to the best of their knowledge?

The mortality rate among women was also high because of child birth complications and the lack of sanitary tools - but hey, let's blame patriarchy for the failings of a (technological) progress that wasn't fast enough back then.

 

Some people are just too eager to rewrite history. Scary.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45883174

 

Pertinent point: "is the West's relationship with Saudi Arabia so important that it outweighs the need to condemn and punish what many believe was a state-sponsored murder of a journalist inside a consulate?"

 

I mean, what filth do the Saudis have to do that the US (and to a certain extent the UK) finally say that they've had enough?

Unfortunately a lot more given the depth of our trade with them. 80 billion I think was the figure I saw in the UK.

 

Would you go to the North West and tell them all you will destroy their industry and communities? I couldn't.

 

What has happened is clearly terrible and the Saudis have to answer for it, but why punish our own people? 

[bovril]

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Meanwhile, logic has passed by this individual:

 

That's the first time in foxestalk history you've posted a fit celeb.