President Trump & the USA

[Dr The Singh]

7 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

Well I understand you'd hate anyone elected who wasn't a white male with no views different to your own.

You do know Mattp is sleeping with a washing machine repair man, who looks like a brown MP from Leicester

[Buce]

 

The next time someone refers to the US as a democracy, just show them this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule

[leicsmac]

Just now, Buce said:

 

The next time someone refers to the US as a democracy, just show them this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule

FWIW a lot of those who follow Trump do refer to the US as a republic rather than a democracy, because they are rather proud that the overall majority cannot dictate the terms in most areas.

 

Voter suppression, however, is a big issue, and one that the Repubs try hard to sweep under the carpet or claim that voter fraud is a much bigger problem - because, you know, we can't make it too easy for those blacks and native Americans in various crucial areas to vote, can we? They might be trying to pull a fast one, they're casually criminal after all.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

The next time someone refers to the US as a democracy, just show them this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule

Why were the Guardian never complaining about this before given its been like this for ages? Any ideas?

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Why were the Guardian never complaining about this before given its been like this for ages? Any ideas?

 

No idea, but if you bothered to read it, you'd see that they are not complaining about it now either.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

FWIW a lot of those who follow Trump do refer to the US as a republic rather than a democracy, because they are rather proud that the overall majority cannot dictate the terms in most areas? 

Would you change this even if it meant the break up of the nation? (Certainly possible if millions of liberals in rich cities ending up deciding the government every time)

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Would you change this even if it meant the break up of the nation? (Certainly possible if millions of liberals in rich cities ending up deciding the government every time)

TBH I probably wouldn't - letting the states run things in their own way for the most part is alright IMO, as I'm a big fan of devolved power shared among as many people as possible tbh given how a high level of power almost always corrupts...of course, this leads to problems when critical decisions need to be made that affect an entire nation or planet (*cough* climate change policy *cough*) but you'd hope that in such situations everyone would actually see how stark the problem was...

 

...wait. They don't? Well, shit.

 

But yeah, the only thing I'd tinker with is a methodology to close the difference in how much a vote "counts" at a nationwide level in matters that affect the entire country equally such as federal civil rights/science research/environmental issues (not the smaller stuff) and certainly look to address voter suppression.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

TBH I probably wouldn't - letting the states run things in their own way for the most part is alright IMO, as I'm a big fan of devolved power shared among as many people as possible tbh given how a high level of power almost always corrupts...of course, this leads to problems when critical decisions need to be made that affect an entire nation or planet (*cough* climate change policy *cough*) but you'd hope that in such situations everyone would actually see how stark the problem was...

 

...wait. They don't? Well, shit.

 

But yeah, the only thing I'd tinker with is a methodology to close the difference in how much a vote "counts" at a nationwide level in matters that affect the entire country equally such as federal civil rights/science research/environmental issues (not the smaller stuff) and certainly look to address voter suppression.

I wish I had never asked, that was an open goal for climate change wasn't it?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I wish I had never asked, that was an open goal for climate change wasn't it?

 

For what it's worth it highlights something of an inconsistency in my own take on the general matter, too: I think that power should be shared amongst as many people as possible and that means devolved powers to small regions and them all having at least an equal say in the general running of a nation, simply because that acts as a check against corruption by an entity that has too much concentrated power...but then at the same time there are some issues where to have such a system risks everything while people bicker and fiddle while Rome burns and so it's imperfect.

 

I'm not really sure how you can reconcile those two viewpoints - perhaps, as I alluded to, making certain national concerns of importance a straight national vote with no regional weightings might come closest, but I honestly don't know.

[Guest MattP]

What US Presidents used to be like.

 

 

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

What US Presidents used to be like.

 

 

 

The cynic in me thinks he was just a tad too quick with his response. 

 

Almost like he was expecting it...

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

What US Presidents used to be like.

 

 

Say what you like about his policy (Iran-Contra and dismissing the AIDS crisis, anyone?) but the guy was smooth and charismatic when on camera.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46135459

 

'"No Way To Prevent This", says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens'.

[Guest MattP]

Quite a good balanced piece from Emily Maitlis. I don't agree with Acosta being banned, but he knew exactly what he was doing.

What has happened to CNN has been quite tragic, growing up for me it was the neutral news channel in the USA you could watch and trust.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/46147166

 

 

Quote

 

We were on our way to the White Press press conference yesterday morning - when we got redirected. Disappointed at the time, I am now relieved we were.

There is only one memorable moment from that press conference - and that was a one minute 20 seconds fight between the president and the CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta. No other question really got a look in.

I watched the whole thing live, of course. It unsettled me.

And here's why: when you look at the clips that have been running today, and the responses on social media, Jim Acosta emerges as the hero of the hour. The Man Who Stood Up To Trump. The Fighter for all our press freedom.

I don't know Jim. He seems like a good guy. But I feel the episode needs context which is sorely lacking.

Jim Acosta was called on by the president to ask a question.

I'll say that again. He was called on by Donald Trump to ask whatever question he liked. And when he'd finished asking one, he then asked another - with interruption follow-ups in between.

It was only when he attempted his third question - or possibly fourth depending on how you define the follow-ups - that the president got angry and asked him to sit down.

There ensued a tussle with the mic. And weirdly ridiculous words from the president about him being a rude and terrible person.

I'm pretty sure Acosta never intended to "mistouch" the young female intern. He was just trying to hold on to the mic.

 

My point is this - the scene was an incredible bit of theatre. We couldn't take our eyes off it. It just went on and on.

You could argue the president came looking for it - he does well, electorally, when he's berating the press.

But make no mistake. The media also does well when they are baiting the bear. The urge to poke can sometimes seem irresistible.

So let's take a step back. What happened in that room was not the ultimate fight for press freedom. This wasn't someone risking life and limb against a regime where freedom of speech is forbidden. This was a bloke sitting in a room full of colleagues who were all trying to ask questions too.

This was a man who'd had his turn and had been told he couldn't hog the whole time.

I've been in high-pressure press conferences. And the art is to ask the single most succinct question that will land you the best possible response.

The achievement is not meant to be one of endurance.

There are plenty of things to berate in the behaviour, language or ethics of Donald Trump. But this moment was not one of them. Pull him up for his lies, yes. But not for wanting to widen the conversation.

The president took CNN's question and then took more. And when he tried to move on, he couldn't. Once the Acosta incident was over, he went on to take questions from journalists from all over the world - for a total of 90 minutes.

 

What worries me is the wider question of how Trump and the media interact.

When you watch the US morning shows - and evening shows come to that - what you notice is how things have changed.

Even those who were not originally taking sides are now nailing their colours to the mast. Fox and MSNBC have always played to their own bases. But now CNN, too, has editorialised its evening slot with Chris Cuomo - who gives us an essay, a comment piece, on whatever is getting him fired up.

It's a good watch actually. And makes you engaged.

But make no mistake - it's the same game that Trump is playing. The one they pretend to despise. If DJT can rally his base - then - goes the logic - why shouldn't TV do it too.

It works for viewing figures in the same way it works for electoral success. It works, in other words, for those who like their chambers echoed - but it's an odd place for news to sit.

So yes, those in the media - the enemy of the people - know how the president likes to portray them. We know he picks fights with individuals. We know he may even revoke a White House press pass (that won't last - mark my words).

But we also know this: Never in the history of America has a president so loved the media and the air time we devote to him.

And never in the history of America has the media got so much entertainment from one president.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

The headline of the article shows how ridiculous the whole situation has become now, writing a balanced opinion on a press conference now has to carry the "unpopular opinion" statement because it will be considered by some as the indefensible, not completely blaming everything on Donald Trump.

[Finnegan]

Is Trump claiming "victory" in the mid terms just bravado and part of his PR machine? (I mean, he's never going to admit defeat in anything I guess.) 

 

Or is it really more important to his administration right now to make appointments than to pass legislation? 

 

[The Doctor]

On 07/11/2018 at 19:16, urban.spaceman said:

Should ****ing hope so, he’s got a job to do. Bloody layabout. 

Just wait until he gets an ATOS assessment, then he'll be fit to take office.

 

On 07/11/2018 at 20:17, SMX11 said:

Why should elections be decided in New York and California? It was deliberately designed to stop the tyranny of the majority.

But it's gone completely the opposite way and made the vote of a citizen of New York or California near worthless, particularly compared to the vote from someone living in middle America. It's countered tyranny of the majority by opting for tyranny of the minority instead

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Finnegan said:

Is Trump claiming "victory" in the mid terms just bravado and part of his PR machine? (I mean, he's never going to admit defeat in anything I guess.) 

Most politicians do this after an election don't they? Unless you get humiliated like the Lib Dems in 2015 you claim victory, the Tories claimed victory last year despite losing their majority, Labour then claimed victory despite losing a third election on the trot, it's part of the awful spin we are now subjected to.

 

I think it was more victory than defeat for Trump though, increasing his majority in the Senate was impressive and given how disastrous his Presidency was supposed to be, many pundits were 99% sure he'd lose total control of Congress by now back when he was elected. 

 

He lost the house which was expected, but the result was nowhere near as bad as the press are making out in comparison to previous midterms.

 

Most House seats lost by President's party in power;

 

2010 Obama: -63

1994 Clinton: -52

1958: Eisenhower: -48

1974 Ford (Nixon): -48

1966 Johnson: -47

1946 Truman: -45

2006 Bush: -30

1950 Truman: -29

1982 Reagan: -26

2018 Trump: -26

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Quite a good balanced piece from Emily Maitlis. I don't agree with Acosta being banned, but he knew exactly what he was doing.

What has happened to CNN has been quite tragic, growing up for me it was the neutral news channel in the USA you could watch and trust.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/46147166

 

 

It's polarisation wherever you look these days: Trump v. liberal media; Brexiteers v. Remainers; Tommy v. Islamists; Euro populists v. Euro establishment; Brazilian Right v. Left etc.

That polarisation often suits both parties engaged in the war, but it isn't necessarily good for democracy - or proper political analysis.

 

I think Maitlis is probably the best Newsnight anchor now - incisive questioning and analysis. Shame Evan Davis has moved on, as I thought he was good, too.

I don't know if she's just grown to become a top journalist or if I under-estimated her before (personal bias due to her being an attractive younger woman?).

 

I now have a mental image of a young MattP in short trousers, watching CNN News after he got home from primary school. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Most politicians do this after an election don't they? Unless you get humiliated like the Lib Dems in 2015 you claim victory, the Tories claimed victory last year despite losing their majority, Labour then claimed victory despite losing a third election on the trot, it's part of the awful spin we are now subjected to.

 

I think it was more victory than defeat for Trump though, increasing his majority in the Senate was impressive and given how disastrous his Presidency was supposed to be, many pundits were 99% sure he'd lose total control of Congress by now back when he was elected. 

 

He lost the house which was expected, but the result was nowhere near as bad as the press are making out in comparison to previous midterms.

 

Most House seats lost by President's party in power;

 

2010 Obama: -63

1994 Clinton: -52

1958: Eisenhower: -48

1974 Ford (Nixon): -48

1966 Johnson: -47

1946 Truman: -45

2006 Bush: -30

1950 Truman: -29

1982 Reagan: -26

2018 Trump: -26

TBH I'm not entirely sure you can call holding the Senate impressive while saying losing the House was expected considering both events were equally likely in the runup.

 

Anyone who looked at the numbers and who was standing for reelection in the Senate would have known it would have been tricky to win it for the Dems this time round, regardless of the events of the current Presidency.

Edited 9 November 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH I'm not entirely sure you can call holding the Senate impressive while saying losing the House was expected considering both events were equally likely in the runup.

 

Anyone who looked at the numbers and who was standing for reelection in the Senate would have known it would have been tricky to win it for the Dems this time round, regardless of the events of the current Presidency.

Increasing the majority in the Senate was impressive, not holding it.

[Guest MattP]

37 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's polarisation wherever you look these days: Trump v. liberal media; Brexiteers v. Remainers; Tommy v. Islamists; Euro populists v. Euro establishment; Brazilian Right v. Left etc.

That polarisation often suits both parties engaged in the war, but it isn't necessarily good for democracy - or proper political analysis.

 

I think Maitlis is probably the best Newsnight anchor now - incisive questioning and analysis. Shame Evan Davis has moved on, as I thought he was good, too.

I don't know if she's just grown to become a top journalist or if I under-estimated her before (personal bias due to her being an attractive younger woman?).

 

I now have a mental image of a young MattP in short trousers, watching CNN News after he got home from primary school. 

It's dreadful for proper political analysis which is now becoming harder and harder to get. Everything is becoming so binary.

 

Maitlis does pretty well I think, I think she'll be the choice to succeed Dimbleby on Question Time.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's dreadful for proper political analysis which is now becoming harder and harder to get. Everything is becoming so binary.

 

Maitlis does pretty well I think, I think she'll be the choice to succeed Dimbleby on Question Time.

 

Yep, and the more polarised things get, the more people get entrenched in their views. The other side are no longer viewed as opponents who might have got some things right, but as the enemy whose every word must be fought. Cue vitriol, division and mistrust all around - and the odd extremist resorting to violence.

 

I'm sure Maitlis would do a very good job if she replaced Dimbleby. Someone capable of questioning views on every part of the political spectrum and of not being confined to traditional ways of viewing things.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Increasing the majority in the Senate was impressive, not holding it.

Again, this was about as well predicted as the Dem House majority was, not seeing anything out of the ordinary. 

 

I do agree with you and Alf about the polarisation, though.

[leicsmac]

And now's he's bitching on Twitter about the idea of a European army floated by Macron and that the European nations don't stick enough into NATO.

 

You know, it's a funny thing, Don - when a friend doesn't consider your help reliable any more (even if the help has been substantial), they tend to seek other help or make it for themselves. Funny that.