Guest MattP Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 Finally got around to watching state of the union address - pretty good one by all accounts. Sad to see so much division though and even the speaker behaving unconventionallly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jattdogg Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, MattP said: Finally got around to watching state of the union address - pretty good one by all accounts. Sad to see so much division though and even the speaker behaving unconventionallly. Think thats mainly trumps/Republicans fault tbh. His political ways (and their lack of clamping down on him) have created this climate and i suppose at times the dems stoop to his level and act childish back. Its sad really. You got right wing nut jobs, left wing nut jobs and a dick right in the middle of them. Its a true bell end of a situation. The republican party really needs to look at what they stand for and realise you cant move forward with a guy like this leading you. The dems need to get back to basics and focus on good policy, reaching out to everyone yada yada. That wont solve all problems but im willing to bet you might see more senators and others flip sides when voting down/up bills and policies etc. Human decency needs to be brought back to both sides. Edited 7 February 2019 by Jattdogg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 Just now, Jattdogg said: Think thats mainly trumps/Republicans fault tbh. His political ways (and their lack of clamping down on him) have created this climate and i suppose at times the dems stoop to his level and act childish back. Its sad really. You got right wing nut jobs, left wing nut jobs and a dick right in the middle of them. Its a true bell end of a situation. It's both sides fault. Trump and his followers started started the debate this way but Hillary then responded with similar insults. You can't just blame the Republicans anymore when Dem senators are shouting "impeach the mother****er" and Pelosi is making a mockery of political addresses. They had the chance to go high as someone once said and they didn't, the punishment for that might be four more years of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jattdogg Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 1 hour ago, MattP said: It's both sides fault. Trump and his followers started started the debate this way but Hillary then responded with similar insults. You can't just blame the Republicans anymore when Dem senators are shouting "impeach the mother****er" and Pelosi is making a mockery of political addresses. They had the chance to go high as someone once said and they didn't, the punishment for that might be four more years of Trump. I dont think its 50 50 at all. Clearly this climate was started by trump and his supporters. Both parties should wonder how it even got to the point that someone like trump could stand a chance to be a presidential candidate. I do think the dems havent exactly played their cards right and have been sucked into his trap so to speak. They dont go high you are absolutely correct on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 As much as both sides are slinging mud, when the Dem establishment and voter base by and large disregard a likely proven threat to all civilisation either because denial or not caring and also buy into the kind of religious gospel that means there's only room at the top for a chosen few and self-interest is a virtue, then I'll start drawing some parallels. It's not that one side is doing more insulting than the other, it's that what one side believes is so much more potentially damaging to so many more people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Blues Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 37 minutes ago, Jattdogg said: I dont think its 50 50 at all. Clearly this climate was started by trump and his supporters. Both parties should wonder how it even got to the point that someone like trump could stand a chance to be a presidential candidate. I do think the dems havent exactly played their cards right and have been sucked into his trap so to speak. They dont go high you are absolutely correct on that. If the republican establishment could have rallied around a single candidate (other than Trump), they could have defeated Trump's populist movement in the primary. The problem was that they were divided between Rubio, Bush, Cruz, etc. If you look at the democratic primary, Bernie Sanders had a similar populist movement to Trump. But the difference is, the establishment stuck with Clinton the whole way, and in some cases, they ensured that she would win one way or another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Jattdogg said: I dont think its 50 50 at all. Clearly this climate was started by trump and his supporters. Both parties should wonder how it even got to the point that someone like trump could stand a chance to be a presidential candidate. I do think the dems havent exactly played their cards right and have been sucked into his trap so to speak. They dont go high you are absolutely correct on that. Agree on the last point. Many Republicans think this started a long time back, for years they have been the butt of the jokes from the liberal establishment, especially the "hillbillies" and "white trash" from the south - it's hardly surprising when they finally got a chance to give those who did it a kicking they took it. 11 minutes ago, leicsmac said: As much as both sides are slinging mud, when the Dem establishment and voter base by and large disregard a likely proven threat to all civilisation either because denial or not caring and also buy into the kind of religious gospel that means there's only room at the top for a chosen few and self-interest is a virtue, then I'll start drawing some parallels. It's not that one side is doing more insulting than the other, it's that what one side believes is so much more potentially damaging to so many more people. So basically while those positions remain then the Democrats can do, say and behave however they want and you'll refuse to call them to account on it. At least you are honest but this is exactly the moral righteousness that makes so many people annoyed. Edited 7 February 2019 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 7 February 2019 Share Posted 7 February 2019 8 minutes ago, MattP said: So basically while those positions remain then the Democrats can do, say and behave however they want and you'll refuse to call them to account on it. At least you are honest but this is exactly the moral righteousness that makes so many people annoyed. I'll call them to account all day - it's unbecoming of the political process the way things have become so polarised and the Dems have their own part to play in that for getting down into the filth. However, I don't attach nearly the same importance to it as some parties evidently do because there are some issues that require a bipartisan response that are much more pressing IMO and it is the Repubs that are refusing to budge on the majority of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddybad Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 This woman is unbelievably brilliant 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47168590 Every other matter than the refusal of having the imam in there aside, do folks think the Supreme Court got this right? I'd think it might be unconstitutional to have special rights for one monothestic religion over all the others....but this is 'Bama, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 55 minutes ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47168590 Every other matter than the refusal of having the imam in there aside, do folks think the Supreme Court got this right? I'd think it might be unconstitutional to have special rights for one monothestic religion over all the others....but this is 'Bama, after all. Doesn't seem right on the face of it, if others are allowed he should be allowed as well. Good riddance though given what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 3 minutes ago, MattP said: Doesn't seem right on the face of it, if others are allowed he should be allowed as well. Good riddance though given what he did. That's about where I come out too, the death penalty is what it is, but the condemned should be all equal in terms of rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 9 hours ago, Toddybad said: This woman is unbelievably brilliant Says the woman with the following contributors to her own campaign: https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/180416/alexandria-ocasio-cortez#.XF2NrKdoTOQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 1 minute ago, MC Prussian said: Says the woman with the following contributors to her own campaign: https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/180416/alexandria-ocasio-cortez#.XF2NrKdoTOQ As she says herself, she's a pretty bad guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: As she says herself, she's a pretty bad guy She's young, hip, a woman, from the Ghetto, and ticks all the leftist boxes. Who cares about research in the US media? The sooner the Democratic Socialists are held accountable for their subversive practices and ideology, the better off the US (and the world) will be. Her latest manifesto on Green Energy is hilarious. Hilariously badly thought out. Food, jobs for everyone, high production - and it's not going to cost you a dime. All state-funded. She's got no clue with regards to economics, talks about "investment", when in fact it's all about expenditures. Quote For instance, one of the goals laid out in the Green New Deal is “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency,” a project that would take a huge amount of money and manpower to do. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215290/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 1 minute ago, MC Prussian said: She's young, hip, a woman, from the Ghetto, and ticks all the leftist boxes. Who cares about research in the US media? The sooner the Democratic Socialists are held accountable for their subversive practices and ideology, the better off the US (and the world) will be. Her latest manifesto on Green Energy is hilarious. Hilariously badly thought out. Food, jobs for everyone, high production - and it's not going to cost you a dime. All state-funded. She's got no clue with regards to economics, talks about "investment", when in fact it's all about expenditures. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215290/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal Give me Candace Owens any day of the week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: She's young, hip, a woman, from the Ghetto, and ticks all the leftist boxes. Who cares about research in the US media? The sooner the Democratic Socialists are held accountable for their subversive practices and ideology, the better off the US (and the world) will be. Her latest manifesto on Green Energy is hilarious. Hilariously badly thought out. Food, jobs for everyone, high production - and it's not going to cost you a dime. All state-funded. She's got no clue with regards to economics, talks about "investment", when in fact it's all about expenditures. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215290/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal ****ing hell I knew the figures on this Green idea were going to be insane bur that's brilliant Its like Kim Jong Un and Caroline Lucas have had a child. Get ready for the "you'll all be dead anyway of you don't do it" line of arguments now when you point out its fiscally impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 (edited) With respect to green energy, let's have a little nuance please - it's either take a perceived hit on the economy now or let things run and accept the risk (key word that, risk, not certainty, don't strawman) of having to pay much, much more later. Belittling that risk doesn't make it any less real - it's not like the Earth can be intimidated or indeed ignored or laughed off, which makes it rather different from your run-of-the-mill nuclear-weapons toting rogue state threats that everyone seems to get into a totally irrational tizzy and directs undue importance to instead. Edited 8 February 2019 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Blues Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 1 minute ago, MC Prussian said: She's young, hip, a woman, from the Ghetto, and ticks all the leftist boxes. Who cares about research in the US media? The sooner the Democratic Socialists are held accountable for their subversive practices and ideology, the better off the US (and the world) will be. Her latest manifesto on Green Energy is hilarious. Hilariously badly thought out. Food, jobs for everyone, high production - and it's not going to cost you a dime. All state-funded. She's got no clue with regards to economics, talks about "investment", when in fact it's all about expenditures. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215290/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal Is it any worse economic policy than cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur economic growth (under Trump, Bush, Reagan, etc.)? Or start wars in the middle east for oil that cost trillions of tax dollars? Would you rather pay an indirect cost as climate change accelerates (rising seas, longer droughts and wildfires, stronger hurricanes, etc.) or invest money into alternative energy? By investing in alternative energy we could reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, and reduce the leverage the middle east and russia have on us. The partisan - left vs right, republican vs democrat, liberal vs conservative thinking has warped people's minds into being unable to view life outside of a political lens. Global warming is scientific fact. We desperately need legislation, from our governments that address it. Her "green deal" might not be perfect, but at least it gets the conversation going. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said: Is it any worse economic policy than cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur economic growth (under Trump, Bush, Reagan, etc.)? Or start wars in the middle east for oil that cost trillions of tax dollars? Would you rather pay an indirect cost as climate change accelerates (rising seas, longer droughts and wildfires, stronger hurricanes, etc.) or invest money into alternative energy? By investing in alternative energy we could reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, and reduce the leverage the middle east and russia have on us. If you spur economic growth everybody benefits, that's tried and tested formula. Proposing policy that costs more that the GDP of the nation is funny though - not to mention effectively telling Hawaiians they are stuck on their island for eternity if they keep voting Democratic. If you want to do something about climate change though stop flying and driving your car unless it's absolutely necessary, if you can't do that you are the problem. The elephant in the room on this issue it its going to involve wealthy Westerners telling the poorest people in the planet they are going to have to get even poorer. Edited 8 February 2019 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said: Is it any worse economic policy than cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur economic growth (under Trump, Bush, Reagan, etc.)? Or start wars in the middle east for oil that cost trillions of tax dollars? Would you rather pay an indirect cost as climate change accelerates (rising seas, longer droughts and wildfires, stronger hurricanes, etc.) or invest money into alternative energy? By investing in alternative energy we could reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, and reduce the leverage the middle east and russia have on us. The partisan - left vs right, republican vs democrat, liberal vs conservative thinking has warped people's minds into being unable to view life outside of a political lens. Global warming is scientific fact. We desperately need legislation, from our governments that address it. Her "green deal" might not be perfect, but at least it gets the conversation going. Yep, climate change is as close to scientific fact as such things are going to get, and that it is being used as a political football is not only nonplussing but also human stupidity of the highest order - do some folks think they'll somehow escpae the consequences? Of practically all issues, it is the one most needing a bipartisan response. And additionally, even if the idea of climate change proves to not result in the consequences we think it will, then we'd still have developed more advanced and efficient ways of going about our lives. 5 minutes ago, MattP said: If you spur economic growth everybody benefits, that's tried and tested formula. Proposing policy that costs more that the GDP of the nation is funny though - not to mention effectively telling Hawaiians they are stuck on their island for eternity if they keep voting Democratic. If you want to do something about climate change though stop flying and driving your car unless it's absolutely necessary, if you can't do that you are the problem. The elephant in the room on this issue it its going to involve wealthy Westerners telling the poorest people in the planet they are going to have to get even poorer. Or come up with more efficient methods of transportation and energy generation that fulfill the same purpose that are then made widely available, and/or support candidates that do the same. Edited 8 February 2019 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 1 minute ago, Detroit Blues said: Is it any worse economic policy than cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur economic growth (under Trump, Bush, Reagan, etc.)? Or start wars in the middle east for oil that cost trillions of tax dollars? Would you rather pay an indirect cost as climate change accelerates (rising seas, longer droughts and wildfires, stronger hurricanes, etc.) or invest money into alternative energy? By investing in alternative energy we could reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, and reduce the leverage the middle east and russia have on us. The partisan - left vs right, republican vs democrat, liberal vs conservative thinking has warped people's minds into being unable to view life outside of a political lens. Global warming is scientific fact. We desperately need legislation, from our governments that address it. Her "green deal" might not be perfect, but at least it gets the conversation going. That's why I've been saying for ages, the US need at least another party to even things out, a party in the middle that truly stands for liberalism. Dems and Republicans in Senate and Congress are merely acting out. It's become a show on its own. The artificially created scandals and the media are accelerating a certain demise. As far as I can tell, the US under Trump haven't started a war abroad yet. In fact, they're about to pull out troops out of Syria. At present, I simply see the Democrats distancing themselves from the voting public with each new election. Their representatives to challenge Trump in 2020 don't fill me with a lot of confidence. And overall, not just with regards to the Democrats, it's as if we're further and further drifting towards the movie "Idiocracy". Politics in the US need a serious reshuffling, I think after 200+ years it's about time. With regards to Green Energy, I think you can or should have both - pay the indirect cost (because as a citizen or user, you're still contributing to the phenomenon) AND invest in alternative energy models at the same time, albeit at lower rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the US now for the first time in decades self-sufficient in terms of energy supplies, as indicated by Trump himself during the Union Address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Yep, climate change is as close to scientific fact as such things are going to get, and that it is being used as a political football is not only nonplussing but also human stupidity of the highest order - do some folks think they'll somehow escpae the consequences? Of practically all issues, it is the one most needing a bipartisan response. And additionally, even if the idea of climate change proves to not result in the consequences we think it will, then we'd still have developed more advanced and efficient ways of going about our lives. Or come up with more efficient methods of transportation and energy generation that fulfill the same purpose that are then made widely available, and/or support candidates that do the same. Aye, this is technological innovation which will help us. It doesn't look like any policy is going to alter the situation without being an unforgiveable assault on the poorest people. Electromagnet hoverboards that run on sunshine are probably our best bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: That's why I've been saying for ages, the US need at least another party to even things out, a party in the middle that truly stands for liberalism. Dems and Republicans in Senate and Congress are merely acting out. It's become a show on its own. The artificially created scandals and the media are accelerating a certain demise. As far as I can tell, the US under Trump haven't started a war abroad yet. In fact, they're about to pull out troops out of Syria. At present, I simply see the Democrats distancing themselves from the voting public with each new election. Their representatives to challenge Trump in 2020 don't fill me with a lot of confidence. And overall, not just with regards to the Democrats, it's as if we're further and further drifting towards the movie "Idiocracy". Politics in the US need a serious reshuffling, I think after 200+ years it's about time. With regards to Green Energy, I think you can or should have both - pay the indirect cost (because as a citizen or user, you're still contributing to the phenomenon) AND invest in alternative energy models at the same time, albeit at lower rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the US now for the first time in decades self-sufficient in terms of energy supplies, as indicated by Trump himself during the Union Address? TBH if a party in the US existed that pushed advances in green energy and other scientific fields and had the courage to give the finger to the still-controlling Christian lobby I'd go for them in a heartbeat based on those two policies alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 8 February 2019 Share Posted 8 February 2019 47 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: Give me Candace Owens any day of the week I like her, too. I just question her rationale and integrity. Had never voted prior to 2018 and described herself as non-political up until recently. She's got a long way to go in order to convince me that she's the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts