Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

By Vacamion, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, The Doctor said:

This is only a difficult question to answer if we acknowledge that most presidents were racist. If we're just referring to Trump:
 

www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/racist-backlash-greets-president-barack-obama

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/01/u-wisconsin-criticized-over-response-costume-depicting-lynched-obama

 

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit

 

 

 

America has a long history of heavy racist elements in its electorate, and the election of Trump was a backlash from those troglodytes for Obama's crime of being president while black - which is why even though he was your standard American war hawk, they still consider him a traitor (something they oddly don't extend to Trump, a president who blatantly colluded with hostile forces to get elected)

The Russia collusion has yet to be proven:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/richard-burr-senate-russia-investigation-1156624

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is blatantly biased, leftist and involved in some scandals of their own, including the questionable use of their money in the past:

Quote

SPLC, founded by a direct-mail zillionaire named Morris Dees, spends far more on direct-mail fundraising pleas ($10 million) than it ever has on legal services, according to an analysis by Philanthropy Roundtable, and has never passed along more than 31 percent of its funding to charitable programs, sometimes as little as 18 percent. Meanwhile it has built itself a palatial six-story headquarters and an endowment of more than $200 million. In essence it is a machine for turning leftist hysteria into cash that portrays itself as a non-partisan, fact-finding group and has long been treated as such by media institutions such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. Yet it has also targeted Senator Rand Paul, surgeon–turned–HUD secretary Ben Carson, and human-rights activists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, calling them extremists or agents of hate (though it removed Carson from its list after an outcry), and it tagged both the Family Research Council and Mark Krikorian’s think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, as hate groups, though the latter has been invited to testify before Congress more than 100 times.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/southern-poverty-law-center-bias-hate-group-labels-scam/

 

As for the U of Wisconsin incidents, it remains open to debate whether they are part of a widespread culture of racism or simply individual acts of cowardice and/or bad taste by pretty dumb students.

Dressing up as Obama, then being lynched by another student dressed up as Trump is certainly distasteful, mind.

Then again, the black student pulled from one of the classes didn't do himself any favours with his graffitis:

Quote

Other messages stated, “White supremacy is a disease” and “**** the police.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/18/u-wisconsin-student-pulled-class-arrested-anti-racist-graffiti

There's always two sides to the story, and you're obviously following just one of them...

 

Again, some of these issues touch upon the theme of "feeling offended", with the level of tolerance sinking day by day. There's a increase in "victimhood mentality" on one side of the aisle, and it's definitely not healthy or helping the country moving forward. I'd say there's a lot of time wasted over discussing such individual occurrences when the country faces (far more) important challenges on the whole.

 

This quote sums it up pretty neatly:

Quote

“I think one of the core things of free speech is the principle that governing bodies cannot punish speech even when many of us perceive it as being loathsome. That’s not a shortcoming of the First Amendment. That’s really its strength.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/01/u-wisconsin-criticized-over-response-costume-depicting-lynched-obama

Edited by MC Prussian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 17/02/2019 at 10:52, leicsmac said:

To expand:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47269827

 

Guess we'll see in court. Frankly, if it does turn out Smollett is spinning a yarn here it's totally bloody stupid, there's enough real racially motivated attacks going on in the timeline of this administration than to discredit legit cases by making one up.

There's more and more indications that it was a hoax, and a very bad one at that:

https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/18/jussie-smollett-rehearse-attack-brothers-law-enforcement/

And to everyone's surprise - faced with the backlash, Smollett is now sulking:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02/19/attorneys-for-jussie-smollett-say-he-wont-meet-with-police/

 

If it turns out he staged it all, then he'll have done the whole anti-racism movement a huge disservice.

 

But hey, in the meantime, the news outlets - both TV and in print/online - have tons of space to fill with this "story" - first, trying to push his side of the event in order to portray MAGA country as racist, then more news as the "story" "progresses".

Instead of leaning back and letting it all unfold, just a mere collection of assumptions and allusions, coupled with a bitter undertone of anger at the current POTM.

You wonder why fewer and fewer people are interested in the news? There you go. This is what we've come to.

 

Last but not least, all of this during Black History Month. :crylaugh:You just couldn't make it up. Or could you...?

Edited by MC Prussian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You can skew any statistics in your favour. 

 

The term "hate crime" is rather modern and a bit of a muddy one, as the subjective perception of "hate" comes into play, the categorization isn't that easy, and what some would consider a "hate crime" is simply an offense to others or not a crime at all. Just because these "crimes" were reported doesn't mean they were legit or the people in question persecuted.

It's not as simple as saying that there's an increase in "hate", it's also down to the "victims" perceiving simple opinion or an offense as "hate". You could thus equally say that some people have developed a lower level of tolerance once they feel offended. The term "Snowflakes" springs to mind.

 

Also, as you can see in the links you provided, "hate crimes" in the US have been on the rise for three consecutive years (2015, 2016, 2017) - two out of those years under the Obama administration, and the trend in all likelihood starting as early as 2014....

 

And to top it all off, the 7'100 reported "hate crimes"in the US fade in comparison to 1.2 million violent crimes for the same year - we're talking 0.85% here:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-crime-statistics-released-092418

 

I just find it odd you tend to think Trump acts as a catalyst for all things racist - or at least that's how it comes across. That's a simplistic view of things.

 

As for the "more pressing issues", I was referring to US-specific problems, such as education, equality of opportunity, welfare, border control, infrastructure, health insurance, minimum wage, but also a flaming conflict between extremists on the left and the right, etc.

 

So the problem lies with the reportage rather than the statistics themselves, then? Fair enough.

 

You're right in that on this particular issue and many others it's often difficult to tell what the overall story is beyond supposition, and quite frankly we've gone round and round on this issue before and it's safe to say we both view the situation based on race in the US and the effect of this administration on it differently. To clarify, however, I will say again that I think Trump acts as a conduit rather than a catalyst for increased incidences of hate crime in the US.

 

With all that said, I now have to ask a personal question (you don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm interested): what is your stake in such steadfast belief that this administration doesn't have an effect on racial tension in the US? It can't be an interest in the facts - as you have said, the matter is so muddied that you simply can't prove your argument to a factual degree and satisfy your interest in facts that way, as indeed neither can I...so what drives you on this one?

 

WRT more pressing issues, I'm well aware that you're referring to the issues you talked about and a lot of them are indeed massively pressing and should be addressed urgently - but that doesn't stop the most pressing issue being none of them, and the Repubs taking pretty much objectively the wrong side of history on it.

 

 

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

There's more and more indications that it was a hoax, and a very bad one at that:

https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/18/jussie-smollett-rehearse-attack-brothers-law-enforcement/

And to everyone's surprise - faced with the backlash, Smollett is now sulking:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02/19/attorneys-for-jussie-smollett-say-he-wont-meet-with-police/

 

If it turns out he staged it all, then he'll have done the whole anti-racism movement a huge disservice.

 

But hey, in the meantime, the news outlets - both TV and in print/online - have tons of space to fill with this "story" - first, trying to push his side of the event in order to portray MAGA country as racist, then more news as the "story" "progresses".

Instead of leaning back and letting it all unfold, just a mere collection of assumptions and allusions, coupled with a bitter undertone of anger at the current POTM.

You wonder why fewer and fewer people are interested in the news? There you go. This is what we've come to.

 

Last but not least, all of this during Black History Month. :crylaugh:You just couldn't make it up. Or could you...?

 

Evidently issues of bias in the media (when they concern matters like this) are as dear to you as scientific matters are to me. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

So the problem lies with the reportage rather than the statistics themselves, then? Fair enough.

 

You're right in that on this particular issue and many others it's often difficult to tell what the overall story is beyond supposition, and quite frankly we've gone round and round on this issue before and it's safe to say we both view the situation based on race in the US and the effect of this administration on it differently. To clarify, however, I will say again that I think Trump acts as a conduit rather than a catalyst for increased incidences of hate crime in the US.

 

With all that said, I now have to ask a personal question (you don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm interested): what is your stake in such steadfast belief that this administration doesn't have an effect on racial tension in the US? It can't be an interest in the facts - as you have said, the matter is so muddied that you simply can't prove your argument to a factual degree and satisfy your interest in facts that way, as indeed neither can I...so what drives you on this one?

 

WRT more pressing issues, I'm well aware that you're referring to the issues you talked about and a lot of them are indeed massively pressing and should be addressed urgently - but that doesn't stop the most pressing issue being none of them, and the Repubs taking pretty much objectively the wrong side of history on it.

 

 

 

Evidently issues of bias in the media (when they concern matters like this) are as dear to you as scientific matters are to me. :thumbup:

I never said that Trump's presidency has no effect on racial tensions in the US. I debate the actual, factual scope of the issue and its pertinence in the grand scheme of things.

 

Again, Trump is neither a particularly strong conduit nor catalyst for increased "hate crimes" in the US, as shown in the rise in incidents since 2015 or even before that - there were at least two rises under the Obama administration before. This is based on the FBI's own statistics. Would you - following your own logic - make Barack Obama responsible for the rise in tensions back then also? Why this obsession with Trump as some sort of enemy figure that stands for all that is evil or despicable? Again, you're simplifying what is a complicated and complex construct. And then you go on and (subversively) claim that I have no interest in facts, when I just gave you the official numbers and the numbers in comparison. It's all relative, y'know.

 

Conduit or catalyst - you're talking semantics. Both describe a similar, if not the same process. I don't particularly like this way of sugarcoating one's rhetoric by disguising one's own language and use thereof as "different", simply as an attempt not to share the same views or at least you agree with in parts.

To me, you're tiptoeing around the issue without addressing it - at least you're exaggerating the actual situation. You argue with an increase in "hate crimes" in the US under Trump, when the category in itself is rather new and pales in comparison to crimes in the country on the whole. You are making a case for a minority issue (0.85% of all total crimes in the US, remember), then put it on the map, proclaiming said country has a bigger issue than it actually has.

This is the exact same of minority and identity politics that the Left employs and which grates me greatly.

 

What would it take for you to come out and say - after some consideration - that Trump has been massively vilified by the Democrats and the media in the past two years? What would it take for you to acknowledge that his presidency has had its positive side effects? No new war started, economy booming, unemployment further down.


As far as Climate Change is concerned, Trump's own administration issued a recent report on it, based on its effects on military installations.

When you talk about Trump and take his Tweets at face value, then the joke's often lost on you. I don't agree with all that he says, I don't take him overly serious and I do think he's a bit of a doofus at times, especially with regards to topics he doesn't know much about (such as Global Warming), but once you look past that orangey hair, you'll find that his administration has been very open to the subject(s).

http://time.com/5508259/trump-climate-change-defense-department/

 

I judge him by his actions, not his words. And there, he's still winning.

 

But, please... carry on.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The Russia collusion has yet to be proven:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/richard-burr-senate-russia-investigation-1156624

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is blatantly biased, leftist and involved in some scandals of their own, including the questionable use of their money in the past:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/southern-poverty-law-center-bias-hate-group-labels-scam/

 

As for the U of Wisconsin incidents, it remains open to debate whether they are part of a widespread culture of racism or simply individual acts of cowardice and/or bad taste by pretty dumb students.

Dressing up as Obama, then being lynched by another student dressed up as Trump is certainly distasteful, mind.

Then again, the black student pulled from one of the classes didn't do himself any favours with his graffitis:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/18/u-wisconsin-student-pulled-class-arrested-anti-racist-graffiti

There's always two sides to the story, and you're obviously following just one of them...

 

Again, some of these issues touch upon the theme of "feeling offended", with the level of tolerance sinking day by day. There's a increase in "victimhood mentality" on one side of the aisle, and it's definitely not healthy or helping the country moving forward. I'd say there's a lot of time wasted over discussing such individual occurrences when the country faces (far more) important challenges on the whole.

 

This quote sums it up pretty neatly:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/01/u-wisconsin-criticized-over-response-costume-depicting-lynched-obama

The collision is clear as day, and we all know Mueller is just putting together a watertight case demonstrating trump knew of the collusion (collusion from his campaign manager is already established: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/manafort-lying-collusion-russia-protect-trump-mueller.html). Odds are quite good that the bastard child of Caligula and the sugar puffs monster will leave office to die in a jail cell.

 

As for claiming SPLC is leftist lol you've swallowed the kool-aid well and truly, that's just a nonsensical talking point from those weird shitheads who want to pretend that discrimination doesn't exist anymore (usually by claiming it's illegal therefore doesn't happen) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

there were at least two rises under the Obama administration before. This is based on the FBI's own statistics. Would you - following your own logic - make Barack Obama responsible for the rise in tensions back then also? 

Imagine if maybe people hadn't taken kindly to a black president and had kicked out like petty children? Imagine if that had maybe been fronted by a campaign lying about his place of birth, maybe popular with a certain failed billionaire who seemed determined to give his daughters daddy issues by telling the national press that he'd shag them if they weren't related to him? But of course none of that could possibly have happened...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

As for claiming SPLC is leftist lol you've swallowed the kool-aid well and truly, that's just a nonsensical talking point from those weird shitheads who want to pretend that discrimination doesn't exist anymore (usually by claiming it's illegal therefore doesn't happen) 

Not just leftist, totally fcuking nuts. They even have tried to brand people like Majid Nawaz as anti-Muslim extremists.

 

A very dangerous organisation.

 

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

The collision is clear as day, and we all know Mueller is just putting together a watertight case demonstrating trump knew of the collusion (collusion from his campaign manager is already established: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/manafort-lying-collusion-russia-protect-trump-mueller.html). Odds are quite good that the bastard child of Caligula and the sugar puffs monster will leave office to die in a jail cell.

 

As for claiming SPLC is leftist lol you've swallowed the kool-aid well and truly, that's just a nonsensical talking point from those weird shitheads who want to pretend that discrimination doesn't exist anymore (usually by claiming it's illegal therefore doesn't happen) 

After two years of research, the Senate committee has not found a shred of evidence that there has been direct collusion with Russia in 2016.

We can extend the investigation period by another two years, and then another two years, and then two more. It doesn't affect me personally, I'm curious about future findings myself. So we can all put this to bed, finally.

 

Well, I'm sorry. You can still say that the Southern Poverty Law Center is blatantly leftist and biased and still acknowledge that discrimination in the US still exists. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You know, it's called having a "balanced" opinion.

 

If you fail to accept that the SPLC has its own agenda, you're either colluding (:cool:) or haven't read up on the issue thoroughly enough.

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/southern-poverty-law-center-splc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Imagine if maybe people hadn't taken kindly to a black president and had kicked out like petty children? Imagine if that had maybe been fronted by a campaign lying about his place of birth, maybe popular with a certain failed billionaire who seemed determined to give his daughters daddy issues by telling the national press that he'd shag them if they weren't related to him? But of course none of that could possibly have happened...

On the subject of Obama:

 

List of Obama's Accomplishments:

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

 

I'm a fan of YouTube and these points are not my own doing.

 

Look, Obama was a media darling (and still is) and he's hugely popular and certainly charismatic, a great speaker and his presidency was initially highly important in bringing the country together again in the aftermath of the George Doubleyah era, he stood for hope and a new beginning.

But just as much as the media and certain fractions are trying to make Obama look like a saint without pointing at his fallacies during his eight-year tenure, they're equally guilty of demonizing a person like Donald Trump, without acknowledging his good deeds in the past two years.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

After two years of research, the Senate committee has not found a shred of evidence that there has been direct collusion with Russia in 2016.

We can extend the investigation period by another two years, and then another two years, and then two more. It doesn't affect me personally, I'm curious about future findings myself. So we can all put this to bed, finally.

 

Well, I'm sorry. You can still say that the Southern Poverty Law Center is blatantly leftist and biased and still acknowledge that discrimination in the US still exists. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You know, it's called having a "balanced" opinion.

 

If you fail to accept that the SPLC has its own agenda, you're either colluding (:cool:) or haven't read up on the issue thoroughly enough.

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/southern-poverty-law-center-splc/

 

And the department of justices probe, a non-partisan one with greater depth and scope, is still going while having found enough to bring out a record number of indictments...

 

 

Let's do a quick bias check shall we? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/

 

So, not actually particularly left and strongly factual in their reporting. 

 

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

 

 

lolThis might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen. What anarchists were involved in the Obama administration?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

@The Doctor:

Here's an interesting piece about US politicians colluding with Russia - a story that is slowly, but steadily evolving and gaining more momentum:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russian-collusion-hillary-clinton/

 

Would like to hear your opinion on this.

A piece that is utterly full of shit let's be quite clear. There's no actual evidence of collusion involving Hillary (unlike say, Trump Jr and Manafort). It's not being ignored any more than the teapot orbiting Jupiter is being ignored

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I never said that Trump's presidency has no effect on racial tensions in the US. I debate the actual, factual scope of the issue and its pertinence in the grand scheme of things.

 

Again, Trump is neither a particularly strong conduit nor catalyst for increased "hate crimes" in the US, as shown in the rise in incidents since 2015 or even before that - there were at least two rises under the Obama administration before. This is based on the FBI's own statistics. Would you - following your own logic - make Barack Obama responsible for the rise in tensions back then also? Why this obsession with Trump as some sort of enemy figure that stands for all that is evil or despicable? Again, you're simplifying what is a complicated and complex construct. And then you go on and (subversively) claim that I have no interest in facts, when I just gave you the official numbers and the numbers in comparison. It's all relative, y'know.

 

Conduit or catalyst - you're talking semantics. Both describe a similar, if not the same process. I don't particularly like this way of sugarcoating one's rhetoric by disguising one's own language and use thereof as "different", simply as an attempt not to share the same views or at least you agree with in parts.

To me, you're tiptoeing around the issue without addressing it - at least you're exaggerating the actual situation. You argue with an increase in "hate crimes" in the US under Trump, when the category in itself is rather new and pales in comparison to crimes in the country on the whole. You are making a case for a minority issue (0.85% of all total crimes in the US, remember), then put it on the map, proclaiming said country has a bigger issue than it actually has.

This is the exact same of minority and identity politics that the Left employs and which grates me greatly.

 

What would it take for you to come out and say - after some consideration - that Trump has been massively vilified by the Democrats and the media in the past two years? What would it take for you to acknowledge that his presidency has had its positive side effects? No new war started, economy booming, unemployment further down.


As far as Climate Change is concerned, Trump's own administration issued a recent report on it, based on its effects on military installations.

When you talk about Trump and take his Tweets at face value, then the joke's often lost on you. I don't agree with all that he says, I don't take him overly serious and I do think he's a bit of a doofus at times, especially with regards to topics he doesn't know much about (such as Global Warming), but once you look past that orangey hair, you'll find that his administration has been very open to the subject(s).

http://time.com/5508259/trump-climate-change-defense-department/

 

I judge him by his actions, not his words. And there, he's still winning.

 

But, please... carry on.

Thank you for the clarification, and apologies if I caused offence with the question - I was honestly curious.

 

Perhaps the matter is semantic but I'll clarify one more time - I believe that the Trump administration (not Trump himself) has created a higher degree of polarisation between ethnic groups by virtue of various white supremacists thinking, rightly or wrongly, that they have a freer hand with this current administration in charge. If you think such a increase in degree either doesn't exist or is too small to be pertinent, then fair enough.

 

I'll answer your question because it ties rather nicely into the last paragraph written: nothing less than a clear, obvious and timely plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels for energy generation coupled with serious plans to safeguard pollution-based regulations rather than phase them out would get me to acknowledge that this administration is anywhere near net positive, because everything else - economics, military readiness, unemployement, even the racial tensions we've been talking about, all of it - quite frankly is froth without a stable environment in which it can be placed. That report you talk about in the Time article, along with quite a few others published by the administration, mean nothing if Trump and the Repubs in the Senate do not take the action it suggests, and there is not the slightest suggestion they intend to do so, and I'm afraid that the idea that this administration is even vaguely "very open to the subject" of action on climate change is erroneous:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration

 

Yes, I know it's a wiki article, but the sources within are diverse and well-directed.

 

NB: If you want to talk specific positives, then talking up human spaceflight programs and getting North Korea to talk are two that I would consider positive.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

And the department of justices probe, a non-partisan one with greater depth and scope, is still going while having found enough to bring out a record number of indictments...

 

 

Let's do a quick bias check shall we? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/

 

So, not actually particularly left and strongly factual in their reporting. 

 

 

lolThis might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen. What anarchists were involved in the Obama administration?  

The Senate Committee is equally non-partisan and has received praise from Democrats also for the way Burr is conducting the investigation.

 

The fact remains the SPLC are leftist (left of the center) and as the media bias fact check suggests, issue reports that need "further investigation". So they are biased (to a certain extent).

The site you quoted has last been updated two years ago, I wonder how "neutral" the SPLC is today or how much further they have swayed to the left.

 

As for #25 on that list - it refers in parts to the Bill Ayers controversy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_2008_presidential_election_controversy

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

A piece that is utterly full of shit let's be quite clear. There's no actual evidence of collusion involving Hillary (unlike say, Trump Jr and Manafort). It's not being ignored any more than the teapot orbiting Jupiter is being ignored

Hahaha, see how it works both ways.

 

I'd love to see an investigation into this matter. Because so far, nothing has been done to examine these ties any further.

The proposition of a company close to Hillary trying to frame Trump with the help of Russia prior to or during the 2016 elections would make for great entertainment.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted

Do you know who Tulsi Gabbard is?

She's a Democratic presidential candidate for 2020. But I suppose few have heard of her since she's made the announcement.

 

Well, turns out she's the victim of a smear campaign led by a company using smear campaigns in order to sell the solution to smear campaigns as a product:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/

 

You have to read it in order to believe it. It's incredible, the great lengths to which these jerks go. A US company fabricating fake Russian online profiles.

The enemy from within and whatnot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Do you know who Tulsi Gabbard is?

She's a Democratic presidential candidate for 2020. But I suppose few have heard of her since she's made the announcement.

 

Well, turns out she's the victim of a smear campaign led by a company using smear campaigns in order to sell the solution to smear campaigns as a product:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/

 

You have to read it in order to believe it. It's incredible, the great lengths to which these jerks go. A US company fabricating fake Russian online profiles.

The enemy from within and whatnot...

It's ridiculous, really.

 

It's gotten to the stage where it seems the Repubs even don't need to use misinformation, various dirty tricks and (possible) Russian interference to sow discord in the Dem party and stand a good chance in 2020, it seems like the Dems are going to do a perfectly good job of shredding themselves apart without them.

 

And sadly with Bernie entering the race it's only going to get worse on that score.

 

I think I've said in the past that the only way Trump wins in 2020 is the Dems split themselves in the way they did in 2016, and that looks like it could be off to a great start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

As much as taking it to the countries who oppress their LGBT populations is a good idea, this strikes me as looking to clean up the neighbours house before tidying up your own.

 

If Trump really wants to be seen as an ally to gay folks he might start there, and with, I don't know...perhaps his Vice President?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

Who in their right state of mind names their daughter Titania?

 

I can't believe that person is real. Some of her tweets make me wonder whether she's being serious or if it's just one big satirical prank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...