President Trump & the USA

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I was reading a hiking journal from 2016 this morning and came across this passage:

 

"I've been following the election coverage with a kind of fascinated horror, but I have faith that my American brothers and sisters won't elect a lying, racist, sexist, xenophobic, tax-evading, climate change-denying demagogue who sexually harasses women and then brags about 'grabbing their pussies'..."

 

Famous last words, eh.

Reminds me of someone from another forum. 

 

[leicsmac]

Really hope Biden doesn't win the nomination - actually think he would be easier for Trump to beat than most.

 

Harris, Yang or (possibly) Booker for me, though tbh given the propensity of the left to eat itself on this issue I can see them self destructing a la 2016 if anyone but Bernie is chosen anyway.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Really hope Biden doesn't win the nomination - actually think he would be easier for Trump to beat than most.

 

Harris, Yang or (possibly) Booker for me, though tbh given the propensity of the left to eat itself on this issue I can see them self destructing a la 2016 if anyone but Bernie is chosen anyway.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Really hope Biden doesn't win the nomination - actually think he would be easier for Trump to beat than most.

 

Harris, Yang or (possibly) Booker for me, though tbh given the propensity of the left to eat itself on this issue I can see them self destructing a la 2016 if anyone but Bernie is chosen anyway.

It's going to be pretty hard asking people not to vote for a sexist toucher when the alternative is voting for your own sexist toucher.

 

Harris is still the standout candidate for me, Bernie will slaughtered in any debate with the shit they have on him, Paul B looks a decent candidate as well.

 

I'm still praying for Pocahontus but it doesn't look likely.

Edited 25 April 2019 by MattP

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48076262

 

Exhibit A of my argument elsewhere that the big nations won't accept any limitations from international organisations on what they do. After all, good honest arms-dealing is as American as apple pie.

[MC Prussian]

On 25/04/2019 at 14:27, leicsmac said:

Really hope Biden doesn't win the nomination - actually think he would be easier for Trump to beat than most.

 

Harris, Yang or (possibly) Booker for me, though tbh given the propensity of the left to eat itself on this issue I can see them self destructing a la 2016 if anyone but Bernie is chosen anyway.

Harris and Booker have no backbone.

 

Nominating Biden or Sanders would be voting for a potential presidential candidate who may not even last his full first term.

 

People like Yang or Gabbard are the future, but unfortunately, the Dems have their own way about dealing with common sense, integrity and decency.

 

The main issue of the Democratic Party is the fact that they've allowed dozens of candidates into the ring, diluting the quality of the argument in the process.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Harris and Booker have no backbone.

 

Nominating Biden or Sanders would be voting for a potential presidential candidate who may not even last his full first term.

 

People like Yang or Gabbard are the future, but unfortunately, the Dems have their own way about dealing with common sense, integrity and decency.

 

The main issue of the Democratic Party is the fact that they've allowed dozens of candidates into the ring, diluting the quality of the argument in the process.

 

That didn't seem to do the Repubs any harm in 2016.

 

It's funny that you should mention common sense - it isn't the Dems that are in bed with fundies who apply their own very unique take on the topic at the expense of good science (some daft anti-vaxxers aside) and womens rights.

 

On that topic, it's good to see Trump actually showing a modicum of sense:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48071313

 

Now if he could actually show the same good attention to energy and pollution-related topics we might actually get somewhere.

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That didn't seem to do the Repubs any harm in 2016.

 

It's funny that you should mention common sense - it isn't the Dems that are in bed with fundies who apply their own very unique take on the topic at the expense of good science (some daft anti-vaxxers aside) and womens rights.

You'd be surprised.

 

The Clinton Foundation's ties with Russia and Saudi Arabia?

George Soros' influence?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-dark-money-win-elections-n849391

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fblogs%2fright-turn%2fwp%2f2014%2f03%2f27%2fdemocrats-funded-by-billionaires-complain-about-republicans-funded-by-billionaires%2f%3f&utm_term=.4e5f79ead00a

 

They are fundamentalists in their own way.

 

As for the 2020 democratic primaries, they already have six more candidates than the Republicans in 2016 lined up, one of them fouled out early (Ojeda).

[Buce]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That didn't seem to do the Repubs any harm in 2016.

 

It's funny that you should mention common sense - it isn't the Dems that are in bed with fundies who apply their own very unique take on the topic at the expense of good science (some daft anti-vaxxers aside) and womens rights.

 

On that topic, it's good to see Trump actually showing a modicum of sense:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48071313

 

Now if he could actually show the same good attention to energy and pollution-related topics we might actually get somewhere.

2

 

Call me a cynic, but I'd guess that has more to do with pandering to the pharmaceuticals lobby than common sense.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

You'd be surprised.

 

The Clinton Foundation's ties with Russia and Saudi Arabia?

George Soros' influence?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-dark-money-win-elections-n849391

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fblogs%2fright-turn%2fwp%2f2014%2f03%2f27%2fdemocrats-funded-by-billionaires-complain-about-republicans-funded-by-billionaires%2f%3f&utm_term=.4e5f79ead00a

 

They are fundamentalists in their own way.

 

As for the 2020 democratic primaries, they already have six more candidates than the Republicans in 2016 lined up, one of them fouled out early (Ojeda).

I honestly don't see much difference between 17 and 23 candidates in terms of "diluting the quality of argument", as you put it. That's a lot of talking heads either way.

 

There's no doubt that both Dems and Repubs have their big ideological backers, but do come back to me when those Dem ideological backers, for instance and in large numbers, deny the effects of climate change or think them not worth focusing on. (I'm well aware that on womens rights, for instance, there's very little between the US south fundies and the Saudi fundies - it's rather ironic how much they hate each other given how much they actually agree on.)

 

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Call me a cynic, but I'd guess that has more to do with pandering to the pharmaceuticals lobby than common sense.

Perhaps, but for this case I'm more interested in the outcome first - when we're sure that no one is actually going to die a stupid and needless death from measles, then we can focus on the broken healthcare system, unless that system actively stops people from getting the aforementioned shots.

[MC Prussian]

Democrats cheating Progressives out of Delegate seats in California:

 

[Tanya]

I like Pete Buttigieg s message, and his general demeanor. Plus we are both millennials and it's about time people from my generation start putting themselves up for senior positions in government. 

 

He will need more concrete policies to have a chance (and also address his low numbers with black voters). I would love him to win but think it will be Biden.

[Guest MattP]

Agree or disagree with them, but at least people like Bernie and Warren are running on an actual policy programme rather than only bashing Trump or repeating meaningless platitudes about ‘bringing people together’.

 

If you’re one of these college type idiots criticising Sanders for being an ‘old white man’ its you lot who deserve a Trump presidency.

Edited 27 April 2019 by MattP

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48081535

 

Another day, another hate-related bullet.

 

Reads like a white supremacist/alt-righter but let's see.

[Finnegan]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48081535

 

Another day, another hate-related bullet.

 

Reads like a white supremacist/alt-righter but let's see.

 

A nineteen year old 8chan shitposter citing Christchurch as his inspiration. 

 

Here we go again. 

 

I think it's overly simplistic to label him as alt right and blame politics, its not really about finger pointing left and right, the politics of these kids isn't as simple as that anyway.

 

Its more just angry, bitter, hate for the sakes of it. I said after Christchurch we need to start recognising that, trying to understand that and wanting to actually reclaim these boys. Not that I mean I expected that to happen between Christchurch and now I just mean this is another wake up call. 

 

People's view on the NZ event was simplified, we're so used to violence involving Muslims one way or another that that's just how it was covered. I don't think it's that simple and neither is this likely to be if it goes the way it looks like it will. 

[bovril]

10 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

A nineteen year old 8chan shitposter citing Christchurch as his inspiration. 

 

Here we go again. 

 

I think it's overly simplistic to label him as alt right and blame politics, its not really about finger pointing left and right, the politics of these kids isn't as simple as that anyway.

 

Its more just angry, bitter, hate for the sakes of it. I said after Christchurch we need to start recognising that, trying to understand that and wanting to actually reclaim these boys. Not that I mean I expected that to happen between Christchurch and now I just mean this is another wake up call. 

 

People's view on the NZ event was simplified, we're so used to violence involving Muslims one way or another that that's just how it was covered. I don't think it's that simple and neither is this likely to be if it goes the way it looks like it will. 

I think you're being too vague with the "angry for the sake of it" line. Of course shooting sprees are too common in America, but there are disturbing similarities between this shooting and the NZ one, and the Pittsburgh one. 

99.9% of people are not going to be incited to violence by extreme content online, so there is a temptation to dismiss the idea that some people could be as ludicrous. I can't even begin to imagine how you start down that path. But there clearly are a very small number of people who are susceptible and who are being radicalized by what they see online, no different to how the Sri Lankan bombers (who were mostly from wealthy, educated backgrounds) would have been radicalized too. I don't think the far right ever went away, they've adapted found new ways to spread their violent hate. 

[Guest MattP]

This is weird to say the least.

 

 

[Buce]

43 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is weird to say the least.

 

 

 

Wtf?

 

That made my skin crawl.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

This is weird to say the least.

 

 

Urgghhh who is that guy? 

 

 

[Nick]

Jeremy, Vince & John not attending the state dinner now and Emily Thornberry has tweeted that he's a threat to world order and not the leader of a free world after Trump's NRA performance and pulling out of the Arms Treaty....

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-state-visit-banquet-buckingham-palace-guests-list-jeremy-corbyn-vince-cable-john-bercow/

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Urgghhh who is that guy? 

 

 

 

Joe Biden. 

 

https://joebiden.info/

[Nick]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Joe Biden. 

 

https://joebiden.info/

FFS He's America's Jezza then. (In the sense that any real credible alternative should beat the existing incompetence hands down...)

Edited 29 April 2019 by Nick

[Nick]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-uk-state-visit-emily-thornberry-world-threat/?utm_campaign=iNews - Daily RSS Newsletter&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=72150496&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8sfw2TSx7MQacXB6IwbiXsqcqDtSDQWQiig5N6c_6jUBNF93HxbWD62YTOzsln3-AOHHsgxlnhXup0Nk_G2zXYXbdOWA&_hsmi=72150496

[MC Prussian]

12 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Jeremy, Vince & John not attending the state dinner now and Emily Thornberry has tweeted that he's a threat to world order and not the leader of a free world after Trump's NRA performance and pulling out of the Arms Treaty....

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-state-visit-banquet-buckingham-palace-guests-list-jeremy-corbyn-vince-cable-john-bercow/

The article is again rather one-sided, doesn't go into the positive effects under Trump, instead repeats and emphasizes the more controversial points, some made controversial by the media.

 

You also have to ask yourself what the "threat to world order" entails and what "world order" Thornberry means or wants. What are her motivations and aspirations?

 

The travel ban was legit (in parts) and never truly a pure and general "Travel Ban", but mainly heightened security protocol regarding a handful of predominantly Muslim-dominated countries, people from these countries are/were still allowed in, but only after a thorough security check, with minorities from these countries given priority.

It's just the flavour of the day - or why no word by "i" in the past on Barack Obama's refusal to bring in more Syrian Christians as refugees, for instance?

 

You can argue about the removal of Trans people from the military services due to health concerns, and mentioning the sexual assault allegations are but another miserably attempt at discrediting the current US president under whose regency the country has seen another decline in unemployment, is enjoying high business and consumer confidence, rising stock markets.

 

It's news mixed with old claptrap. Today's "journalism" in a nutshell.

 

By refusing to participate in the state dinner, these people have more to lose than to gain. They had the chance for discourse, now they're withdrawing. Petulant.

You could also call it virtue signalling on a greater scale.

Edited 29 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Buce]

Lies, damned lies and Donald Trump: the pick of the president's untruths

The White House incumbent has told a staggering 10,000 lies since taking office, some big, some trifling. Here’s a selection:

 

Donald Trump likes to boast about his achievements, imagined and otherwise, that is no secret. The president regularly trumpets the success of the greatest economy ever, and the strongest military, and the most decisive electoral victory and all manner of other superlatives he’s supposed to have delivered. But one that is undeniable is that he has just become one of the most prolific liars in the history of American governance, passing the 10,000th lie of his administration this week – meaning an average of almost 17 lies a day over 604 days.

 

Not all of his lies were created equally. Some have been harmless, almost goofy claims about his physical stamina or business acumen, or obviously exaggerated anecdotes about the types of things supporters say to him. Others are downright horrifying and dangerous, about serious issues like immigration and abortion.

Here are just a few of the most memorable and weirdest lies among the many.

‘The doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby’

This past weekend, Trump repeated what has become one of the more frighteningly dishonest claims from the right lately regarding abortion.

“The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

The fearmongering comments echo previous lies about state laws on abortion that Trump has made, such as a State of the Union address claim that a New York law would allow for “a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth”.

Late-term abortions, the subject of both of these incorrect claims, are very rare and only occur when the pregnancy poses a threat to a mother’s health or there are dire fetal medical conditions.

‘First raises for our military in 10 years’

In May of last year, Trump bragged to a gathering of military families that he had given them a raise.

“We just approved $700bn for our military,” he said. “So we’re going to be having the best equipment ever known. And next year, $716bn. So I wanted to let you know. And, by the way – I know you don’t care about this – but that also includes raises for our military. First time in 10 years.”

Service members have received a pay raise every year since 1961.

Family separations began under Obama

“President Obama separated children from families,” Trump began saying in 2018, and has continued to repeat as recently as a few weeks ago, using a regular tactic of his in falsely placing blame for his policies on the previous administration. This is blatantly untrue. Unlike under the Trump administration, there was no official Obama policy of separating families and it did not happen outside of a few rare instances.

‘I won the popular vote’

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

November 27, 2016

One particularly pernicious lie that Trump has stuck to is that millions of votes were cast illegally in the 2016 election in favor of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. The number just so happens to make up for the nearly three million votes by which he lost the popular vote, and is so outrageous that even some of his ardent supporters had trouble explaining it without falling into logical traps.

“We will probably never know the answer to that question,” the Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, said in July 2017, when asked about the claim. “Because even if you could prove that a certain number of votes were cast by ineligible voters, for example, you wouldn’t know how they voted.”

 

Trump’s was the biggest inauguration crowd ever

In one of the earliest and most absurd claims of his young administration Trump said he had up to 1.5 million people in attendance for his inauguration, making it “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period”, which was the lie Sean Spicer infamously relayed on his behalf. Trump’s number was a vast overestimate.

A government photographer even edited official pictures of the inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger, following a personal intervention from Trump, according to documents.

It was a “massive field of people … packed” Trump said at CIA headquarters the following day, adding that God had stopped it from raining that day. (It in fact rained.)

Thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered on 9/11

During the campaign in 2015, Trump made the fantastical claim that he had watched “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheering in New Jersey during the 9/11 attacks.

“It was on television. I saw it … There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down,” he said on ABC.

No one has been able to find any evidence that this ever happened, but Trump has stood by his story all the same.

 

Fred Trump was born in Germany

It’s not just the big things Trump is compelled to lie about, it’s also the minor details that seem to serve no conceivable benefit, such as in April of this year, when he asserted for the fourth time that his father had been born in Germany.

“My father is German, right? Was German, and born in a very wonderful place in Germany.”

The president’s father, Fred Trump, was born in New York City.