President Trump & the USA

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Can only speak for myself here, but already did, see above.

 

Also...

 

This.

 

The policy this administration enacts is factual - what people make of it is purely open to their own interpretation - again, as above.

 

BTW I'm pushing this particular angle a lot because right now there's way too much opinion being expressed as fact - both here and out in the wider world - and it has the potential to be damaging IMO.

Whats that factual policy this administration enacts again?

 

The one that differs a lot from anything Obama's enacted

[Buce]

“In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York … The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware, and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown.

“Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory.”

 

Donald Trump, in yesterday's Independance Day address.

[the fox]

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

All your points are based on faulty assumptions, about racist politics that Trump is the source of.  You 100% imply they dont know what they're doing if you say they support a man who is antithetical to their existence in the country. Thats simply the logic of your statement love

When did I say that? It seems to me that I'm not the one "assuming" in this situation.

 

I'm not implying anything. I said it in the comment you just replied to.

 

11 hours ago, the fox said:

Oh no no no, they know exactly who they are supporting (at least for the most part)

See?

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

They are immigrants celebrating a country that welcomed them and in which they have thrived, going through a protracted process. Why should they be happy about illegal immigranfs cutting a line they were once in?

No one said that they should be happy. 

 

11 hours ago, the fox said:

No problem there. But people have to remember, not everyone gets the chance to be a legal immigrant. Reverse roles and all that.

Again, see this?

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

And like it or not you whitewash over their politics completely in favour of orange man bad pov

 I'm not white.

 

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

My gf's friend said it took them 15 years to apply for a visa to live in America.

 

 

 of course its perfectly reasonable to be a little miffed when others stroll in in their thousands

 

I'm yet to say that it's not reasonable for them to get a bit upset. My point is, they can't fault others for wanting the same dream they have achieved. 15 years is a long time but IMO, if their country shared the same boarder with the US, they wouldn't have waited for 15 years. (That is my opinion of course and I can very possibly be wrong)

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

And yes, they were talking. Did you not listen?  One man said he is fromTexas and people should see whats happening in El Paso and that the wall is what they believe they need etc. 

Are you ignoring my points on purpose? I was talking about people saying that Trump "did a lot of good" and that's why they are supporting him. When did I ever talk about the numbers of illegal immigrants? 

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Dont know what race you are btw buddy so dont get your joke im afraid.

My joke was, you assuming things about other people of different race is racist. (which is BTW the logic you used to say I'm unintentionally being racist. But i don't get the logic tbh. "Racist" shouldn't be used this carelessly out of respect to people who are effected by racism)

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

enjoyed how you gave men like that old man credit for the concept of accepting immigrants, in America! 

Don't they deserve a bit of credit for their treatment of everyone else? You make it sound like I'm giving them all the credit.

 

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Im perfectly relaxed if my points seem to be aggressive i honestly believe its only because yours are so soft in the bladdy head, said with love x

I've been called a fair few names, and "soft" isn't exactly one of them. Telling you to relax a bit, That's my advice for you so you can have more fruitful discussions on here seeing that many people here (including me and you) have a lot of opposite opinions and jumping to conclusion about other posters won't go far. By all means, I'm guilty of doing that on occasions but I'm trying to work on it. That piece of advice is free for you to do anything you want with it. You can consider it or just discard it.

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, the fox said:

When did I say that? It seems to me that I'm not the one "assuming" in this situation.

 

I'm not implying anything. I said it in the comment you just replied to.

 

See?

 

No one said that they should be happy. 

 

Again, see this?

 

 I'm not white.

 

 

 

I'm yet to say that it's not reasonable for them to get a bit upset. My point is, they can't fault others for wanting the same dream they have achieved. 15 years is a long time but IMO, if their country shared the same boarder with the US, they wouldn't have waited for 15 years. (That is my opinion of course and I can very possibly be wrong)

 

Are you ignoring my points on purpose? I was talking about people saying that Trump "did a lot of good" and that's why they are supporting him. When did I ever talk about the numbers of illegal immigrants? 

 

My joke was, you assuming things about other people of different race is racist. (which is BTW the logic you used to say I'm unintentionally being racist. But i don't get the logic tbh. "Racist" shouldn't be used this carelessly out of respect to people who are effected by racism)

 

Don't they deserve a bit of credit for their treatment of everyone else? You make it sound like I'm giving them all the credit.

 

I've been called a fair few names, and "soft" isn't exactly one of them. Telling you to relax a bit, That's my advice for you so you can have more fruitful discussions on here seeing that many people here (including me and you) have a lot of opposite opinions and jumping to conclusion about other posters won't go far. By all means, I'm guilty of doing that on occasions but I'm trying to work on it. That piece of advice is free for you to do anything you want with it. You can consider it or just discard it.

 

 

A very funny post and this going anywhere is it. No idea what you're saying about race tbh

 

The crux of your point about those Trump supporters is that you think borders should be open and they shoud appreciate that they are also not from the US. You want to dissolve the line between legal and illegal immigrants

 

Bad idea imo

Edited 5 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[the fox]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

A very funny post and this going anywhere is it. No idea what you're saying about race tbh

 

The crux of your point about those Trump supporters is that you think borders should be open and they shoud appreciate that they are also not from the US. You want to disolve the line between legal and illegal immigrants

 

Bad idea imo

 

 

I didn't talk, not once about border policies and how the US government should act but you somehow arrived to that conclusion. 

 

 

And It's good that you were amused by my post. At least there is some positivity out of this discussion.

[bovril]

17 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

A very funny post and this going anywhere is it. No idea what you're saying about race tbh

 

The crux of your point about those Trump supporters is that you think borders should be open and they shoud appreciate that they are also not from the US. You want to dissolve the line between legal and illegal immigrants

 

Bad idea imo

Not wishing to get too involved in an online discussion when I have work to do, but reading your stuff you seem sometimes to approach threads and posts already having made your mind up about the opinions of others without actually reading what they've said. You're becoming the Cathy Newman of foxestalk.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Not wishing to get too involved in an online discussion when I have work to do, but reading your stuff you seem sometimes to approach threads and posts already having made your mind up about the opinions of others without actually reading what they've said. You're becoming the Cathy Newman of foxestalk.

Lol, shit thats quite an accusation, will have to reevaluate my approach

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Lol, shit thats quite an accusation, will have to reevaluate my approach

You strike me as someone who spends a lot of time reading people's comments on the internet. (psychologist voice)

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

52 minutes ago, the fox said:

 

 

I didn't talk, not once about border policies and how the US government should act but you somehow arrived to that conclusion. 

 

 

And It's good that you were amused by my post. At least there is some positivity out of this discussion.

Fair enough. Can you please clarify for me what you meant in the post where you said it must be demoralising for the man and if it wasnt for people like him then people like them wouldnt have the chance to come to the country?

 

Nested in that comment I perceived the suggestion that you see a contradiction between supporting Trump and supporting immigration.   I might be completely wrong about that, so thats why im asking, dont want to be Cathy Newman

 

Maybe i dont get the point of that comment..?

Edited 5 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[bovril]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I might be completely wrong about that, so thats why im asking, dont want to be Cathy Newman

 

 

Great to see you taking steps. Stay strong. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, bovril said:

Great to see you taking steps. Stay strong. 

Hey, stop picking on me man

I had to fend off accusations of being an apologist for pedopholia on here recently. There's plenty on here misconstruing opinions of others

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

31 minutes ago, bovril said:

You strike me as someone who spends a lot of time reading people's comments on the internet. (psychologist voice)

I find this an assumption 

 

My political views are primarily informed by Jack Kerouac and James Joyce

[the fox]

7 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Fair enough. Can you please clarify for me what you meant in the post where you said it must be demoralising for the man and if it wasnt for people like him people like them then they wouldnt have the chance to come to the country?

It must be demoralizing because he's standing up for the rights of minorities and others effected by Trump's policies. Those minorities in the video may not be effected negatively by Trump's way of doing things, but other minorities are. He's looking at the bigger picture. But hey, people are free to think whatever they want and support whomever they want and that old man was possibly disappointed but wasn't angry because he (I assume) respects people's choices.

 

And I said

 

"If not for men like him who don't discriminate, those people possibly wouldn't have gotten the chance to live in the US or at least integrate in the communities."

 

I said possibly. They may have had a big effect or they may have done nothing. It is a possibility. Plus, people have the chance to get in that country, but my point is, would they have as good a life or have easily integrated if not for people who welcome them with open arms? That's my point. I respect people's choices but that shouldn't mean they are free of criticism.

 

It's like saying "If not for players like Shinji who don't lack the work ethic, the 2015-2016 team possibly wouldn't have gotten the chance to win the league". Am I giving Shinji all the credit for the club winning the title? Of course not. But he was a major contributor to us winning it. Just acknowledging an important role doesn't mean that I'm giving them all the credit.

 

18 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Nested in that comment I perceived the suggestion that you see a contradiction between supporting Trump and supporting immigration

I don't. I'm in no way supporting illegal immigration or condoning it. People who got there legally have the right to feel upset when illegal immigrants bypass the trouble they went through (even though illegal immigrants suffer immensely when trying to get to the US). I'm talking about the morality side of things. They share the same dream, The American dream. Do you think if those people got the chance to go there legally, they would choose not to? And the broader prospective is, Trump's demerits aren't exclusive to the treatment of illegal immigrants. It shouldn't be a situation were people (especially minorities) take Trump's side because they are not effected by his policies negatively or see him as a person who's doing good by them because they may not be suffering, but others are.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Whats that factual policy this administration enacts again?

 

The one that differs a lot from anything Obama's enacted

Be happy to share.

 

To make sure there is an absolutely clear delineation between the facts and my interpretation of them, the policies will be in normal lettering and my own personal views in italics. I'll also try to ensure that any policies here are clear changes from those that Obama enacted.

 

- Repealing the Climate Action plan and pulling out of the Paris Agreement - a probable net long term negative for the majority of people in both the US and the world

- Gutting the EPA including rewriting existing environmental protection laws, approving two new oil pipelines, proposing reviews of the Clean Water and Clean Power plans and planning to allow oil drilling in all offshore areas - a probable long term negative for the majority of people in the US.

- Selling national park land for "development", read: drilling - a probable short term negative for the majority of people in the US

- Approving Supreme Court judges that give a clear message to individual states that Roe v Wade is possible to be challenged at some point in the new future - a possible long term negative for the majority of people in the US, provided the majority of people in the US are for abortion rights (which at the present time they are).

- Seeking to replace the Affordable Care Act (which is by no means brilliant itself) with a purely market-based system that would still impoverish a great many people simply because they were unlucky enough to get sick or injured - a probable long term negative for the majority of people in the US

- Failing to rein in consistent far-right attacks in various places across the US (including reducing the budget of agencies designed to track and apprehend them) - a probable short and long term negative for the majority of people in the US

 

And that isn't an exhaustive list, by any means (I picked the ones where it was most likely to be potentially harmful to the biggest number of people).

 

Now, of course, once again, people can interpret these policies as good or bad differently to my own interpretation - everyone has their own view on the short-term versus the long term and the individual or small group versus the collective...but the policies and actions themselves are matters of record.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, the fox said:

It must be demoralizing because he's standing up for the rights of minorities and others effected by Trump's policies. Those minorities in the video may not be effected negatively by Trump's way of doing things, but other minorities are. He's looking at the bigger picture. But hey, people are free to think whatever they want and support whomever they want and that old man was possibly disappointed but wasn't angry because he (I assume) respects people's choices.

 

And I said

 

"If not for men like him who don't discriminate, those people possibly wouldn't have gotten the chance to live in the US or at least integrate in the communities."

 

I said possibly. They may have had a big effect or they may have done nothing. It is a possibility. Plus, people have the chance to get in that country, but my point is, would they have as good a life or have easily integrated if not for people who welcome them with open arms? That's my point. I respect people's choices but that shouldn't mean they are free of criticism.

 

It's like saying "If not for players like Shinji who don't lack the work ethic, the 2015-2016 team possibly wouldn't have gotten the chance to win the league". Am I giving Shinji all the credit for the club winning the title? Of course not. But he was a major contributor to us winning it. Just acknowledging an important role doesn't mean that I'm giving them all the credit.

 

I don't. I'm in no way supporting illegal immigration or condoning it. People who got there legally have the right to feel upset when illegal immigrants bypass the trouble they went through (even though illegal immigrants suffer immensely when trying to get to the US). I'm talking about the morality side of things. They share the same dream, The American dream. Do you think if those people got the chance to go there legally, they would choose not to? And the broader prospective is, Trump's demerits aren't exclusive to the treatment of illegal immigrants. It shouldn't be a situation were people (especially minorities) take Trump's side because they are not effected by his policies negatively or see him as a person who's doing good by them because they may not be suffering, but others are.

Thanks very much for clarifying

 

Can you explain the things Trump is doing that are bad for minorities and why they are immoral specifically? I think this is the part im interested in because we hear it a lot

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Be happy to share.

 

To make sure there is an absolutely clear delineation between the facts and my interpretation of them, the policies will be in normal lettering and my own personal views in italics. I'll also try to ensure that any policies here are clear changes from those that Obama enacted.

 

- Repealing the Climate Action plan and pulling out of the Paris Agreement - a probable net long term negative for the majority of people in both the US and the world

- Gutting the EPA including rewriting existing environmental protection laws, approving two new oil pipelines, proposing reviews of the Clean Water and Clean Power plans and planning to allow oil drilling in all offshore areas - a probable long term negative for the majority of people in the US.

- Selling national park land for "development", read: drilling - a probable short term negative for the majority of people in the US

- Approving Supreme Court judges that give a clear message to individual states that Roe v Wade is possible to be challenged at some point in the new future - a possible long term negative for the majority of people in the US, provided the majority of people in the US are for abortion rights (which at the present time they are).

- Seeking to replace the Affordable Care Act (which is by no means brilliant itself) with a purely market-based system that would still impoverish a great many people simply because they were unlucky enough to get sick or injured - a probable long term negative for the majority of people in the US

- Failing to rein in consistent far-right attacks in various places across the US (including reducing the budget of agencies designed to track and apprehend them) - a probable short and long term negative for the majority of people in the US

 

And that isn't an exhaustive list, by any means (I picked the ones where it was most likely to be potentially harmful to the biggest number of people).

 

Now, of course, once again, people can interpret these policies as good or bad differently to my own interpretation - everyone has their own view on the short-term versus the long term and the individual or small group versus the collective...but the policies and actions themselves are matters of record.

Cheers.  I heard on a Michael Knowles podcast that the US has reduced carbon emissions more than many countries still involved in the Paris Agreement (when i watched this i searched the net for corroboration of this and couldnt find any tbf, so no idea of its true).  Like you say, its a pov, many have different perspectives on this debate

 

Selling national parks for development doesnt sound good, and I would say nobody wants to see that, but would need to see details on it

 

The abortion debate i was once unquestioningly on the pro choice side. But thats really an ideological position and I can see the other side of the argument (reading a few years ago of James Joyce thoughts on this gave me pause for thought as i respected him so much). Also, the pro choice side has its own extreme manifestations that i think many would disagree with. And besides, Trump ran saying he would do this, so its not him as such, but all those who voted for him you disagree with

 

Personally im not sure where I stand on that debate fwiw

 

Health systems is very complex and Im not clued up enough, but to be sure there are valid criticisms of the Affordable health care act? Our own NHS is probably going to have to be reformed and I never would have thougjt that once upon a time.  But anyway that Act is fairly new so i dont think you can use it to say Trump is an historically bad outlier as a president

 

I have never heard about that about the far right. Can you send me a link? That sounds unequivocally bad; but playing devil's advocate you could say Antifa are enabled and they go unpoliced. They have even espoused violence on tv!

 

 

Its completely fair to criticise Trump, he will do bad things and make lots of mistakes, like they all do. I just think there is this narrative to demonise him that doesnt ring true with me

 

That part about the far right violence and reducing funds to police them is definitely interesting though, will look it up

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Cheers.  I heard on a Michael Knowles podcast that the US has reduced carbon emissions more than many countries still involved in the Paris Agreement (when i watched this i searched the net for corroboration of this and couldnt find any tbf, so no idea of its true).  Like you say, its a pov, many have different perspectives on this debate

 

Selling national parks for development doesnt sound good, and I would say nobody wants to see that, but would need to see details on it

 

The abortion debate i was once unquestioningly on the pro choice side. But thats really an ideological position and I can see the other side of the argument (reading a few years ago of James Joyce thoughts on this gave me pause for thought as i respected him so much). Also, the pro choice side has its own extreme manifestations that i think many would disagree with. And besides, Trump ran saying he would do this, so its not him as such, but all those who voted for him you disagree with

 

Personally im not sure where I stand on that debate fwiw

 

Health systems is very complex and Im not clued up enough, but to be sure there are valid criticisms of the Affordable health care act? Our own NHS is probably going to have to be reformed and I never would have thougjt that once upon a time.  But anyway that Act is fairly new so i dont think you can use it to say Trump is an historically bad outlier as a president

 

I have never heard about that about the far right. Can you send me a link? That sounds unequivocally bad; but playing devil's advocate you could say Antifa are enabled and they go unpoliced. They have even espoused violence on tv!

 

 

Its completely fair to criticise Trump, he will do bad things and make lots of mistakes, like they all do. I just think there is this narrative to demonise him that doesnt ring true with me

 

That part about the far right violence and reducing funds to police them is definitely interesting though, will look it up

Yeah, absolutely:

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/346552-trump-cut-funds-to-fight-anti-right-wing-violence

 

It's an older article, but as far as I know the position hasn't changed in the meantime.

 

If you need more info on the other stuff, feel free to let me know and I'll point some out, but tbh Google is good enough for most of it.

[the fox]

34 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Can you explain the things Trump is doing that are bad for minorities and why they are immoral specifically? I think this is the part im interested in because we hear it a lot

It is immoral because IMO, they are ready to overlook everything else as long as they are not the ones effected.

 

Secondly, it's not just bad for minorities, it's bad for everyone. He's playing with the lives of millions of people from North Korea and Iran, he doesn't care about climate change, he more than once came out with outrageous claims (see his speech about illegal immigrants). His shady dealings with Saudi Arabia, the kids at the boarder, the way he instigated racists across the country. Everyone is effected by his actions.

Edited 5 July 2019 by the fox

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, absolutely:

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/346552-trump-cut-funds-to-fight-anti-right-wing-violence

 

It's an older article, but as far as I know the position hasn't changed in the meantime.

 

If you need more info on the other stuff, feel free to let me know and I'll point some out, but tbh Google is good enough for most of it.

I just read a great article on this that I think you should read ( i did find and read that Hill article before finding this one, which demonstrates the Obama / Trump debate well and in a balanced manner). Its not really true that Trump changed the course of domestic terror policing

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-domestic-countering-violent-extremism-policies-look-lot-obamas

 

They do offer the criticism that Trump's rhetoric inflames polarisation (though it seems to have inflamed the left more than the right imo), but is largely only rhetoric, and whilst i know his words arent pretty, they are a necessary and welcome reaction to PC culture perhaps after Trump's tenure has passed the symbol of his presidency will have done the job and things will settle down

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

21 minutes ago, the fox said:

It is immoral because IMO, they are ready to overlook everything else as long as they are not the ones effected.

 

Secondly, it's not just bad for minorities, it's bad for everyone. He's playing with the lives of millions of people from North Korea and Iran, he doesn't care about climate change, he more than once came out with outrageous claims (see his speech about illegal immigrants). His shady dealings with Saudi Arabia, the kids at the boarder, the way he instigated racists across the country. Everyone is effected by his actions.

I doubt that they believe all that stuff you're saying is a true characterisation of Trump as president

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I just read a great article on this that I think you should read ( i did find and read that Hill article before finding this one, which demonstrates the Obama / Trump debate well and in a balanced manner). Its not really true that Trump changed the course of domestic terror policing

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-domestic-countering-violent-extremism-policies-look-lot-obamas

 

They do offer the criticism that Trump's rhetoric inflames polarisation (though it seems to have inflamed the left more than the right imo), but is largely only rhetoric, and whilst i know his words arent pretty, they are a necessary and welcome reaction to PC culture perhaps after Trump's tenure has passed the symbol of his presidency will have done the job and things will settle down

 

An interesting read, thank you - perhaps the bureaucracy is more resistant to this administration than first thought.

 

I'll be honest though, it is the environmental stuff that worries me most, as anyone who has seen me on here for long enough will attest.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

An interesting read, thank you - perhaps the bureaucracy is more resistant to this administration than first thought.

 

I'll be honest though, it is the environmental stuff that worries me most, as anyone who has seen me on here for long enough will attest.

Yes, they dont get carte blanche to do whatever they like, which is a good thing

 

I personally doubt history will view him as an enemy of the environment, but i guess we'll see

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Yes, they dont get carte blanche to do whatever they like, which is a good thing

 

I personally doubt history will view him as an enemy of the environment, but i guess we'll see

I'm curious as to how you might arrive at that conclusion given his policy ideas. Can you elaborate?

 

In any case, for what it's worth I hope you're right or if you're wrong that the effects are minimal because that will imply that there are historians actually around to record how history views him on the matter and viable places where it can be recorded.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm curious as to how you might arrive at that conclusion given his policy ideas. Can you elaborate?

 

In any case, for what it's worth I hope you're right or if you're wrong that the effects are minimal because that will imply that there are historians actually around to record how history views him on the matter and viable places where it can be recorded.

Nothing in particular tbh. I just kind of think we're either ****ed or we're not

 

I suppose innovation rather than political agreements will drive change, so Trump pulling out of the Paris will not be such a big deal in the scheme of things

 

Just my thoughts, no facts or articles for this one

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Nothing in particular tbh. I just kind of think we're either ****ed or we're not

 

I suppose innovation rather than political agreements will drive change, so Trump pulling out of the Paris will not be such a big deal in the scheme of things

 

Just my thoughts, no facts or articles for this one

I think I see what you mean - it doesn't really matter what political will is driving at any particular time on this one?

 

I have to say I disagree because I think scientific innovations that might "save the world" don't mean jack if they're not supported or implemented by the political powers that be, but I see where you're coming from.