President Trump & the USA

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hypothetical, but no less accurate - based on the reaction of Trumps base to various allegations made against him in the past.

Couldnt have anything to do with the fact that the stream of accusations that have come out about him have turned out to be bullshit could it?

 

If Trump was proven to be involved i am sure his base would be massively disappointed and would disavow him. To say otherwise is a baseless smear of an huge portion of the american population

 

What is true is that given the slightest most slender of opportunities opportunistic "journalists" will try to demonise Trump. And partisan members of the public lap it up. Then when it gets disproven they just move on to the next one

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Couldnt have anything to do with the fact that the stream of accusations that have come out about him have turned out to be bullshit could it?

 

If Trump was proven to be involved i am sure his base would be massively disappointed and would disavow him. To say otherwise is a baseless smear of an huge portion of the american population

 

What is true is that given the slightest most slender of opportunities opportunistic "journalists" will try to demonise Trump. And partisan members of the public lap it up. Then when it gets disproven they just move on to the next one

Fair enough, safe to say we disagree. And if to think so is a smear in the opinion of some, then so be it - evidently a more cynical view of US politics looks that way.

[MC Prussian]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hypothetical, but no less accurate - based on the reaction of Trumps base to various allegations made against him in the past.

That's as indicative as me basing my research on people's reactions on Twitter.

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, Captain... said:

I don’t think it is true that Trump has masterminded all this, but I do think that this effect is being driven by Trump supporting media. I’m in the states at the moment and fvck me Fox News is just insane. I think it was Tucker Carlson who just spends his entire time belittling everything any democrat says. Real reductive approach, sneering sarcasm just pumping out the Trump rhetoric. It makes the daily mail look balanced and considered. 

You need to put Fox News' stance into US TV landscape relation:

 

Fox News, for all we know, is the only major conservative TV news channel in the US.

 

On the other side, you have ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS - which are all more or less "liberal" in their own biased reporting. So, there still is a quite remarkable mismatch in terms of coverage from a more Democratic point of view, at least by a ratio of 4 to 1.

Of course, you have to stick out from the crowd under those circumstances, and thus shout a little louder on your own.

 

And btw, Tucker Carlson is miles better than O'Reilly.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, safe to say we disagree. And if to think so is a smear in the opinion of some, then so be it - evidently a more cynical view of US politics looks that way.

Your cynical view of the american people you mean.

 

As far as politics goes...

 

...maybe apply that cynicism across the board. Did you ever hear it said that The Greens are like a watermelon? Green on the outside and red on the inside?

 

AOC's chief of staff has admitted that the green deal she proposes is in fact about radically socialising the economy. The environmental selling point is a guise, a trojan horse, to implement socialism.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49417/aocs-chief-staff-admits-green-new-deal-about-ryan-saavedra

 

 

[bovril]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Your cynical view of the american people you mean.

 

As far as politics goes...

 

...maybe apply that cynicism across the board. Did you ever hear it said that The Greens are like a watermelon? Green on the outside and red on the inside?

 

AOC's chief of staff has admitted that the green deal she proposes is in fact about radically socialising the economy. The environmental selling point is a guise, a trojan horse, to implement socialism.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49417/aocs-chief-staff-admits-green-new-deal-about-ryan-saavedra

 

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

29 minutes ago, bovril said:

 

Obviously communism is awesome and the left should do whatever they can to get there, dont get me wrong

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That's as indicative as me basing my research on people's reactions on Twitter.

Oh, absolutely, it's just an educated guess.

 

Perhaps one day the theory will actually be tested, who knows?

 

7 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Your cynical view of the american people you mean.

 

As far as politics goes...

 

...maybe apply that cynicism across the board. Did you ever hear it said that The Greens are like a watermelon? Green on the outside and red on the inside?

 

AOC's chief of staff has admitted that the green deal she proposes is in fact about radically socialising the economy. The environmental selling point is a guise, a trojan horse, to implement socialism.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49417/aocs-chief-staff-admits-green-new-deal-about-ryan-saavedra

 

 

I think you're absolutely right about certain parts of the environmental movement being hijacked by those wanting to implement their own form of authoritarianism - in fact I think I've mentioned that on here before.

 

However, my thoughts on that are twofold: firstly, the solutions applied don't have to lead to that kind of authoritarianism and it has to be hoped that if and when they are those implementing them are either possessed of conscience or have enough pressure on them to not go that way...and secondly, politics has absolutely zilch to do with the necessity of those solutions being applied and the possible/probable consequences if they are not - I know a lot of people would say "better dead than Red", think Sampson and I had a talk on this here before - but personally I'd think that applying the solution even in a terrible political context would be better than the alternative because it would mean there was still some kind of civilisation around afterwards that could then change things around once more politically in due course.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, absolutely, it's just an educated guess.

 

Perhaps one day the theory will actually be tested, who knows?

 

I think you're absolutely right about certain parts of the environmental movement being hijacked by those wanting to implement their own form of authoritarianism - in fact I think I've mentioned that on here before.

 

However, my thoughts on that are twofold: firstly, the solutions applied don't have to lead to that kind of authoritarianism and it has to be hoped that if and when they are those implementing them are either possessed of conscience or have enough pressure on them to not go that way...and secondly, politics has absolutely zilch to do with the necessity of those solutions being applied and the possible/probable consequences if they are not - I know a lot of people would say "better dead than Red", think Sampson and I had a talk on this here before - but personally I'd think that applying the solution even in a terrible political context would be better than the alternative because it would mean there was still some kind of civilisation around afterwards that could then change things around once more politically in due course.

You have said in conversations here before you would at least understand the implimentation of environmental policies through authoritarian methods, or terrible political context, as you say

 

The thanos method basically.  I dont trust the movement enough to take away peoples freedom in its name

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You have said in conversations here before you would at least understand the implimentation of environmental policies through authoritarian methods, or terrible political context, as you say

 

The thanos method basically.  I dont trust the movement enough to take away peoples freedom in its name

FWIW, I'm definitely not into neo-Malthusian ideas regarding population control as a way of saving everyone else - I think that's a line too far, it likely wouldn't work anyway (for manifold reasons) and there are much better and less objectionable methods of securing the future.

 

Regarding the bolded part, it's something I struggle with tbh - yes, I'd probably take a dystopian authoritarian civilisation over no more civilisation at all (for the reasons stated above) but I really, really sodding hope that it never comes to that stark and that terrible a straight choice because it's going to be awful either way. Thing is, IMO the more we can do now on a small and gradual scale, the more likely it is that choice might be avoided down the line.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

FWIW, I'm definitely not into neo-Malthusian ideas regarding population control as a way of saving everyone else - I think that's a line too far, it likely wouldn't work anyway (for manifold reasons) and there are much better and less objectionable methods of securing the future.

 

Regarding the bolded part, it's something I struggle with tbh - yes, I'd probably take a dystopian authoritarian civilisation over no more civilisation at all (for the reasons stated above) but I really, really sodding hope that it never comes to that stark and that terrible a straight choice because it's going to be awful either way. Thing is, IMO the more we can do now on a small and gradual scale, the more likely it is that choice might be avoided down the line.

Arent people like Elon Musk, as an example, that gradual scale?  Until we have developed new technologies that are ecologically and economically viable, surely political efforts will only tend towards the authoritarian

 

Kind of like the US medical system as an analogy. Obamacare made it worse for all. Yes, the system they have leaves some people out and thats tragic, but it also gives rise to innovation that sooner or later goes to other parts of the world

 

Wouldnt tech that improves how we interact with climate come if anywhere from the same place?: from a society with certain freedoms that allows people to create and hopefully get us away from fossil fuels and waste etc..

 

The role of the left is to alleviate the worst aspects of such freedom, provide that basic safety net, this idea makes sense to me, but it goes too far when it wants to control more and more aspects of society. If people arent free to an extent then nothing they do has any moral substance anyway. Got to believe in the people bru

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Arent people like Elon Musk, as an example, that gradual scale?  Until we have developed new technologies that are ecologically and economically viable, surely political efforts will only tend towards the authoritarian

 

Kind of like the US medical system as an analogy. Obamacare made it worse for all. Yes, the system they have leaves some people out and thats tragic, but it also gives rise to innovation that sooner or later goes to other parts of the world

 

Wouldnt tech that improves how we interact with climate come if anywhere from the same place?: from a society with certain freedoms that allows people to create and hopefully get us away from fossil fuels and waste etc..

 

The role of the left is to alleviate the worst aspects of such freedom, provide that basic safety net, this idea makes sense to me, but it goes too far when it wants to control more and more aspects of society. If people arent free to an extent then nothing they do has any moral substance anyway. Got to believe in the people bru

 

 

Innovation, most of the time, comes from a place of wanting to make the world better for yourself and those around you right now, not the future - and that's where the problem is. I think @Kopfkino called it "time-inconsistency".

 

I can see the argument for such laissez-faire solutions in various areas (though I might not agree with them in, for instance, healthcare) but for an environmental solution it's not likely to actually benefit the individual much in what most people would think a tangible way, nor is it very likely those effects are going to be felt within the lifetimes of a fair few people. As such, I'm not sure such a way of handling the problem would end up being effective.

 

I believe a related quote is "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Well, I don't think enough people are motivated to plant those trees to give the future the shade it needs. When that ideal fails, what then?

 

I could be wrong and perhaps humanity might surprise me - I'd sure as hell like to be surprised - but right now I don't think I'm seeing enough cohesive evidence.

 

We're sort of getting into meaning-of-life strictly philosophical territory here but IMO any life, even an unfree one, has moral value, if one has the capacity to choose moral acts within such an unfree system.

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

 

Ice Head!

 

Sounds like someone who Batman might have a problem with.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Innovation, most of the time, comes from a place of wanting to make the world better for yourself and those around you right now, not the future - and that's where the problem is. I think @Kopfkino called it "time-inconsistency".

 

I can see the argument for such laissez-faire solutions in various areas (though I might not agree with them in, for instance, healthcare) but for an environmental solution it's not likely to actually benefit the individual much in what most people would think a tangible way, nor is it very likely those effects are going to be felt within the lifetimes of a fair few people. As such, I'm not sure such a way of handling the problem would end up being effective.

 

I believe a related quote is "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Well, I don't think enough people are motivated to plant those trees to give the future the shade it needs. When that ideal fails, what then?

 

I could be wrong and perhaps humanity might surprise me - I'd sure as hell like to be surprised - but right now I don't think I'm seeing enough cohesive evidence.

 

We're sort of getting into meaning-of-life strictly philosophical territory here but IMO any life, even an unfree one, has moral value, if one has the capacity to choose moral acts within such an unfree system.

I think you have it backwards here. Innovation is planting trees for the future - its the result of scientific exploration that occasionally provides breakthroughs that effect everyone's lives massively.

 

The right here right now is the political side - and massive environmental economic overhaul would not benefit individuals, it would be extremely classist in effect

 

I guess thats the difference between us. I think people are motivated to help their environment and you dont think they are

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

9 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

She is just such a gift to Republicans

 

Might as well put a big bow on her head and put her on billboards with the slogan "Vote Trump 2020"

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I think you have it backwards here. Innovation is planting trees for the future - its the result of scientific exploration that occasionally provides breakthroughs that effect everyone's lives massively.

 

The right here right now is the political side - and massive environmental economic overhaul would not benefit individuals, it would be extremely classist in effect

 

I guess thats the difference between us. I think people are motivated to help their environment and you dont think they are

I think that most or even all of those innovations are made to satisfy immediate or near-immediate needs, and environmental needs don't often fall into that category, yes. I think that is a difference between us.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Our new leader has spoken...

 

 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Our new leader has spoken...

 

 

 

AOC was apparently born about 12 miles from where the orange monster was.

 

Even after all this time he still has the ability to plunge new depths. Quite the achievement

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

AOC was apparently born about 12 miles from where the orange monster was.

 

Even after all this time he still has the ability to plunge new depths. Quite the achievement

Isnt he referring to Omar?

[CosbehFox]

35 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Isnt he referring to Omar?

He’s referring to the four ladies of mixed race origin Democrat congresswomen

[Bellend Sebastian]

37 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Isnt he referring to Omar?

My understanding is that he's referring to what is known as 'the squad', four congresswomen two of whom are AOC and Omar, the other two I'm less familiar with. In the offending tweets he's definitely referring to more than one individual when making those comments

 

[CosbehFox]

6 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

My understanding is that he's referring to what is known as 'the squad', four congresswomen two of whom are AOC and Omar, the other two I'm less familiar with. In the offending tweets he's definitely referring to more than one individual when making those comments

 

He says ‘congresswomen’ , a plural rather than congresswoman 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

He’s referring to the four ladies of mixed race origin Democrat congresswomen

 

6 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

My understanding is that he's referring to what is known as 'the squad', four congresswomen two of whom are AOC and Omar, the other two I'm less familiar with. In the offending tweets he's definitely referring to more than one individual when making those comments

 

I think its funny

 

I dont know about the other two either. I know Omar comes from Somalia - shitter of a place right?

 

AOC im quite sure comes from hell

 

Either way they hate the US, which AOC should be particularly grateful for because it has allowed her to be a politician despite being stupid and void of morals

 

Its not about race. Its about virtue signalling morons who have no gratitude for the country that provides them exceptional freedom in the world

[Carl the Llama]

33 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

I think its funny

 

I dont know about the other two either. I know Omar comes from Somalia - shitter of a place right?

 

AOC im quite sure comes from hell

 

Either way they hate the US, which AOC should be particularly grateful for because it has allowed her to be a politician despite being stupid and void of morals

 

Its not about race. Its about virtue signalling morons who have no gratitude for the country that provides them exceptional freedom in the world

Telling a legally documented citizen of a country to "go back where you came from" is the dictionary definition of racism.  After all, the MAGA stuff is just about getting rid of illegal immigrants, there's nothing racist about it.  Agreed?

 

For the longest time Trump defenders have claimed that they wouldn't stand up for the guy if he actually said anything unambiguously racist.  Well he's just done exactly that, here's the golden opportunity to prove that you really just care about his policies and fighting for the forgotten man of no specific skin colour but have no truck with obviously prejudicial comments.  So far you're doing a poor job of it.