President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

4 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Given that he specifically refers to countries in the first part, it's a frankly enormous leap of faith to suggest he was actually critiquing late-20th century municipal administration in Detroit, or current in Boston. Brilliant that you're accusing people of reading things that aren't there

 

Your insistence that someone from New York City of Puerto Rican heritage is somehow responsible for the administration of Puerto Rico is laughable.

it's a three-part Tweet, and I don't see the direct connection between "places" and "countries" other people see.

I think the wording is bad and in parts inflammatory, and he should've been more specific. I also said that it was a mistake to put three congresswoman who are US citizens in the same bin as Omar, who is Somali by origin and birth.

Then again, Trump has a way of using Twitter in a rather simplistic way. So, I don't see where the outrage is coming from. People are seemingly so obsessed with Twitter, it's amazing.

 

I never said that AOC or Puerto Ricans in New York or anywhere else in the US are responsible for the Puerto Rican administration. I mean that if they were interested in making things better, why no support or initiatives for the people closest to their own heritage?

Puerto Rico, for instance, is part of the US, but then again, not. I would love for AOC to push for better living conditions on the island, combat corruption, poverty and crime down there. Allow Puerto Ricans to finally be able to participate in national votes.

But she can't even take care of the own NY district who voted for her last year.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't see where the outrage is coming from.

 

Shock. 

[UPinCarolina]

At this point, if you don’t believe that the President is a febrile, reprehensible bigot - you probably never will. 

 

It’s not worth arguing over, because when the great mass of evidence spanning decades all points to the same conclusion there’s no longer much of an argument to be made. He’s too old and has said and done too much for any objective person to believe something to the contrary.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That's not what he was saying, though. Not exactly. You're taking his wording out of context. Trump said:

It's fascinating how fast the "racist" card is played again. Utterly fascinating. Let's use a bit of nuance, shall we?

 

 

If his comments are no problem, maybe we should apply them more widely?

 

Trump's paternal grandfather Friedrich was a German immigrant. His mother was a Scottish immigrant. 

As Trump "originally came from Germany and Scotland", perhaps the USA should tell Trump to "go back and help fix" Merkel's shaking issues or Scottish nationalism?

 

We could do a part-exchange and send Boris back where he "originally came from" - New York, where he was born, or to Turkey or Austria where his ancestors came from?

 

As for the England cricket team, we'd be sending them "where they came from" all over the world....

 

During the 1983 general election, I did canvassing for Labour, which then supported leaving the EU. One bloke told me that he usually voted National Front, but would be voting Labour due to our Brexit policy.

He added that we needed to send all the blacks home. When I pointed out that many were born here, that didn't bother him - and he agreed that he'd want to send me "back" to Ireland because my Dad was Irish, even though I was born here.

Wasn't you, was it? 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, UPinCarolina said:

At this point, if you don’t believe that the President is a febrile, reprehensible bigot - you probably never will. 

 

It’s not worth arguing over, because when the great mass of evidence spanning decades all points to the same conclusion there’s no longer much of an argument to be made. He’s too old and has said and done too much for any objective person to believe something to the contrary.

Its interesting how polarised the views are

 

I find the opposite to be true, that Trump haters are completely entrenched in their views no matter the evidence to the contrary

 

I think the reason is there is an ideological debate underneath all the accusations -  namely nationalism vs globalism; conservatism vs liberalism; nation state vs open borders

 

People think securing the border is racist, so consequently they think Trump is racist, which doesnt really make sense imo

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If his comments are no problem, maybe we should apply them more widely?

 

Trump's paternal grandfather Friedrich was a German immigrant. His mother was a Scottish immigrant. 

As Trump "originally came from Germany and Scotland", perhaps the USA should tell Trump to "go back and help fix" Merkel's shaking issues or Scottish nationalism?

 

We could do a part-exchange and send Boris back where he "originally came from" - New York, where he was born, or to Turkey or Austria where his ancestors came from?

 

As for the England cricket team, we'd be sending them "where they came from" all over the world....

 

During the 1983 general election, I did canvassing for Labour, which then supported leaving the EU. One bloke told me that he usually voted National Front, but would be voting Labour due to our Brexit policy.

He added that we needed to send all the blacks home. When I pointed out that many were born here, that didn't bother him - and he agreed that he'd want to send me "back" to Ireland because my Dad was Irish, even though I was born here.

Wasn't you, was it? 

Pretty disingenuous to conflate those two things imo

 

In recent years the dems and the Clintons have been the ones supporting racist policies that have greatly harmed the black american community. Trump has done more for these communities in such a shorter time.

 

He's not racist, he's patriotic

[Guest SO1]

https://dedona.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment-john-michael-greer/   

the forest through the trees and all that............To the heart of the matter in my country and I think yours.

Edited 15 July 2019 by SO1

[Guest SO1]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Pretty disingenuous to conflate those two things imo

 

In recent years the dems and the Clintons have been the ones supporting racist policies that have greatly harmed the black american community. Trump has done more for these communities in such a shorter time.

 

He's not racist, he's patriotic

Clinton declared open warfare on the poor to appease the right. Welfare Reform. Sold them down the river. Trump's done nothing but give the wealthy more tax breaks.

Patriotic as in a legend in his own mind.....I guess so. As far as I can see he's done nothing.....NADA.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

13 minutes ago, SO1 said:

https://dedona.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment-john-michael-greer/   

the forest through the trees and all that............To the heart of the matter in my country and I think yours.

Great article

 

Always nice to read something that doesnt avoid the issues of class which many on the left criminally neglect these days in favour of identity politics

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, SO1 said:

Clinton declared open warfare on the poor to appease the right. Welfare Reform. Sold them down the river. Trump's done nothing but give the wealthy more tax breaks.

Patriotic as in a legend in his own mind.....I guess so. As far as I can see he's done nothing.....NADA.

Isnt black unemployment down since Trump came into office?

 

And wouldnt a restriction on unskilled immigration benefit black america, as well as the working class in general?

Edited 15 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You are turning it into a race thing when it isnt. You are the one who can only see colour.  Trump is criticisng them based on their ideas and as usual he is inexact in his words which has the added value of annoying the moaners who want to see racism everywhere at the expense of exchanging ideas

 

And their arguments are losing so they are getting worse. Its very zzzzz

Then why target only those four Congresswomen and no others in this very particular way? I'm honestly curious how their race is not part of the equation here.

 

 

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Again, people are getting their knickers in a twist over a Tweet. A Tweet. Judge a man by his actions, not by his words.

 

Disregarding for the moment the obvious dog-whistle element of those Tweets, of course, okay. As written not too long ago and repeated here:

 

- 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 is by no means a whole list.

 

11 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Pretty disingenuous to conflate those two things imo

 

In recent years the dems and the Clintons have been the ones supporting racist policies that have greatly harmed the black american community. Trump has done more for these communities in such a shorter time.

 

He's not racist, he's patriotic

If the latest approval figures for Trump among Black populations are to believed (around 12%) then it doesn't seem that they think what he's doing is good for them.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Then why target only those four Congresswomen and no others in this very particular way? I'm honestly curious how their race is not part of the equation here.

 

 

Disregarding for the moment the obvious dog-whistle element of those Tweets, of course, okay. As written not too long ago and repeated here:

 

- 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 is by no means a whole list.

 

If the latest approval figures for Trump among Black populations are to believed (around 12%) then it doesn't seem that they think what he's doing is good for them.

Trump doesnt like those congresswomen because of what they think and say. He just doesnt care about political correctness

 

That 12% is higher than it was when he won the election. Less unemployment and less black people on food stamps since he came into office. That rating will go up and black people have been very loyal to the dems for decades so its no mean feat

 

Those points you suggest about what he's done that is bad are by no means objective bad policies, there is more nuance to those subjects

 

The far right thing is just bollocks

 

Didnt see anyone coming on here condemning violence from antifa types

 

When Andy Ngo got beaten up none of the lefties on here gave a shit. Says it all

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Do any of you even try to find articles giving positive reviews of Trump's policies? Seems like no as you just prefer to call him racist....

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/republicans-confident-trump-can-pick-up-black-voter-support-in-2020

[Guest SO1]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Isnt black unemployment down sincr Trump came into office?

It might be if you trust the statistics that the "government" uses.

If I go by what I see around me then that's a different story. Mainly low paying jobs taking care of the well/better off.

If your lucky a decent job with bennies working for the government fed/local.

Mainly nothings changed in the ten years that I've lived here with the exception of the middle and lower classes being gentrified out of the city by rich Northerners.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, SO1 said:

It might be if you trust the statistics that the "government" uses.

If I go by what I see around me then that's a different story. Mainly low paying jobs taking care of the well/better off.

If your lucky a decent job with bennies working for the government fed/local.

Mainly nothings changed in the ten years that I've lived here with the exception of the middle and lower classes being gentrified out of the city by rich Northerners.

I dont live there of course so you know better than me what its like. I guess nothing changes quickly but the guy has only had a couple of years in office. Surely positive effects wouldnt be apparent for some years anyway?

 

Are there other statistics suggesting otherwise?

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Trump doesnt like those congresswomen because of what they think and say. He just doesnt care about political correctness

 

That 12% is higher than it was when he won the election. Less unemployment and less black people on food stamps since he came into office. That rating will go up and black people have been very loyal to the dems for decades so its no mean feat

 

Those points you suggest about what he's done that is bad are by no means objective bad policies, there is more nuance to those subjects

 

The far right thing is just bollocks

 

Didnt see anyone coming on here condemning violence from antifa types

 

When Andy Ngo got beaten up none of the lefties on here gave a shit. Says it all

I'm sure there are a great deal of other congressmen and women that he doesn't like because of what they think and say, too. Again - why target those specific individuals in this manner?

 

An increase of 4% and a rating still of only 12% suggests that there's still some antipathy to me, but I guess we'll see where the ratings go from here and time will tell.

 

I'm very curious to hear what the good points about repealing the Climate Action plan and pulling out of the Paris Agreement, rewriting existing environmental protection laws, approving two new oil pipelines, proposing reviews of the Clean Water and Clean Power plans, planning to allow oil drilling in all offshore areas and selling national park land for "development" are (to name just a few of those policies) - can you present an opposing point of view about how they might actually be a good thing in the short and (more importantly) the long term? Please go ahead and add nuance as you desire, I'm genuinely interested.

 

WRT the far right, attacks by them and (probably) left-wing related violence has increased under his administration. Does he bear no responsibility for that?

 

I can only speak for myself here, but I distinctly remember talking about Ngo with either you or someone else and remarking how terrible it was - I can find the post in question if you like.

[Guest SO1]

15 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Great article

 

Always nice to read something that doesnt avoid the issues of class which many on the left criminally neglect these days in favour of identity politics

I think it's difficult for some to realize or recognize the problem. To see how their own personal choices affect the world around them.

Time to rise above calling people names and the discuss what's most important. To care for each other as ourselves.

That said, conflicts aren't leaving anytime soon.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sure there are a great deal of other congressmen and women that he doesn't like because of what they think and say, too. Again - why target those specific individuals in this manner?

 

An increase of 4% and a rating still of only 12% suggests that there's still some antipathy to me, but I guess we'll see where the ratings go from here and time will tell.

 

I'm very curious to hear what the good points about repealing the Climate Action plan and pulling out of the Paris Agreement, rewriting existing environmental protection laws, approving two new oil pipelines, proposing reviews of the Clean Water and Clean Power plans, planning to allow oil drilling in all offshore areas and selling national park land for "development" are (to name just a few of those policies) - can you present an opposing point of view about how they might actually be a good thing in the short and (more importantly) the long term? Please go ahead and add nuance as you desire, I'm genuinely interested.

 

WRT the far right, attacks by them and (probably) left-wing related violence has increased under his administration. Does he bear no responsibility for that?

 

I can only speak for myself here, but I distinctly remember talking about Ngo with either you or someone else and remarking how terrible it was - I can find the post in question if you like.

There was no outrage about it and the rise of left wing violence is not as important for you as right wing violence. But i think you're a good and reasonable chap so i know of course you condemn all kinds of violence. I just find it interesting you dont seem as vocal about violence on the left

 

This article states quite briefly and better than I why the Paris agreement is not all its cracked up to be

 

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/4-reasons-trump-was-right-pull-out-the-paris-agreement

[Guest SO1]

12 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I dont live there of course so you know better than me what its like. I guess nothing changes quickly but the guy has only had a couple of years in office. Surely positive effects wouldnt be apparent for some years anyway?

 

Are there other statistics suggesting otherwise?

I don't look at statistics to observe the world around me to be honest. Manipulation is to easy.

I voted for Trump based on what he had campaigned on. So far by what I see nothing has changed.

My country is still a warmongering POS exploited by the Evil Rich. I won't be voting again. Fraud is rampant.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, SO1 said:

I don't look at statistics to observe the world around me to be honest. Manipulation is to easy.

I voted for Trump based on what he had campaigned on. So far by what I see nothing has changed.

My country is still a warmongering POS exploited by the Evil Rich. I won't be voting again. Fraud is rampant.

Whenever you post i feel like we're fellow travellers but at the same time differ greatly  curious one

 

I do appreciate the flexibility of your position, you voted for Trump and are also very willing to criticise him. Not dogmatic. Its not so common these days

 

Isnt he a pretty anti war president, relatively? Do you appreciate that about him? Or do you think he's not anti war really?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

There was no outrage about it and the rise of left wing violence is not as important for you as right wing violence. But i think you're a good and reasonable chap so i know of course you condemn all kinds of violence. I just find it interesting you dont seem as vocal about violence on the left

 

This article states quite briefly and better than I why the Paris agreement is not all its cracked up to be

 

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/4-reasons-trump-was-right-pull-out-the-paris-agreement

The Paris Agreement certainly had and has its flaws - lack of enforcement and transparency being two of them, as well as some rather salient points the articles makes (though it falls into the classic trap of assuming market-based solutions will solve a problem that extends beyond the end of a human lifetime - spoiler alert; it won't). However, it's the symbolism of the withdrawal that was most important IMO - simply going out and (this is the important part) not coming forward with an action plan to replace it that would actually be effective in their view strongly suggests this administration don't care for the effort of looking after the environmental future.

 

....any viewpoints on the other environmental issues listed besides Paris?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The Paris Agreement certainly had and has its flaws - lack of enforcement and transparency being two of them, as well as some rather salient points the articles makes (though it falls into the classic trap of assuming market-based solutions will solve a problem that extends beyond the end of a human lifetime - spoiler alert; it won't). However, it's the symbolism of the withdrawal that was most important IMO - simply going out and (this is the important part) not coming forward with an action plan to replace it that would actually be effective in their view strongly suggests this administration don't care for the effort of looking after the environmental future.

 

....any viewpoints on the other environmental issues listed besides Paris?

The paris agreement seems like it would negatively effect the poorest in society, which is a gripe the environmentalists seem to ignore happily and that bothers me

 

I havent read about the other ones, would need to look it up. I am always supsicious about taking these things at face value because usually on close examination the anti Trump rhetoric withers under the light so often

 

Dems trying to blame him for issues at the border despite them causing massive issues by denying the crisis and delaying the funding being a stark case in point. Their policies and rhetoric are seriously dangerous but they want to be political about it and pin it on Trump

Edited 15 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Guest SO1]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Whenever you post i feel like we're fellow travellers but at the same time differ greatly  curious one

 

I do appreciate the flexibility of your position, you voted for Trump and are also very willing to criticise him. Not dogmatic. Its not so common these days

 

Isnt he a pretty anti war president, relatively? Do you appreciate that about him? Or do you think he's not anti war really?

Thank you I always like to have discussions not arguments.

Anti war? Afghanistan Syria Iraq etc.-Put in pull out put in pull out put in...............Who knows I hope he's wearing a condom.

and now he wants to put it in to Venezuela. Makes me sick actually. Hope Russia, China, India, and Iran will put an end to it to be honest.

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

The paris agreement seems like it would negatively effect the poorest in society, which is a gripe the environmentalists seem to ignore happily and that bothers me

 

I havent read about the other ones, would need to look it up. I am always supsicious about taking these things at face value because usually on close examination the anti Trump rhetoric withers under the light so often

 

Dems trying to blame him for issues at the border despite them causing massive issues by denying the crisis and delaying the funding being a stark case in point. Their policies and rhetoric are seriously dangerous but they want to be political about it and pin it on Trump

Please do, if you have time.

 

I honestly believe on some of the above this administration actually has zero defence and I don't get why the future of the world we live in in terms of survivability is a political issue so I would be interested if you either agree or could supply some counterpoints.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Please do, if you have time.

 

I honestly believe on some of the above this administration actually has zero defence and I don't get why the future of the world we live in in terms of survivability is a political issue so I would be interested if you either agree or could supply some counterpoints.

Will look it up and read some articles about those points when I can