President Trump & the USA

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

it's hard not to get outraged. There's history of him sharing time and friendship with child rapists. 

Well, maybe, but Clinton had a much more involved relationship with Epstein, so surely Hilary would be a worse offender in that regard and Trump is perhaps less associated than she?  So by that criteria you must be pleased she didnt win

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Just one of these scandals would have killed off any other President or ended any other politician’s career. The outrage just does not work on Trump, it never did. And while everyone’s getting outraged about the new vile thing he did or said, he’s in the Oval Office with a hard on laughing his arse off. 

 

And people fall for it every ****ing time. 

 

Stop getting outraged. Stop giving him what he wants. Stop calling him a racist, stop calling him a fascist. None of it works and it only emboldens the cvnt and his craziest supporters. 

But if his remarks went unchallenged then his supporters would feel emboldened too because they'd assume everyone tacitly agrees with him. I see the logic of not giving attention-seeking pricks attention, but the man is the President of the United States of America - not some shock jock gobshite on the internet. If people stop criticising every crass, racist, xenophobic remark he makes, then we as western society are accepting that it is normal behaviour for someone who holds his office. It isn't, it's fvcking deplorable.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Just one of these scandals would have killed off any other President or ended any other politician’s career. The outrage just does not work on Trump, it never did. And while everyone’s getting outraged about the new vile thing he did or said, he’s in the Oval Office with a hard on laughing his arse off. 

 

And people fall for it every ****ing time. 

 

Stop getting outraged. Stop giving him what he wants. Stop calling him a racist, stop calling him a fascist. None of it works and it only emboldens the cvnt and his craziest supporters. 

 

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

But if his remarks went unchallenged then his supporters would feel emboldened too because they'd assume everyone tacitly agrees with him. I see the logic of not giving attention-seeking pricks attention, but the man is the President of the United States of America - not some shock jock gobshite on the internet. If people stop criticising every crass, racist, xenophobic remark he makes, then we as western society are accepting that it is normal behaviour for someone who holds his office. It isn't, it's fvcking deplorable.

A rare situation where IMO the argument and counterargument are both equally valid.

[Carl the Llama]

20 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Just one of these scandals would have killed off any other President or ended any other politician’s career. The outrage just does not work on Trump, it never did. And while everyone’s getting outraged about the new vile thing he did or said, he’s in the Oval Office with a hard on laughing his arse off. 

 

And people fall for it every ****ing time. 

 

Stop getting outraged. Stop giving him what he wants. Stop calling him a racist, stop calling him a fascist. None of it works and it only emboldens the cvnt and his craziest supporters. 

I don't entirely disagree but as Voll says, this is a bit different to laughing off some randomer's attention-seeking antics.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

56 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

What does discontinuing the camps mean?  No borders?

 

And I like how you have completely avoided acknowledging how shitty it was of her to use the phrase Never Again, which is synonymous with the holocaust.  That alone could be said to incite the man with the gun who firebombed the place

 

Thats why she couldnt condemn the attack probably, because she would then have to answer questions as to her inflammatory rhetoric

 

I doubt AOC is aware tbf, think she is just a giant idiot

Ducked out of this one?  @Carl the Llama

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Ducked out of this one?  @Carl the Llama

Ducking, you say?

 

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And by the same token, revoking the Acts and replacing them with something worse (or nothing at all in the case of Paris) is worse than leaving them there. Which is what has happened.

 

Anyway, like I said, I'm going to wait most patiently for a proper discussion on those policies - especially when folks say they want to discuss policy and then choose not to.

 

(I am mostly jesting with this one, you don't have to discuss it further if you don't want to.)

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Ducked out of this one?  @Carl the Llama

I would agree that AOC is responsible for inciting the firebomber to action if you'll agree that Trump is responsible for inflaming James Alex Fields Jr. into driving his car through a crowd of pedestrians, killing a person.  Either you believe rhetoric has consequences or you don't.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Ducking, you say?

 

 

(I am mostly jesting with this one, you don't have to discuss it further if you don't want to.)

Haha, i get you leicsmac

 

The subject within that could be endless couldnt it?  So many factors.  Some people are appalled Trump pulled out of these deals.  But some people have said that the Paris was bad for the US with no real return ecologically

 

And some have said that the ACA actually made things worse, so to pull out of that and not replace it is fine, if you hold that perspective

 

Trump did something nice about kidneys recently apparently, also getting his organs mixed up amusingly enough. A slight improvement to healthcare in america in that field.  I'll give him a brownie point for that

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

I would agree that AOC is responsible for inciting the firebomber to action if you'll agree that Trump is responsible for inflaming James Alex Fields Jr. into driving his car through a crowd of pedestrians, killing a person.  Either you believe rhetoric has consequences or you don't.

What did Trump say that encouraged that guy?  Genuine question because I dont know, it could have been in the news but I missed it because I wasnt paying too much attention in general at the time

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

What did Trump say that encouraged that guy?  Genuine question because I dont know, it could have been in the news but I missed it because I wasnt paying too much attention in general at the time

Are you serious?  He was a big reason why the white supremacists were out in numbers, they all see him as their man in the Whitehouse and while that's true it emboldens their notion that their views are in any way acceptable and worth fighting for.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Are you serious?  He was a big reason why the white supremacists were out in numbers, they all see him as their man in the Whitehouse and while that's true it emboldens their notion that their views are in any way acceptable and worth fighting for.

I'm not being facetious.  I didnt follow this one closely at the time.  Has Trump projected a white supremacist thing?  Got any quotes for that?  Because Richard Spencer came on and said Trump is not for the white nationalist cause.  So not all white supremacists like him obviously.  Although no doubt some do.

 

Did Trump really campaign with that lot in mind?  Seems to me its something the media sticks on him more than anything

 

I'm not flat denying your claim, just asking if there is any tangible evidence in things Trump has said that states alliance with white supremacist views.  I guess one could say his 'bad hombres' kind of thing could be picked up by them.  But its not explicit in that sense, its just saying all these refugees are not innocent angels and security is needed

Edited 18 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[urban.spaceman]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

A rare situation where IMO the argument and counterargument are both equally valid.

 

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't entirely disagree but as Voll says, this is a bit different to laughing off some randomer's attention-seeking antics.

 

14 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

But if his remarks went unchallenged then his supporters would feel emboldened too because they'd assume everyone tacitly agrees with him. I see the logic of not giving attention-seeking pricks attention, but the man is the President of the United States of America - not some shock jock gobshite on the internet. If people stop criticising every crass, racist, xenophobic remark he makes, then we as western society are accepting that it is normal behaviour for someone who holds his office. It isn't, it's fvcking deplorable.

Completely agree with you. He’s not just some shock jock off the internet. He’s an outspoken reality tv billionaire who managed to become the US President on our watch. We need to be asking ourselves how this happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again? The Democrats need to stop playing to his tune and figure out how to beat him next year. Because the way things are going at the minute, if they put up another no-hoper like Hilary against him, he’ll win. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Haha, i get you leicsmac

 

The subject within that could be endless couldnt it?  So many factors.  Some people are appalled Trump pulled out of these deals.  But some people have said that the Paris was bad for the US with no real return ecologically

 

And some have said that the ACA actually made things worse, so to pull out of that and not replace it is fine, if you hold that perspective

 

Trump did something nice about kidneys recently apparently, also getting his organs mixed up amusingly enough. A slight improvement to healthcare in america in that field.  I'll give him a brownie point for that

Paris may well be bad for the US and have no real return ecologically...but even if that is true for it to be shown that this administration actually gives a flying whatever about ecology in the first place it should at least propose a replacement or something similar (or better) that the US could undertake. Since they have not (and it's not likely that they're going to), it's a not unreasonable assumption that they don't give a flying whatever about it.

 

I'd be glad to hear of any policies that this administration have put in place to protect ecology and help the environment as a counterargument, much less one as overarching as a rival to the Paris agreement.

 

The ACA, in my own estimation (though this is only going on what I have read) allowed more people to gain access to healthcare without the fear of getting bankrupted if they needed it; it was certainly bastardised (thanks to Repub blocking meaning it was the only thing that could actually get through Congress) but quite frankly the most prosperous nation on Earth shouldn't be having healthcare outcomes way behind that of many of the other OECD countries anyway - largely caused, it must be said, by endemic poverty due to the social structure (or lack thereof) there.

[Wymsey]

Can a President be summoned to court, or are they rather untouchable'due to their authority (like Trump, it can appear..)?

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

Completely agree with you. He’s not just some shock jock off the internet. He’s an outspoken reality tv billionaire who managed to become the US President on our watch. We need to be asking ourselves how this happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again? The Democrats need to stop playing to his tune and figure out how to beat him next year. Because the way things are going at the minute, if they put up another no-hoper like Hilary against him, he’ll win. 

 

Last I looked, we didn't get a vote in US elections...

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Paris may well be bad for the US and have no real return ecologically...but even if that is true for it to be shown that this administration actually gives a flying whatever about ecology in the first place it should at least propose a replacement or something similar (or better) that the US could undertake. Since they have not (and it's not likely that they're going to), it's a not unreasonable assumption that they don't give a flying whatever about it.

 

I'd be glad to hear of any policies that this administration have put in place to protect ecology and help the environment as a counterargument, much less one as overarching as a rival to the Paris agreement.

 

The ACA, in my own estimation (though this is only going on what I have read) allowed more people to gain access to healthcare without the fear of getting bankrupted if they needed it; it was certainly bastardised (thanks to Repub blocking meaning it was the only thing that could actually get through Congress) but quite frankly the most prosperous nation on Earth shouldn't be having healthcare outcomes way behind that of many of the other OECD countries anyway - largely caused, it must be said, by endemic poverty due to the social structure (or lack thereof) there.

I've been having a read of what Trump has done regarding healthcare.  Here is an article stating he has added options and flexibility to the system which has benefits in that people dont have to také just what the govt. offers, which can result in rising costs for people

 

 According to this its not as straightforward as Trump destroying Medicaid and taking healthcare away from people.  Curious to know if this softens your opinion of him on this issue....

 

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/why-the-left-desperate-sabotage-trumps-health-care-plans

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Paris may well be bad for the US and have no real return ecologically...but even if that is true for it to be shown that this administration actually gives a flying whatever about ecology in the first place it should at least propose a replacement or something similar (or better) that the US could undertake. Since they have not (and it's not likely that they're going to), it's a not unreasonable assumption that they don't give a flying whatever about it.

 

I'd be glad to hear of any policies that this administration have put in place to protect ecology and help the environment as a counterargument, much less one as overarching as a rival to the Paris agreement.

 

The ACA, in my own estimation (though this is only going on what I have read) allowed more people to gain access to healthcare without the fear of getting bankrupted if they needed it; it was certainly bastardised (thanks to Repub blocking meaning it was the only thing that could actually get through Congress) but quite frankly the most prosperous nation on Earth shouldn't be having healthcare outcomes way behind that of many of the other OECD countries anyway - largely caused, it must be said, by endemic poverty due to the social structure (or lack thereof) there.

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/why-trumps-executive-order-health-care-positive-step

 

Same website with an article on his initiatives. 

[urban.spaceman]

34 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Last I looked, we didn't get a vote in US elections...

This is all your fault Buce don't try to run away from it!

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

This is all your fault Buce don't try to run away from it!

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I'm not being facetious.  I didnt follow this one closely at the time.  Has Trump projected a white supremacist thing?  Got any quotes for that?  Because Richard Spencer came on and said Trump is not for the white nationalist cause.  So not all white supremacists like him obviously.  Although no doubt some do.

 

Did Trump really campaign with that lot in mind?  Seems to me its something the media sticks on him more than anything

 

I'm not flat denying your claim, just asking if there is any tangible evidence in things Trump has said that states alliance with white supremacist views.  I guess one could say his 'bad hombres' kind of thing could be picked up by them.  But its not explicit in that sense, its just saying all these refugees are not innocent angels and security is needed

Here's an article where David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK and popular figure of the white supremacist community explicitly talks about fulfilling "the promises of Donald Trump".

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Last I looked, we didn't get a vote in US elections...

If Russia get to vote in it we should be allowed to as well.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Here's an article where David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK and popular figure of the white supremacist community explicitly talks about fulfilling "the promises of Donald Trump".

That does show that Duke interpreted Trump's campaign a certain way. I interpeted it as restoring patriotism and conservative values, not to do with race. Duke obviously felt differently

 

There is no quote there showing anything Trump has said that aligns with white supremacy

 

Interesting in that article David Duke was unhappy with Trump's response which condemned the violence, shows he clearly thought Trump was not defending Duke's cause

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

That does show that Duke interpreted Trump's campaign a certain way. I interpeted it as restoring patriotism and conservative values, not to do with race. Duke obviously felt differently

 

There is no quote there showing anything Trump has said that aligns with white supremacy

 

Interesting in that article David Duke was unhappy with Trump's response which condemned the violence, shows he clearly thought Trump was not defending Duke's cause

He was talking about the condemnation of the Charlottesville violence.  The one that came after failing to condemn it and being put under a lot of pressure to do so.  Trump's reluctance to separate himself from links to white nationalism before eventually having to do so under the thumb of oppressive msm is what gets him their support.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

He was talking about the condemnation of the Charlottesville violence.  The one that came after failing to condemn it and being put under a lot of pressure to do so.  Trump's reluctance to separate himself from links to white nationalism before eventually having to do so under the thumb of oppressive msm is what gets him their support.

He never failed to condemn it. Thats a myth

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

He never failed to condemn it. Thats a myth

He pussyfooted and needed prodding to release a firmer statement.