President Trump & the USA

[Darkon84]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Discussion

I'll have to try and keep this a bit shorter as there are things I need to get back to completing, but it still deserves some form of reply.

 

Hillary: There were certainly things which may have influenced the amount of votes she received, such as voter turnout, but quite simply, I won't have it any other way than she just ran an awful campaign and she was an utterly awful candidate to match. In terms of making things difficult for certain demographics and areas to vote, from the stories I saw at the time, it seemed to be hugely the other way around. I've not seen or read the parts posted by Foxxed but I'll try to go back and have a read when I can. I can't deny that a country as huge and powerful as Russia could easily cover it's own tracks, but that still doesn't mean a thing. Without any actual proof, there's nothing that can be done. On the other hand, the American MSM were ridiculously in favour of Hillary and were trying to influence the election towards her. Now that is something which is nigh-on undeniable surely? Plus there were the undercover exposes taping admissions that the DNC were paying 'Agitator Companies' to recruit, pay, and send people in to Trump rallies to deliberately cause trouble and fights etc.

 

BLM: We should probably leave this for another time as I could write an essay on this and the things wrong with them etc. Perhaps come back at a later date. I will agree that there is still huge race problem in some parts of the US, but most of the rhetoric they spout simply exacerbates it. It didn't help with the pathetic stance Obama took previously, to essentially give them free reign to do as they please and justify their actions. Aaaaaaaanyway. I'll leave that for now.

 

Paris: As leading contributors to emissions etc, those 3 countries should be doing their part reduce impact on the environment. I agree that Trump's energy plans are looking backwards, rather than forwards. They're far too short-termist and won't do their local environment any good, but his rationale for that is probably that it won't actually make a great deal of difference over the next 4 years, and if it helps boost the American economy in that time as well as creating huge amounts of jobs, it's justified as America comes first. I don't think it's that he and his voters simply don't care about the environment. I think it's mainly economic and selfish. As you say, it's totally symbolic, nothing more, as they'll still be tied to the agreement for the next few years. Unfortunately, some anti-science nuts will think they've won, but still, for me, it's posturing to show the USA can do as it pleases, and to try and boost the economy short term. 

 

With regards to the economic side of renewables, I've got a vague recollection that the USA tried to pump loads in to it and got stung badly? That gives Trump the simple ammunition he needs to say what he wants on the subject I guess (even though it's wrong to do so). Also, even though solar photovoltaics are getting cheaper to produce/install etc, they're still pretty rubbish unless used in gigantic fields to power a small area, or until the solar batteries reduce in size, efficiency and cost. The average person is out for the majority of the day so misses out on most of the evergy produced unless they have a battery. I'm not sure if there are any state incentives for renewables in the US etc, but I would hope that if there are, they are run considerably better than the ridiculously implemented RHI scheme we trotted out and then retracted here. At least it made me busy for a short while anyway  

 

It's a shame that Musk (I respect the man and love some of his work, but I just can't bring myself to like him), has walked away from Trump's advisory team over this. I understand why he has, but it can be seen as a cop-out too as he could possibly at least wrangle Trump back on track, even slightly. Destruction of habitat is up there as one of the main things which needs to addressed for me but I won't go in to it now.

 

I've just realised how long this is getting and what time it is, so I'm jumping ship, so the final points are quick...

 

USA Climate Alliance: The ten member states combined make up 30.1% of the US population, 35.3% of US GDP, and 17.8% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions so that's a huge start already. Imagine if say, 10-15 more states get involved in that, that would be almost job done. 

 

Worldwide responses: Not surprised by some of that at all and an easy opportunity for some to put some soundbites out there and make themselves look good and feel smug. (I'd love to punch Justin Trudeau square in the nose).

 

Extra credit point: I read not to long ago an interesting paper regarding carbon emissions, population/economic growth and how they're all linked. Essentially, while countries are still economically growing rapidly, their population has to increase and in turn, their emissions rapidly increase, therefore it will be difficult to keep to global reduction targets without already established countries/economies baring the brunt and going above and beyond. Only after becoming a stable economy and levelling out it's population too can it efficiently reduce emissions etc. It's not about climate denying or anything tin hat like that, just a different way to view the problem which I hadn't considered before.

 

EDIT: Apologies if there's mistakes or poor sentence structure, I lost track a few times and took a call or two midway through.

Edited 2 June 2017 by Darkon84

[UPinCarolina]

@Darkon84

I agree with much of what you said, but as far as BLM and the accusations that there were paid disruptions at Trump rallies, I'm going to have to disagree strongly.

I grew up in Trump country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and outside of a 4 year spell in a blue county in Ohio, have lived in Republican areas (Georgia and North Carolina) since leaving the U.P. in 2008. Trump represents the ugliest side of American life - a sneering, vicious underbelly. Some voted for religion, others for class, still others for race - but nearly all of them voting in a completely self-interested fashion. This self-interest is not the positive diversity of votes that you want in a democratic society, but it's a carnal kind that would sooner find someone kicking their neighbor in the teeth than lending them a hand. The violence at Trump rallies? Some of it is Antifa, but a lot of it is Alt-Right goons and Proud Boys who've felt like they have a new lease on life - American skinheads, if you will. I know a few Antifa well, and these guys aren't being paid. They're legitimately enraged. BLM is a natural response to the racially discriminatory policies that became entrenched during the 1940s housing booms and ghettos that were formed in the aftermath of WWII (and the undeniable legacy of the failures of Reconstruction in the American South + latent white racism) - I don't always agree with BLM but to discount them is to ignore the very real and potent anger they represent.

I say this all as someone who voted Republican until this year's election. Trump's campaign ripped the skin off of this country for me, and I see the corrosion underneath now. He (and not all Republicans are with him, but those that are = morally bankrupt) is an absolute disaster.

Edited 2 June 2017 by UPinCarolina

[Darkon84]

6 minutes ago, UPinCarolina said:

@Darkon84

I agree with much of what you said, but as far as BLM and the accusations that there were paid disruptions at Trump rallies, I'm going to have to disagree strongly.

I grew up in Trump country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and outside of a 4 year spell in a blue county in Ohio, have lived in Republican areas (Georgia and North Carolina) since leaving the U.P. in 2008. Trump represents the ugliest side of American life - a sneering, vicious underbelly. Some voted for religion, others for class, still others for race - but nearly all of them voting in a completely self-interested fashion. This self-interest is not the positive diversity of votes that you want in a democratic society, but it's a carnal kind that would sooner find someone kicking their neighbor in the teeth than lending them a hand. The violence at Trump rallies? Some of it is Antifa, but a lot of it is Alt-Right goons and Proud Boys who've felt like they have a new lease on life - American skinheads, if you will. I know a few Antifa well, and these guys aren't being paid. They're legitimately enraged. BLM is a natural response to the racially discriminatory policies that became entrenched during the 1940s housing booms and ghettos that were formed in the aftermath of WWII (and the undeniable legacy of the failures of Reconstruction in the American South + latent white racism) - I don't always agree with BLM but to discount them is to ignore the very real and potent anger they represent.

I say this all as someone who voted Republican until this year's election. Trump's campaign ripped the skin off of this country for me, and I see the corrosion underneath now. He (and not all Republicans are with him, but those that are = morally bankrupt) is an absolute disaster.

Appreciate the input especially from someone over there. Obviously I don't get to see things 'on the ground' so to speak as you do, or go through the election cycle as you did so I'll take your views on board. I knew and expected many in America to be voting for self serving reasons, as the majority of voters do worldwide. The last election just really seemed to bring out the real bottom feeders on both sides which exacerbated every single issue and seemingly brought out the worst in a lot of people it wouldn't normally have. 

I've no doubt that the alt-right had a hand in provoking and causing problems at riots etc. I thought proud boys were basically just in to fvcking everyone and drinking all the time? I didn't realise they had a violent element to them too. I wasn't really aware of much Antifa violence etc until after the election anyway, but people were getting paid to attend Trump rallies and cause arguments etc to create bad press. There's video evidence of people explaining how it happens and admitting being funded by the DNC to do so. Either way, whoever it was, it's all out of order.

BLM do have some grievences which need to be addressed, of course they do, but burning down your own neighbourhoods, shooting police officers, looting, stealing etc aren't ways to do it. I would be interested in what the racially disciminatory polices are which are still working against them today? That's an honest question, I don't know.

 

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have voted for Trump either and I can see how his election has caused problems, but I think (from an outside view), there have been alot of contributing factors from more than just his campaign. These tensions have obviously been bubbling away under the surface for a very long time.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

Further discussion

 

Thanks for the reply, it deserves a response of its own and right now I think I perhaps have a little more time on my hands than you do.

 

Hillary: I stand by my assertion that gerrymandering was almost certainly a thing (look at the voter boundaries and again the popular vote results in some places for proof there) and that voter suppression through various deniable methods might have been (there's much less proof of that). Also, as you say the MSM was strongly on Hillarys side, then it stands to reason that there was a popular media influence of larger potency on Trumps side to enable his victory. Was that aided by the Russians? Who knows - as we both agree it's never going to get proven and so isn't really going to go anywhere. Did it exist? Almost certainly. 

 

I certainly agree that Hillary ran an awful campaign, but Trumps was little better (have a look at the approval ratings pre election) so I'm still open to the idea that there were possibly other factors at work here.

 

BLM: Alright, we'll leave that one for another time.

 

Paris: I still honestly don't think the juice is worth the squeeze here. The economic changes you mention aren't going to have that significant an effect in just four years (as well as backing the wrong horse on that score anyway, more on that below) and as such there isn't even a good economic reason for doing it: it's just ridiculous posturing in the name of self-interest that won't even work. And the anti-science attitude in the US (fueled of course by the fundie religious lobby over there) concerns me, so them thinking this is a win and it emboldening them concerns me too.

 

The US may or may not have got their fingers burned on renewables such as solar before now, but in the past couple of years the worm has really turned on that score: they are now, or are at least close to, a tipping point where they become more economically viable than most nonrenewables. The proof is there in the reaction towards it around the world now; developing countries are investing in them for that reason, hell: even the oil and gas companies are looking to "diversify"!  As the tech grows and is used by more people, it's only going to get more cost-effective, more efficient and simply better. The US choosing to duck out of that at this point in time (even if it is largely symbolic) is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

I would have liked Musk to stick around and at least try to reason with the WH a little more too, but I think he's evidently tired of trying to convince them in this one and finally decided it's more trouble than it's worth. Damn shame. And yes, habitat destruction through deforestation/pollution does really need to be addressed more.

 

USACA: I would love to see this grow into an organisation that covers the vast majority of US population, emitters and GDP (if not land area). Let's hope that it does.

 

Worldwide responses: Note that it's disappointment mostly and the only ones happy about it are the ones who are thinking only of short-term material gain.

 

Extra point: Yes, that is definitely true. Take the London Fog, for instance, as well as the horrendous state of air pollution in US cities in the 70's-90's. A nation does have to build itself economically before it can take steps to rid itself of the environmental cost that growth has wrought (China is just beginning to turn that corner now). The key thing is today, in this globalised world where alternative methods are becoming cheaper and cheaper, I think it is much more easily possible for nations to access that economic prosperity without so much of the environmental cost of doing so as the more established nations did before them. Yes, they might need some help to get started, but in the long run everyone benefits - there's no place to run from the changes such activity could end up doing, after all; it would be global.

[leicsmac]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-climate-change-us-vice-president-paris-agreement-issue-left-for-some-reason-donald-trump-a7769081.html

 

And there was me thinking that because air and water move around and rising temperature affects land everywhere, that climate change might, just might...be an issue for everyone down the line?

[ithuriel]

Found this, a little out of date but .

 

Edited 3 June 2017 by ithuriel

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40128304

 

Interesting summation.

 

One thing though: if the White House was so annoyed about the "leaks" of British intel to the media, then who leaked it to them in the first place? Had to come from somewhere near the top.

[China Black]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40128304

 

Interesting summation.

 

One thing though: if the White House was so annoyed about the "leaks" of British intel to the media, then who leaked it to them in the first place? Had to come from somewhere near the top.

Donald Trump

[Vacamion]

 

When he comes to the UK on his proposed state visit later this year, they are going to have to treat it like the heavily protested G7 meetings. Maybe hold it on a remote island or something.

 

He won't be exposed anywhere near to the general public. He just can't be. There will be massive demonstrations against him.

 

He was already pretty much universally reviled here. The climate stuff and the Sadiq Khan stuff just make it ten times worse.

 

Hell, I am normally Mr Political Apathy, but if he came anywhere near Scotland, I think I'd make a banner and join the protesters.

 

 

[China Black]

We shouldn't give Trump a state visit.

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

When he comes to the UK on his proposed state visit later this year, they are going to have to treat it like the heavily protested G7 meetings. Maybe hold it on a remote island or something.

 

He won't be exposed anywhere near to the general public. He just can't be. There will be massive demonstrations against him.

 

He was already pretty much universally reviled here. The climate stuff and the Sadiq Khan stuff just make it ten times worse.

 

Hell, I am normally Mr Political Apathy, but if he came anywhere near Scotland, I think I'd make a banner and join the protesters.

If he comes on a state visit I'd imagine Windsor and Scotland would be his destinations rather than London given his family connection.

[Nick]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

If he comes on a state visit I'd imagine Windsor and Scotland would be his destinations rather than London given his family connection.

There will be some fairly large scale protests so I do think they'll try and keep him away from populated areas!

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

There will be some fairly large scale protests so I do think they'll try and keep him away from populated areas!

This.

 

Also...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40173472

 

Interesting; in this discussion about countries that have bad human rights records there was one the US failed to mention. Which, oddly enough, is also one which they do a vast amount of various business with in the Middle East. As does the UK. Funny that.

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

Also...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40173472

 

Interesting; in this discussion about countries that have bad human rights records there was one the US failed to mention. Which, oddly enough, is also one which they do a vast amount of various business with in the Middle East. As does the UK. Funny that.

 

 

I think we do arms related business with 22 out of 30 countries which our currently on our own Human Rights watch list which is an irresponsible fvcking disgrace really.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

I think we do arms related business with 22 out of 30 countries which our currently on our own Human Rights watch list which is an irresponsible fvcking disgrace really.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

 

2

Nope. Just realpolitik - the way the world works, isn't it?

 

Apparently.

[Nick]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Nope. Just realpolitik - the way the world works, isn't it?

 

Apparently.

Yep until somebody is brave enough to stand up and change it rather than put cash before lives.

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

Also...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40173472

 

Interesting; in this discussion about countries that have bad human rights records there was one the US failed to mention. Which, oddly enough, is also one which they do a vast amount of various business with in the Middle East. As does the UK. Funny that.

 

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

I think we do arms related business with 22 out of 30 countries which our currently on our own Human Rights watch list which is an irresponsible fvcking disgrace really.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

 

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nope. Just realpolitik - the way the world works, isn't it?

 

Apparently.

 

Just now, Webbo would say if he was online:

 

"We'd lose thousands of jobs and they will just buy them from someone else..".

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yep until somebody is brave enough to stand up and change it rather than put cash before lives.

Pretty much.

[Nick]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

Just now, Webbo would say if he was online:

 

"We'd lose thousands of jobs and they will just buy them from someone else..".

Yeah and if I stopped killing people in the street it would be futile as another crazy fool would only take my place.....

 

[Detroit Blues]

On 6/2/2017 at 10:27, UPinCarolina said:

@Darkon84

I agree with much of what you said, but as far as BLM and the accusations that there were paid disruptions at Trump rallies, I'm going to have to disagree strongly.

I grew up in Trump country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and outside of a 4 year spell in a blue county in Ohio, have lived in Republican areas (Georgia and North Carolina) since leaving the U.P. in 2008. Trump represents the ugliest side of American life - a sneering, vicious underbelly. Some voted for religion, others for class, still others for race - but nearly all of them voting in a completely self-interested fashion. This self-interest is not the positive diversity of votes that you want in a democratic society, but it's a carnal kind that would sooner find someone kicking their neighbor in the teeth than lending them a hand. The violence at Trump rallies? Some of it is Antifa, but a lot of it is Alt-Right goons and Proud Boys who've felt like they have a new lease on life - American skinheads, if you will. I know a few Antifa well, and these guys aren't being paid. They're legitimately enraged. BLM is a natural response to the racially discriminatory policies that became entrenched during the 1940s housing booms and ghettos that were formed in the aftermath of WWII (and the undeniable legacy of the failures of Reconstruction in the American South + latent white racism) - I don't always agree with BLM but to discount them is to ignore the very real and potent anger they represent.

I say this all as someone who voted Republican until this year's election. Trump's campaign ripped the skin off of this country for me, and I see the corrosion underneath now. He (and not all Republicans are with him, but those that are = morally bankrupt) is an absolute disaster.

I can't believe it took me this long to put your name together .

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

There will be some fairly large scale protests so I do think they'll try and keep him away from populated areas!

Of course, but it's nothing that we haven't handled before, we've have mass protests and you would hope people would show a little common sense this time given the state of the nation and police resources.

 

Trump will love it anyway, nothing titillates a right-winger more than knowing there are thousands of lefties on the streets so upset they are protesting at them, if I were him I'd take the car down the route they were on.

 

23 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I think we do arms related business with 22 out of 30 countries which our currently on our own Human Rights watch list which is an irresponsible fvcking disgrace really.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

 

21 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yep until somebody is brave enough to stand up and change it rather than put cash before lives.

It's time we did with the Saud's, for many reasons, some we have seen over the last few weeks, but you can almost guarantee virtually every single person who promotes and demands we stop selling things to evil regimes will then be the ones complaining and moaning about lack of money for public services when the tax take decreases from it.

 

Hopefully people will one day realise we have to do this morally and accept we'll have a bit less to spend on ourselves but it's a price worth paying.

[Nick]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course, but it's nothing that we haven't handled before, we've have mass protests and you would hope people would show a little common sense this time given the state of the nation and police resources.

 

Trump will love it anyway, nothing titillates a right-winger more than knowing there are thousands of lefties on the streets so upset they are protesting at them, if I were him I'd take the car down the route they were on.

 

 

It's time we did with the Saud's, for many reasons, some we have seen over the last few weeks, but you can almost guarantee virtually every single person who promotes and demands we stop selling things to evil regimes will then be the ones complaining and moaning about lack of money for public services when the tax take decreases from it.

 

Hopefully people will one day realise we have to do this morally and accept we'll have a bit less to spend on ourselves but it's a price worth paying.

 

 

Fvcking hell Matt, lets not start agreeing on stuff, Christ.

 

[Buce]

29 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

Fvcking hell Matt, lets not start agreeing on stuff, Christ.

 

 

Scary, isn't it?

[Carl the Llama]

I swear Matt's a closet Corybnista.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

Just now, Webbo would say if he was online:

 

"We'd lose thousands of jobs and they will just buy them from someone else..".

Well they would buy them from someone else so it would be pointless. If the Saudi govt fell there'd be an ISIS type govt to replace them, blackmailing the world by threatening to with hold oil supplies. At least we have a little bit of influence over atm.

 

Why would you want to make a pointless gesture that will cost jobs and would probably make things worse?