President Trump & the USA

[Nick]

https://www.inverse.com/article/26292-donald-trump-impeachment-odds

 

Odds on impeachment are now 10/11 - probably a rubbish source but they've had 5 times the money on him not seeing out his full term than him doing so.

 

Gives us a hopeful break in my assessment from trawling miserably through our Hodgson / Pardew / Pulis odds nightmare.

[thursday_next]

How did he manage to stay Presidential during his speech to Congress the other day - a lot more Presidential than he has been doing - while at the same time treating the whole thing like Jeremy Kyle?

 

Presenting a Rare Disease Survivor while lambasting the Food & Drug Administration, a third grade school drop-out who's now become the first member of her family to graduate from college through the tax credit scholarship programme, the families of the police officers who've been shot by 'bad hombres', and the reliably crying widow of a special forces operative who has been killed 'battling against terrorism and securing our nation', which turns out to have been in Yemen, along with Saudi Arabia.

 

What have these people done, other than being Trump supporters? I sympathise with all their situations, but the right way to do this is not parading them through Congress to get a few sympathetic heads nodding in the Republican ranks. The nerve of the man. He's got no shame. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[Thracian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

No disagreement there. I wish there was a truly unbiased news source out there that just presented the facts, but sadly it's always open to human interpretation.

 

In my own opinion though, the Beeb actually isn't too far away from impartial in terms of its reporting (rather than it's reporters) and so is better than most.

Your first sentence is fine, the second shows you're not necessarily paying attention.

 

Bias, political manipulation and the self-serving agendas are everywhere. In such things as who has the last or longest word, who is questioned most awkwardly, who is interrupted most,loaded audiences (which have been well documented) and so on.    

 

My stance has nothing to do with my views on Trump as such but the massive control and influence the media exerts on people's thinking. When Rincey talks of better care for the sick, the needy and the underprivileged kids of course it matters - and massive amounts are already spent - but his attempt at tearjerking leaves me cold..

 

But where do you draw the line? 

 

When do you say the hard-working people and risk-takers have paid enough to support ineffeciently run systems that are often paying way over the top for goods, services and salaries?

 

How much should it cost to keep frail old men and women (who often eat very little) in a multi-roomed care home that  can be so easily and economically serviced? Yet costs seem to be enormous.   

 

Genuine poverty and ill health touches me deeply.

 

But when you weigh the genuine alongside the phoney or contrived (by various means) you realise the tearjerk statistics relating to the poor and underprivileged are questionable, sometimes to the point of fiction.                 

 

And what about the health tourism? Not only do incomers get treated often to the detriment of UK citizens who've paid into the system, but we don't get the incomer's countries to pay in advance for their citizens' treatment and we haven't seemed bothered about collecting millions of pounds which has therefore becomes owed to us (a situation now, supposedly being addressed) but which is money that needs to be collected and properly utilised.    

 

Yet go onto a GP site and listen to the political posturing - it's truly beyond belief and about as red as the Liverpool shirts yet often from people already pocketing six-figure annual salaries with more for the extras such as locum/lecturing/overtime or promotional work.  

 

And how they scream and shout against the very thought of the immigration doors closing on potential NHS and care staff from abroad with no apparent concern for staffing in the countries those people come from, nor the costs, effects and security risks..

 

The hypocrisy has to be believed but the tearjerking continues apace along with the continual call for more money, more staff, more provision, - and to hell with the consequences of various kinds.

 

Why should slaving chefs, waitresses and bus drivers work up to 80 hours a week and pay still more in tax, insurance and bus lane fines etc to fund these ever increasing demands when many can't even buy their own homes as it is?

 

And why should more woods and playing fields and other open spaces be destroyed? Why don't we train our own staff (more robustly) and limit care demands to something much more manageable?    

 

Because our country right now is  driving a gravy train.

 

Yet Rincey seems to say keep spending, whatever the cost.

 

I wonder what he'd say if he was paying. And even more so if he himself was being charged the earth for something like a saline drip or for a couple of bedside lights to be rewired.

 

Caring politics shouldn't be about red or blue but about making good decisions and providing best practice for a good value price. And that's what the media should be looking out for - not the promotion of their own often misguided agendas. 

.          

Edited 3 March 2017 by Thracian

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, Smudge said:

I watch BBC America most evenings and I can confirm that what you say about the BBC and Trump certainly rings true. Jon Sopel reported nightly on the election campaign and it was very obvious to me that his support was behind Clinton. His reporting since the election seems to be in the same vein. I couldn't say if it's from a political standpoint or a personal view of the man. 

 

Having said that, apart from the Fox channels, all of the other networks seem to have a similar bias.

Maybe Sopel et al have the experience and education and knowledge of American politics to see beyond the rhetoric and the chest thumping narcissism and understand what the man truly is, a rich, white redneck who craves and now has, power.

.

 

 

[bovril]

I can't imagine journalists are going to be huge supporters of someone who denigrates them and their profession at every available opportunity.

[Merging Cultures]

No disagreement there. I wish there was a truly unbiased news source out there that just presented the facts, but sadly it's always open to human interpretation.
 
In my own opinion though, the Beeb actually isn't too far away from impartial in terms of its reporting (rather than it's reporters) and so is better than most.

C Span radio pretty much does. They just report the news and then allow people to call in and express their views unhindered.

There are some real idiots who phone in and the presenters don't correct them. You can say nearly whatever you want about a news story. They have an equal number of calls from dems, repubs and indies.

It's a fascinating glimpse in to a terrifying world of stupidity.

[Smudge]

40 minutes ago, bovril said:

I can't imagine journalists are going to be huge supporters of someone who denigrates them and their profession at every available opportunity.

Maybe I'm missing the point of this debate but from what I was reading, we are talking about what is the role of the media and whether it is biased

 

The BBC had reputation for reporting the news without coloration. Indeed during WW2 it was purported to be the only source of reliable information.

 

However, in the recent past it seems that the news and it's journalists have moved away from just reporting the facts to having an opinion about them.

 

I for one don't need an educated or mop head reporter trying to influence my judgement. Give me the facts and I'll decide what to think.

 

Just to clarify, I didn't vote for Trump, although I could have. That's my choice based on my opinion.

Edited 3 March 2017 by Smudge

[Webbo]

Whether you think the journalists are correct to dislike Trump that's not their job and none of you would  happy if they were biased in his favour.

[Nick]

30 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Whether you think the journalists are correct to dislike Trump that's not their job and none of you would  happy if they were biased in his favour.

 

 

Correct - that'd be like watching FOX news and that's like worse than the Daily Mail.

[Nick]

3 hours ago, Thracian said:

Your first sentence is fine, the second shows you're not necessarily paying attention.

 

Bias, political manipulation and the self-serving agendas are everywhere. In such things as who has the last or longest word, who is questioned most awkwardly, who is interrupted most,loaded audiences (which have been well documented) and so on.    

 

My stance has nothing to do with my views on Trump as such but the massive control and influence the media exerts on people's thinking. When Rincey talks of better care for the sick, the needy and the underprivileged kids of course it matters - and massive amounts are already spent - but his attempt at tearjerking leaves me cold..

 

But where do you draw the line? 

 

When do you say the hard-working people and risk-takers have paid enough to support ineffeciently run systems that are often paying way over the top for goods, services and salaries?

 

How much should it cost to keep frail old men and women (who often eat very little) in a multi-roomed care home that  can be so easily and economically serviced? Yet costs seem to be enormous.   

 

Genuine poverty and ill health touches me deeply.

 

But when you weigh the genuine alongside the phoney or contrived (by various means) you realise the tearjerk statistics relating to the poor and underprivileged are questionable, sometimes to the point of fiction.                 

 

And what about the health tourism? Not only do incomers get treated often to the detriment of UK citizens who've paid into the system, but we don't get the incomer's countries to pay in advance for their citizens' treatment and we haven't seemed bothered about collecting millions of pounds which has therefore becomes owed to us (a situation now, supposedly being addressed) but which is money that needs to be collected and properly utilised.    

 

Yet go onto a GP site and listen to the political posturing - it's truly beyond belief and about as red as the Liverpool shirts yet often from people already pocketing six-figure annual salaries with more for the extras such as locum/lecturing/overtime or promotional work.  

 

And how they scream and shout against the very thought of the immigration doors closing on potential NHS and care staff from abroad with no apparent concern for staffing in the countries those people come from, nor the costs, effects and security risks..

 

The hypocrisy has to be believed but the tearjerking continues apace along with the continual call for more money, more staff, more provision, - and to hell with the consequences of various kinds.

 

Why should slaving chefs, waitresses and bus drivers work up to 80 hours a week and pay still more in tax, insurance and bus lane fines etc to fund these ever increasing demands when many can't even buy their own homes as it is?

 

And why should more woods and playing fields and other open spaces be destroyed? Why don't we train our own staff (more robustly) and limit care demands to something much more manageable?    

 

Because our country right now is  driving a gravy train.

 

Yet Rincey seems to say keep spending, whatever the cost.

 

I wonder what he'd say if he was paying. And even more so if he himself was being charged the earth for something like a saline drip or for a couple of bedside lights to be rewired.

 

Caring politics shouldn't be about red or blue but about making good decisions and providing best practice for a good value price. And that's what the media should be looking out for - not the promotion of their own often misguided agendas. 

.          

 

This is the Trump thread - there's a preachy I've had a drink politics thread somewhere for this err stuff.

[Webbo]

11 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

Correct - that'd be like watching FOX news and that's like worse than the Daily Mail.

The media in America doesn't pretend to be neutral, which is fair enough, that's allowed in their system. The BBC is supposed to be.

 

It's counter productive anyway. The fact is even when they're in the right people don't believe them because they know they're biased.

[Rincewind]

14 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

This is the Trump thread - there's a preachy I've had a drink politics thread somewhere for this err stuff.

It appears that I own a multi million corporation earning 150 million profit last year and paid no corporation tax.

 

After 50 years working and paying into the system it seems that I have turned into a lazy bastard robbing others of the £170pw that I receive. I'm sorry for not working still for £120 on ZHC or part time then dropping dead before reaching 70.

I am not offended by the personal attacks. I find them amusing.

 

With Trump and the USA I would imagine there are a few backhanders going about and you have to be naive not to realise this. 

Money talks as they say/

Edited 4 March 2017 by Rincewind

[leicsmac]

16 hours ago, Webbo said:

The media in America doesn't pretend to be neutral, which is fair enough, that's allowed in their system. The BBC is supposed to be.

 

It's counter productive anyway. The fact is even when they're in the right people don't believe them because they know they're biased.

Then that is an issue with the cognitive dissonance of the viewer, not the organisation itself. If Fox or (shudder) Breitbart get one right I'll spit about it but I'll acknowledge it.

 

In the meantime...http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/02/so-far-rate-of-hate-crimes-in-2017-outpacing-2016-109621

 

Interesting juxtaposition within Trumps support here: you've got the evangelists who are keen on Israel and Judaism (Second Coming and all) who are probably aghast at this, and then you've got the classical WASPs/channer atheist-conservatives who have never been keen on them and whose foot support is probably responsible for this. Might lead to some infighting down the line.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Then that is an issue with the cognitive dissonance of the viewer, not the organisation itself. If Fox or (shudder) Breitbart get one right I'll spit about it but I'll acknowledge it.

 

Would you? If anyone puts a link to the Mail on here it's laughed at before anyone's read it ( maybe not you). If a media outlet has a different view to people it's dismissed automatically.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

Would you? If anyone puts a link to the Mail on here it's laughed at before anyone's read it ( maybe not you). If a media outlet has a different view to people it's dismissed automatically.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a problem on all sides, no denying that. People don't like doing work to corroborate.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39167110

 

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so clearly a distraction tactic.

[m4DD0gg]

Bet the lefties on this website hate the fact he is in power.

[Merging Cultures]

Well, this relates to a story a few months old, that hasn't gained traction probably because the meat of the story has been released, likely because it is part of a investigation still.

 

The gist is that the Government tried to get a warrant to monitor Trump, it was rejected, so they applied for a more focused warrant. That was granted. What they found was a server in Trump tower was monitored. It was pinging a server at Alfa bank (Russian, surprise!!). It was the only traffic on that server in Trump tower. So far, they haven't said what was being sent, likely encoded emails (so they might not have broken them). But it is pretty odd, and I am sure they have more info.

 

Edit, in terms of being a distraction, it is likely that Trump is preempting a news story and trying to discredit it before it is published.

Edited 4 March 2017 by Merging Cultures

[Trav Le Bleu]

38 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Bet the lefties on this website hate the fact he is in power.

 Lefties would be unhappy with any Republican president. So not sure what your point is.

[m4DD0gg]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 Lefties would be unhappy with any Republican president. So not sure what your point is.

Because i am glad he is as president and it makes me laugh my ass off that the incredibly nauseating liberal tone of this website cant stand it.....add to that brexit as well.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, m4DD0gg said:

Bet the lefties on this website hate the fact he is in power.

51 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Because i am glad he is as president and it makes me laugh my ass off that the incredibly nauseating liberal tone of this website cant stand it.....add to that brexit as well.

Aren't you the guy who was complaining about this place being cliquey in another thread?  No wonder you think so if that's how you approach conversations you silly billy.

 

Personally I'm less worried about him having different views to me and more worried about his obvious general incompetence ("who knew healthcare could be so complicated?"), his Orwellian disdain for free press ("VERY FAKE NEWS") and his constant touting of easily disprovable 'facts' (crowd size, crime rate, most of his claims about terrorist activity in general, his claim in the recent address to congress about most terrorist acts on US soil being committed by foreign jihadis, etc.), it just never seems to stop.

 

And that's not even mentioning the unsavoury Russia business or the bizarrely secret tax returns.  A President shouldn't have this much scandal surrounding him before people even try discussing his many controversial policies and that's why I can't see him lasting a full term.

Edited 4 March 2017 by Carl the Llama

[m4DD0gg]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Aren't you the guy who was complaining about this place being cliquey in another thread?  No wonder you think so if that's how you approach conversations you silly billy.

 

 

And there is the proof....if i wrote something like that, i would be banned for circa 5 days

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

And there is the proof....if i wrote something like that, i would be banned for circa 5 days

You have previous for being a massive twat though. So......

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, m4DD0gg said:

And there is the proof....if i wrote something like that, i would be banned for circa 5 days

You're being silly again.  I guarantee that you wouldn't be banned for calling a guy a "silly billy" because he made condescending and antagonistic partisan comments a day after complaining about this place being cliquey.  

 

If you've been banned before, maybe you should look at whichever posts caused it (them?) and reflect on what the reason behind it is and try to adapt your behaviour accordingly.  Don't get arsey with me about it.  Believe it or not I got banned a while back and it was a fair cop, I've not repeated that sort of comment since.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, m4DD0gg said:

Because i am glad he is as president and it makes me laugh my ass off that the incredibly nauseating liberal tone of this website cant stand it.....add to that brexit as well.

If you can't stand the tone of the website you could always, you know... not browse the website.