You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
^^ I read a funny reply/retweet saying "BREAKING NEWS: The Washington DC 4th of July party will be held this year on July 4th!!"
In otherwords, what's the big difference with this & a regular DC 4th of July?! Don't all cities pretty much throw some sort of gala?
Re: US Politics Thread
The difference is a narcissist that many people hate for no logical reason posted it, so it's an opportunity for ridicule. Shit like this thread is exactly why we are where we are and exactly why Trump won an election that he never should have been in much less won. The blind hatred isn't accomplishing anything it's intended to do. It's just feeding his supporters.
What's also a little ironic is right now the Democratic party isn't far off from where the Republican party was said to be not too long before the election. Chaos. Division within the ranks. Extremists taking control. It will be interesting to see how it plays out for them. My guess is if they try to go too far down the socialism road, they will get squashed. There are a lot of people that are Democrats that understand that won't work and that there's no math that can make it work. Eventually they will abandon the party or at the very least not show up to support it if they push that too far. If Bernie's people hadn't abandoned Hillary, she would be President right now. I'm not sure we'd be any better or any worse off than we are now, but things would certainly have been different.
The political machine is just a wheel that keeps spinning. One side wins, doom is declared for the other. Bad stuff happens when that side has complete control and we shift back to the other side. The same thing happens over and over, yet nobody can seem to have sense enough to see that and/or do anything about it to balance things out. We can't have full Republican control any more than we can have full Democratic control. Neither is good. This swinging out of control back and forth isn't good either. I've said this over and over in different ways, but we're all screwed until enough people understand what is actually happening.
Re: US Politics Thread
The difference is a narcissist that many people hate for no logical reason posted it, so it's an opportunity for ridicule. Shit like this thread is exactly why we are where we are and exactly why Trump won an election that he never should have been in much less won. The blind hatred isn't accomplishing anything it's intended to do. It's just feeding his supporters.
What's also a little ironic is right now the Democratic party isn't far off from where the Republican party was said to be not too long before the election. Chaos. Division within the ranks. Extremists taking control. It will be interesting to see how it plays out for them. My guess is if they try to go too far down the socialism road, they will get squashed. There are a lot of people that are Democrats that understand that won't work and that there's no math that can make it work. Eventually they will abandon the party or at the very least not show up to support it if they push that too far. If Bernie's people hadn't abandoned Hillary, she would be President right now. I'm not sure we'd be any better or any worse off than we are now, but things would certainly have been different.
The political machine is just a wheel that keeps spinning. One side wins, doom is declared for the other. Bad stuff happens when that side has complete control and we shift back to the other side. The same thing happens over and over, yet nobody can seem to have sense enough to see that and/or do anything about it to balance things out. We can't have full Republican control any more than we can have full Democratic control. Neither is good. This swinging out of control back and forth isn't good either. I've said this over and over in different ways, but we're all screwed until enough people understand what is actually happening.
Isn't it also ironic that the socialist/communist countries of the world are manipulating us and affecting our elections with their propaganda? Also ironic that they're stealing our technologies with simple hacks?
I have hard time learning any lessons right now or over the past 2 years. This disgusting country elected an absolute low life as president. His supporters are so brain dead that they thing Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are two different things. There's not arguing with these morons.
I just take solace that while they continue to support him, they get fucked in direct ways. They are getting exactly what they deserve. And they behave like children about it. As long as they have their parades and rage rallies all across American, they're happy.
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote:What has trump accomplished other than this tax cut and all this nonsense at the border?
How about instead of someone posting some figure, say unemployment and average wage, and everyone arguing if it’s Trump or Obama or Jesus, you tell me what’s gotten worse.
Like how your life is demonstrably worse in the past 2 years independent of whatever mental anger/angst the reality of a Democrat not being in office has resulted in.
Internationally, it’s not even a contest. By any metric other than how many world leaders in Europe speak favorably of our president, our position is stronger. Sanctions in Russia have been implemented under Trump. We’ve armed the Ukraine to stand up against Russian aggression under Obama. China has agreed to a brand new trade deal that allegedly protects American IP. Mexico and Canada have agreed to a new NAFTA. North Korea hasn’t fired a missle in almost two years and have at least come to the table. ISIS has largely been removed, an entire organization that entirely created under Obama’s watch due to his pullout of Iraq and refusal to acknowledge ISIS as a threat for years. Trump owns all of that, because his policy people made that happen. We pulled out of a non-binding climate accord and removed our support from the Iran deal that was bipartisanly opposed by Senators and would never have been ratified.
Obama gave up control of the internet to the international community, directly created ISIS through his Iraq policy and “JV Team” comments when they first moved into Syria. He allowed Russia to annex territories of two countries and influence our 2016 election. North Korea developed an ICBM and was firing missiles every other week. China continued to expand into the South China Sea unimpeded and flaunt US copyright laws. His actions in Libya directly led to the Arab Spring that resulted in radical Islam movements to grab power in multiple ME nations. He was president while Osama Bin Laden was killed by Navy Seals.
Trump’s foreign policy chapter isn’t finished, so he could totally botch it. But I don’t see how anyone can argue our standing isn’t objectively better in nearly every metric save likability.
So tell me domestically, how you’re worse off under Trump and not objectively better.
1) "By any metric other than how many world leaders in Europe speak favorably of our president, our position is stronger."
What metric are you using? What European leaders are speaking highly of Trump?2) "Sanctions in Russia have been implemented under Trump."
Here you'll see that this statement is completely inaccurate: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-amer … 50ruw.html
Here as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic … 8f189dee5c
Oh and here: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/425 … -sanctions
Should I go further?
3) "We’ve armed the Ukraine to stand up against Russian aggression under Obama."
Why is this even important? What do you care about Ukriane?4) "China has agreed to a brand new trade deal that allegedly protects American IP"
After doing some research, I see you have VERY LITTLE to back up this claim.
Trump did remove some tariffs: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46413196
5) "Mexico and Canada have agreed to a new NAFTA."
This is pretty funny. NAFTA 2.0 looks a lot like NAFTA 1.0. This is all spin doctoring and an effort to look good in public. A simple claim that "he did it" doesn't do much for me. The changes were minor. Hardly the big change he was touting.
Here's an article saying it's not even popular with congress: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/busi … -deal.html
Tell me more about Obama's executive overreaches.
6) "North Korea hasn’t fired a missile in almost two years and have at least come to the table."
So what? They're still Communist (something I assume you don't support). They're still run by a benevolent dictator. They're still no Democracy there (although I question you really believe in Democracy). All these summits are aimed to do is be fancy PR and photo opps. NK hasn't committed to anything but being legitimized by a US president.
7) "ISIS has largely been removed, an entire organization that entirely created under Obama’s watch due to his pullout of Iraq and refusal to acknowledge ISIS as a threat for years."
Here you'll see that they have most definitely not been 'removed': https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … paign=1490
Is this why you believe ISIS is defeated? because Trump said so?: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-says-is … 00178.html
I could go on but I know you won't read it. These claims are nothing more than your opinion. If by success you mean the Trump admin has escalated conflicts that lead to American deaths, then bravo you have me on that point. And you call SLC and others dishonest
How has this personally affected me? None of that shit directly or even indirectly impacts me. The stuff about perpetual global war does nothing for me. All of these things are being done so that the 1% can continue to get richer. NAFTA doesn't impact me, Ukraine doesn't impact me. ISIS is still a legitimate threat to American safety. China will agree to a lot of things eventually that will have little to no impact because we have no way of enforcing these things.
Most importantly, after being told I was going to receive a tax cut, I didn't. Healthcare is still a giant mess. Trump's back in bed with big pharma after saying he was going to stand up to them. There's been no infrastructure. There has been racial tension like never before.
You were saying?
I’d like to bring this back around again...i did exactly what RF wanted me to do. I cited sources to refute almost all of his points.
Where’d he go? And why did he think he could get away with making so many baseless and false claims?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
1) By any metric other than how many world leaders in Europe speak favorably of our president, our position is stronger."
What metric are you using? What European leaders are speaking highly of Trump?
What I wrote, and what you quoted in your own reply is:"By any metric other than how many world leaders in Europe speak favorably of our president, our position is stronger."
You respond with a question about what leaders I think are speaking highly of Trump. You didn't even read what I wrote and missed my argument. It's obvious European leaders dislike Trump. I'm saying that's a meaningless metric to argue Obama was a better President. I care about what they do, not how they feel. Their increased contribution to NATO and their own armies is a great metric to show the disparity.
If you have other metrics to consider, please share. But saying "The EU thinks Trump is an idiot" is meaningless to me. Are they still our ally? Are they pumping more money into NATO? That’s the factors I consider. But I'll state again, if you have an argument on how Trump has done worse on the international stage than Obama, I'm all ears. I'm just not interested in hearing how popular Obama was.
2) "Sanctions in Russia have been implemented under Trump."
Here you'll see that this statement is completely inaccurate: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-amer … 50ruw.html
Here as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic … 8f189dee5c
Oh and here: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/425 … -sanctions
Should I go further?
And? I said, "Sanctions in Russia have been implemented under Trump."
I don't think this was worthy of pulling from my post, but you obviously did. Trump has implemented sanctions. He's removed others. I'm going to operate under the assumption you didn't read any of those articles you linked, or just stopped at the headlines that said, "GOP senators protect Trump administration’s plan to lift Russian sanctions", ignorant that these were very specific sanctions, because we have many, and Trump has in no way attempted to remove all sanctions.
My opinion is that Trump's actions prove he's not a Russian stooge, because he doesn't do things he'd do if he was Putin's buddy. But the false notion you obviously fell for by your links in a response to the sentence you quoted, and is often alleged by Russian Truthers, is that Trump has taken no action on Russia. Many, including myself to a degree, believe Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama. Which is why I citied Ukraine on the quote you cite next. But here are some articles dating back at least a year from non-partisan, credible sources that discuss the idea Trump is tougher on Russia than Obama. Please feel free to read them to understand why someone like myself wholly rejects the notion Trump is weak on Russia.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-ch … d=53223453
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/heres-w … ed-do.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/ … ons-977650
3) "We’ve armed the Ukraine to stand up against Russian aggression under Obama."
Why is this even important? What do you care about Ukriane?
I care because a country grabbing territory from another country is so early 20th century. It's a problem I've been concerned with since it happened, advocated against, and was annoyed Obama refused to do anything (like arming Ukraine to prevent further Russian land grabs) meaningful. It was an example to further the point you apparently missed, that I believe Trump is stronger on the international platform than Obama. Those articles I linked above cite Trump's withdrawal from Paris, Iran and TPP as negatives, but I think there's an argument to be made that those "treaties" made us weaker if we had been beholden to them.
This wasn't really a question from you, so much as a hand waive because it's not a topic you think you can spin to cheerleader your "side".
4) "China has agreed to a brand new trade deal that allegedly protects American IP"
After doing some research, I see you have VERY LITTLE to back up this claim.
Trump did remove some tariffs: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46413196
You were completely unaware of the news articles going on the past few weeks of a trade deal being ironed out between the two? You weren't aware this was a thing, and Xi had ordered tons of soybeans as an act of good faith (Trump hilariously grossly exaggerated the amount China ordered by a factor of ten if memory serves correct and was lampooned for it) to get the deal moving forward.
This is from today, but almost 2 weeks have passed since I wrote my original post.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/politics … index.html
"VERY LITTLE"? If you want to attack my position, the best way to do it is to say that nothing has been signed yet, let alone released for public debate. We haven't even seen the draft plan, so who knows if it's a good deal. That's how you'd attack me.
You're not even familiar with current events, let alone have the retention of fact to make a counter argument. The best you could do is find an article from 3 months ago? I guess we have different definitions of research.
5) "Mexico and Canada have agreed to a new NAFTA."
Here's an article saying it's not even popular with congress: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/busi … -deal.html
Tell me more about Obama's executive overreaches.
This criticism is entirely fair. We haven't seen the full proposal, so claiming some great victory is premature. And the comments of NAFTA 1.1 or 1.01 are somewhat fair criticisms. But I'm going to operate on the assumption until proven otherwise, that whatever changes are being proposed, that they're going to be better for America. Some of what has been released, like requiring more portions of vehicles be manufactured in the US, I like. The fact that Canada and Mexico have agreed to an updated deal, one presumably better than the last, is itself noteworthy. As the difficulty in doing this has only occurred once before, and under two administrations. Remember, NAFTA was a Bush I idea Clinton had to fight tooth and nail with his party to sign and implement.
But you lose me in your last comment. What does this have to do with executive overreach? This is the 2nd time in the past few months you've made this specific argument, and last time you were under the impression this is was a unilateral action, like Paris and Iran, and didn’t require ratification from congress. NAFTA won't change unless congress ratifies the new agreement. Executive overreach has nothing to do with this. So, I don't know why this was tossed in there. It makes me question if you're still confused how a new NAFTA will be implemented and has been stated it will be approved/implicated from day one.
6) "North Korea hasn’t fired a missile in almost two years and have at least come to the table."
So what? They're still Communist (something I assume you don't support). They're still run by a benevolent dictator. They're still no Democracy there (although I question you really believe in Democracy). All these summits are aimed to do is be fancy PR and photo opps. NK hasn't committed to anything but being legitimized by a US president.
I don't care what happens to NK or its people. I want them to be happy and prosper because I'm not a sociopath, but in terms of US action to improve their lives through some act you didn't specify, no thanks. I'm concerned with them saber rattling and launching missiles capable of carrying an ICBM. They haven't done that since before Trump and Kim met. There's not open hostility. That's something to be supportive of and is objectively better than when they were launching missiles into the Sea of Japan every week. Are you incapable of acknowledging when Trump has done something good? Their political system and plight isn't something I care for, and I have to ask are you willing to support military action to depose Kim? No? Then what was this all about? Just a way for you to find something to point to because Trump's international policy has resulted in NK not routinely threatening the US and launching missiles.
7) "ISIS has largely been removed, an entire organization that entirely created under Obama’s watch due to his pullout of Iraq and refusal to acknowledge ISIS as a threat for years."
Here you'll see that they have most definitely not been 'removed': https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … paign=1490
Is this why you believe ISIS is defeated? because Trump said so?: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-says-is … 00178.html
Did you even read the headline of your first article? It says "ISIS has secret reserves of £230 million for future attacks on the West even as they face losing their last regional stronghold, UN experts warn"
My statement was "ISIS has largely been removed". You completely ignore the "largely" part, since it's a qualifier that is synonomous with "Mostly".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction … h-dict-box
I never claimed they were removed. You can't even respond to what I write, so as I wrap this up, I'm convinced of what a colossal waste of time this was. You're looking for someone to have a shouting match with. You quote me directly, then ignore what I write to create some argument you think you can win.
Your final statement again, is a complete fabricated argument you created to fight with. As the only person on this forum who has deployed to a war zone, a war zone in the middle east, in a country where ISIS is still present, I'm all too aware that to fully remove ISIS, you have to kill them with boots on the ground. The point of your 2nd article. I'm also aware that the types of military action necessary to accomplish the complete removal of ISIS would be in violation of both the UN and American Constitution. It's a quagmire I'm not interested in this country entering. So, I stand by my statement that "ISIS has largely been removed, an entire organization that entirely created under Obama’s watch due to his pullout of Iraq and refusal to acknowledge ISIS as a threat for years."
All of that is why I didn't respond, Mitch. What you posted wasn't worth the effort in the response I gave, but you can thank my ego. That and you completely ignored my question to you which served as the basis for my post; what has gotten worse under Trump. How is your life worse? You ignored that entirely and did a very poor job of trying to argue with me.
Re: US Politics Thread
TL...didn't read the whole thing, but the ending is more or less spot on. Mitch is so full of hate that he can't even make a reasonable response to my post. He's not interested in conversation or improving anything unless it's 100% on his terms, which isn't how things work.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
I am just praying for PaSnow and BigBri that we’re crying last December saying their 401 was destroyed etc. Lol everything is pretty much back to where it was, LIKE I SAID IT WOULD BE.
Re: US Politics Thread
I am just praying for PaSnow and BigBri that we’re crying last December saying their 401 was destroyed etc. Lol everything is pretty much back to where it was, LIKE I SAID IT WOULD BE.
I hardly said my 401k was destroyed. I do recall saying I expecting the market to go down, partially due to standard market boom & bust cycles of 7ish years (Yeah, 5 of those years were under O). I still expect them to go down over the course of this year, or a smaller recession to begin by the 2020 campaigns.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:I am just praying for PaSnow and BigBri that we’re crying last December saying their 401 was destroyed etc. Lol everything is pretty much back to where it was, LIKE I SAID IT WOULD BE.
I hardly said my 401k was destroyed. I do recall saying I expecting the market to go down, partially due to standard market boom & bust cycles of 7ish years (Yeah, 5 of those years were under O). I still expect them to go down over the course of this year, or a smaller recession to begin by the 2020 campaigns.
Of course you do. I think now we see the Fed WAS a key reason why the market fell so much.
