Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have no respect for them, but just based on their work.

As for Trump, there are plenty of Presidential day-to-day things that are being done, but the press doesn't cover them. They want the ratings. Ratings come from his tweets and the Russia fanfic that they're publishing. It doesn't really come from economy, or jobs, or environmental stuff, or any of that.

I do hope that having Trump in office makes everyone think hard about what they want next time. But while that's happening, I hope that he continues to highlight the fact that the press is a circus, so they can't sway the election next time. Trump is their monster and now they can't control him. It's horrible, but not entirely un-awesome to watch.

People say that he isn't acting Presidential. As though the presidents are royalty and bound to some rules of etiquette. In reality, they've been all over the place. Some have been blindingly stupid, some have been douchebags like Trump, some have been cold manipulators, and a few have been really swell guys. It's the nature of the beast.

(I left out the ones who were quite probably murderers)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You simply cannot defend Trump on this.  The media should be covering the Republican health care plan that will act like a bomb on the current healthcare system.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The current healthcare system is a bomb. I don't like what the republicans have offered so far, don't get me wrong. They should be doing much more to get rid of Obamacare entirely.

The thing I find hilarious is that the democrats are complaining about the republicans working on it behind closed doors. This is funny because the republicans are being way more open than the dems were with Obamacare, and the fact that there is any conversation happening at all is way more than we got when they were running things.

And then they all go on TV and talk about how many people are going to die. It's a friggin comedy routine.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

It's a friggin comedy routine.

There is only one party with one set of goals.  This is all a show to keep the public at each other's throats and distracted; it's been that way for a couple of decades now.

Don't believe it?  Republicans have full control, but they can't lower taxes or even do something as simple as repeal Obamacare and release restrictions so that all insurance companies can compete in the free market (which would lower prices).  Along that line, let's also ask where tort reform is which would lower doctors expenses on their own liability insurance (which is their excuse for such high prices).

Republicans don't want to do these things - they have the same agenda as Democrats.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree with that. That's the problem with our system right now, and why we need term limits. I think that there are some who would actually work to make a difference, but they don't have the power to do it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I agree with that. That's the problem with our system right now, and why we need term limits. I think that there are some who would actually work to make a difference, but they don't have the power to do it.

Term limits for senators was one of the things trump actually had on his 100 day agenda.  I do believe it could do some good, but also think there's a learning curve and a know how to the role, so I have mixed feelings about it.  I'm not sure if career politicians is a good thing though.

Anyway, Trump wanted to set some very short limits.  But not surprisingly, nothing has happened with it.  It would be hard for anyone to pull off.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, everyone basically has to be willing to do away with their own money and power. It is a messed up system. But at this point, it's pretty clear that anyone in long-term political office (think Pelosi or McCain) is useless to the American people and more interested in themselves.

It would probably also help if these politicians actually had to live in the communities that they represent, instead of just passing through every once in a while.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

Republicans don't want to do these things - they have the same agenda as Democrats.

I'm OUTRAGED.

As a Republican/Democrat, I'm HORRIFIED that you'd accuse Republicans/Democrats of siding with Republicans/Democrats!  Republicans/Democrats are SAINTLY, GODLIKE men and women, and Republicans/Democrats are EVIL, SUB-HUMAN slime.  Did you know the Republicans/Democrats want to steal our babies and eat them?  If not for the Republicans/Democrats, they'd get their way!  Republicans/Democrats are out there working hard for our benefits, and Republicans/Democrats just want to line their pockets with GREED and DECEPTION.  If Republicans/Democrats had their way, there'd be no democracy at all.

Thank God for Republicans/Democrats!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

CNN... Oh, CNN

I am starting to wonder if this network has a future at all. Over the past year, they've been hit by one scandal after another. Leaking debate questions to Hillary, running with fake news stories about Russian hookers, or tying Trump to Russia interference in the election despite having absolutely no evidence... they've just been petty and childish. And now this political gif that Trump tweeted, which is so benign that nobody would have even noticed it if the press (mostly CNN) hadn't tried to turn it into a huge story. Now that it is a huge story, it's turned on CNN because they pursued the gif's source and threatened to dox him. And for what? Posing a harmless gif that the President then tweeted?

CNN isn't just looking like a joke anymore, their corruption is showing through more and more every day, and it's getting harder to just shrug it off.

I know, ireactions is probably rolling his eyes at the James O'Keefe of it all, but O'Keefe's videos aren't revealing anything that we didn't already know. There was no Russia story, so every time they hit that angle, it was a lie. We knew that. There was no Russian prostitute story, so when they reported it, it was a lie. We knew that. We know that it's all about ratings. We know that they're betting on the American people being stupid, and the fact that we have them directly saying it isn't very shocking.

The part where they're attacking private citizens and threatening to dox them because of a stupid gif is a little surprising. And I don't know about the guy who posted it. I don't know if he is a racist or a sexist or whatever, but it also doesn't matter. He could post racist stuff every day and that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to do it. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to privacy. Most of us don't put our names or home addresses on the internet, including the people who work at CNN. Their threat to start doxing anyone they don't like or who says mean things about them is going to backfire. Every employee and every anchor could have their info posted online, because there are people who are not going to react well to these threats.


We also have the reveal that CNN edited interviews with Trump supporters, to reframe their comments and make them look bad. Since ireactions has been so outspokenly opposed to the practice of releasing edited video that could change comments or context, can we all agree that it's just as bad when a major news outlet does it?


Any one of these stories or scandals would blow over easily. I'm just not sure how many more of these scandals CNN can handle before they're ruined forever. Their credibility is shot, and while this isn't shocking to any of us who actually pay attention and have recognized their false reporting for years, it's so blatant now that even casual viewers will find it harder to ignore.

People say that Trump hasn't accomplished anything, but I think this shows that he has. He has shown the press for what they are, more than any President that I know of. And yeah, it made Trump look bad along the way, but it's not like we had high standards and expectations for him to begin with.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I do wonder if we're about to see HBO's "The Newsroom" play out in real life (which would be ironic given that season two of the series was a recreation of a scandal that rocked CNN in the 80's).

In the final season of Newsroom, the news network is spun off from the main company and left as a stand alone entity to fend for itself or die.  They end being bought by a young, Silicon Valley billionaire, and he pushes for the network to become pure tabloid tv.  In our reality, this could easily happen - imagine someone like Zuckerburg buying CNN and tying it into Facebook.

I do think that CNN is about to be left out in the cold, though.  The AT&T / Warner merger is on the horizon, and the AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and Trump seem to get along well.  CNN may end up being a sacrifice to Trump to get the merger passed through.  But to be honest, I think Trump likes CNN being out there; it's a good punching bag for his entertainment urgings.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

With regards to CNN, I completely agree with Informant and it's a lengthy pattern of what alternates between journalistic malpractice and journalistic bullying that cannot be allowed to stand. The Intercept has a fairly good overview of recent media recklessness at https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cnn … ia-threat/ and their outrage over CNN threatening citizens at https://theintercept.com/2017/07/05/cnn … ddit-user/ is how I feel about it too.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

"An on that day, the sky broke open and toads began to rain down upon the earth. Rivers turned to blood. Sliders was revived with its original cast. A cow gave birth to a litter of snakes. And ireactions agreed with Informant in a political post. These were the signs of the fracture in space and the end of all time."


I don't even get why they made the gif into a news story. Even the President posting it wasn't newsworthy, and pursuing the original creator of the gif as though he were a terrorist mastermind is just ridiculous. They've spent more time covering this stupid gif and looking serious as they report on HanAssholeSolo than they have spent on some much more serious topics lately. I get that they're trying to take Trump down and reporting on this as some sort of call to violence feeds into that narrative (though honestly, it's a stretch), but I honestly don't know what they were thinking when they decided to target some random gif creator on Reddit. It's insane.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

I do wonder if we're about to see HBO's "The Newsroom" play out in real life (which would be ironic given that season two of the series was a recreation of a scandal that rocked CNN in the 80's).

In the final season of Newsroom, the news network is spun off from the main company and left as a stand alone entity to fend for itself or die.  They end being bought by a young, Silicon Valley billionaire, and he pushes for the network to become pure tabloid tv.  In our reality, this could easily happen - imagine someone like Zuckerburg buying CNN and tying it into Facebook.

I do think that CNN is about to be left out in the cold, though.  The AT&T / Warner merger is on the horizon, and the AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and Trump seem to get along well.  CNN may end up being a sacrifice to Trump to get the merger passed through.  But to be honest, I think Trump likes CNN being out there; it's a good punching bag for his entertainment urgings.


forgot to reply to this.

I can see this happening. CNN is going to have to change, one way or the other. Producers, on-air talent and online "journalists" have all been exposed as being incredibly unreliable, so there's no way to go on with business as usual. (he said, right before this whole story was forgotten and people went back to quoting CNN articles about Trump's relationship with Russia)

But does the world need another E! News? I suppose they could go by way of MTV or The Learning Channel. Reality shows, etc.

I feel like the political connection to this narrative is going to be overlooked though. It's not simply a corruption of journalism here, it's the fact that journalists were working to push the agenda of certain politicians. All of those Russia stories were created to serve a political purpose and to undermine the office of the President. There is a much larger, much more disturbing picture here, and it's not just about ratings.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

CNN has become the left wing equivalent of Fox News, pretending to be journalists when they're actually propagandists.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

CNN has become the left wing equivalent of Fox News, pretending to be journalists when they're actually propagandists.

+1

I watched a ton of CNN during the election, and they were all so anti-Trump that it started to be noticeable.  I think they realized that a) they weren't going to get many conservative viewers who were already firmly at Fox News and b) they could get stronger ratings if they stopped trying to be unbiased.  I think it simply started with hosts like Wolf Blitzer and Ashleigh Banfield leaning slightly left, but I think it's gotten more targeted since then.  I remember the Republican Convention had a mostly-even panel between Republicans and Democrats, and then Democratic Convention panel was about 9 Democrats and 1-2 Republicans.

If they want to respond to Fox News and take the other half of the country, that's fine.  The problem is that CNN still means something to some people.  It used to be a name you could rely on.  To suddenly become Fox News under the guise of something that's better than Fox News is upsetting to me as a former journalist myself.  I almost wish they'd started a new network if that's the direction they were going to go.

Where is Will McEvoy when you need him?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The funny thing is, people on the right started to get frustrated with Fox News at some point as well. MSNBC was always seen as the super extreme left network, so CNN became the middle ground. People thought that they'd start to take the lead as people grew tired with the other two networks. Now, CNN has always had biased reporting, don't get me wrong. They've always been left of center and they've always held back certain details, while twisting other facts to suit their needs. However, they were seen as a network that did this less than others.

So now we have CNN's sins in the spotlight more than ever, and the other two networks gloating... while still being on shaky ground themselves.

I'm not convinced that there should be 24-hour news networks. I'm not sure that the concept works, once you figure in the need for ratings and advertisers, and the fact that there will be many days when the news is just not that thrilling. So, they start to inflate the news artificially. Then, once that line is crossed, they might as well skew that inflation in the direction of their choosing. Is there a way for this to be sustained without being corrupted?


I saw another clip of some CNN contributor talking about how sickened and outraged they were that the President would incite violence in such a manner that is unbecoming of a President. She was playing it super sincere too, not like a joke. So the gif is an outrageous incitement of violence, but when they're failing to report certain details and directly lead into riots and racial violence, that's just respectable journalism. When they're manufacturing the Russia scandal and influencing federal agencies with their lies, that's just respectable journalism.

It's impossible to watch anything they do with a straight face anymore.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I'm not convinced that there should be 24-hour news networks. I'm not sure that the concept works, once you figure in the need for ratings and advertisers, and the fact that there will be many days when the news is just not that thrilling. So, they start to inflate the news artificially. Then, once that line is crossed, they might as well skew that inflation in the direction of their choosing. Is there a way for this to be sustained without being corrupted?

We had this conversation the other day.  We compared it, actually, to ESPN.  ESPN used to fill their programming with stuff like the World's Strongest Man competitions.  The Outdoor Games (lumberjack events).  The X-Games.  Maybe classic sports.  Then, at night, they'd do some live sports (if they could).  Then SportsCenter....which was their money cow.

Then two things happened: the Internet made SportsCenter much less relevant (if you wanted to watch a sports clip, you could watch it whenever you wanted...you didn't have to wait to catch it on SportsCenter) and ESPN got rights to big-named sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, etc).

With their big moneymaker much less powerful, they focused more on their newest toys.  But they felt they were cheapening their "legitimate" sports when they showed the "odd/quirky" stuff like World's Strongest Man.  So that disappeared.  Since they were a legit sports network that only showed legit sports, they needed to fill their time with legit sports news....and that's when opinion shows started to creep in.  They couldn't show legit sports all day, but they could talk about it all day.  So that's what they did.  Sports and politics are very similar - you pick your team and you live and die with it.  There's a clear hero and a clear enemy.  If someone talks the way you think, you tune in.  If not, you either hate-watch or don't watch at all.

It's the same with cable news.  You'd tell the news and it was fine.  But it was repetitive.  You'd tell the same 8 "mundane" news stories over and over again.  Then stuff like 9/11 happened and ratings went through the roof.  They could talk about one thing all day and cover tons of new angles.  They could bring on experts to talk about it.  To keep "breaking news" alive, more stuff had to be considered "breaking news."  Breaking news brought ratings, and they needed ratings.

With politics, they found another moneymaker.  People loved to tune in to hear people that thought like them.  And, in some cases, loved to tune in to hear people that they hated who thought differently.  Elections brought big ratings.  So how can they talk about elections when there isn't an election?  Make the elections last a year!  Even more!  Spin everything politically.  Bring in people who are there for their opinions.  Let the hosts give a few more editorials.

It's a slippery slope but they're similar.  Being big fish in small pools wasn't enough.  Once they had access to bigger pools, they had to evolve to grow.  But they stopped being who they were, and they evolved into something that was unrecognizable and counter to everything they started with.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Ugh, there is so much "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" in government today.  The story being reported is that the Democrats have beaten the Republicans in the Health Care debate.  That's simply not true.  The Democrats and a group of Republicans beat a Republican-led initiative to overhaul health care.  The side led by Democrats won, but this was a bi-partisan effort.  If it was United Red vs. United Blue, then Red would have won.  It took Republicans to defeat the "Republican" bill.

I don't think anything is being made of the Republicans who crossed the line and voted with the Democrats.  In the Senate and in the House.

There's just "Republicans want people to die" and "Democrats are the only decent humans in Congress."  The whole thing makes me nauseous.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The issue isn't being discussed in the media in any real way. It's democrats win, republicans lose, and moving on to the latest baseball scores. The truth is, we're all losing. Obamacare shouldn't have passed to begin with. It was never debated or discussed, or revised or even really planned for. It did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and there is no way that it can survive. It will collapse, because it was a house built without a foundation. It was a show that was put on for the public.

Repealing Obamacare is difficult, because there are only so many times that you can change the entire system in one decade. Repealing anything is always harder than passing it. But the truth is, most of the politicians don't want to repeal it. They don't have to live by it, and it doesn't hurt anyone they love, but it serves their political purposes. Republicans who ran on grand promises to repeal Obamcare are now showing that they have no desire to touch the damn thing. They're cowards and liars, and shouldn't be in office.

However, this isn't a win for democrats. The general public still wants it gone. So while this crop of republicans may lose their jobs, that doesn't mean that the democrats will take them over. Obamacare is still failing. People are still hurting.

Liberals tend to think that the more a government controls something and hands things out to the people, the more stable the world will be and the more people will be provided for. I obviously disagree with this philosophy, and I think that you can observe it failing all over the world.

The truth is that, as with most things, a more competitive market with less government involvement would probably help more than anything that the government would do. It would drive down prices for insurance. It would drive down prices for treatment and medication. Opening the market would force competition, and when companies are competing for our business, the consumer usually benefits.

But the politicians are politicians. It would be a mistake to think that they're debating the best course of action for the American people. The truth is, they're doing what's best for them and the careers that should have been over decades ago for most of them. This isn't even about healthcare for most of them, it's about putting on a show about healthcare.

770 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2017-07-22 08:12:35)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Ugh, there is so much "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" in government today.  The story being reported is that the Democrats have beaten the Republicans in the Health Care debate.  That's simply not true.  The Democrats and a group of Republicans beat a Republican-led initiative to overhaul health care.  The side led by Democrats won, but this was a bi-partisan effort.  If it was United Red vs. United Blue, then Red would have won.  It took Republicans to defeat the "Republican" bill.

I don't think anything is being made of the Republicans who crossed the line and voted with the Democrats.  In the Senate and in the House.

There's just "Republicans want people to die" and "Democrats are the only decent humans in Congress."  The whole thing makes me nauseous.

I haven't gotten this sense at all.  Everything that has come our sure seems like (1) Republicans don't have anything close to consensus on what healthcare should look like -- you have people within the party who want it very very different than others  (2) the ACA has increased in popularity among the public and now the constituents of some Republicans are making it known they are worried about the new bills, which analysis of from the CBO and other institutions has not been positive.

If the Republicans had agreement with what healthcare would look like, the Democrats would't stand a chance.  But the Republican party is almost like two parties on this.  I really haven't gotten the sense the media has seen this as driven by the Democratic Party at all.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well the Democratic Party is a mess too.  Recently, a poll came out, and the Democrats don't seem to stand for anything but "not Trump" which is weird because the Republican Party has recently just been "not Obama"

(This is probably a good time to say that I think both parties are spinning their wheels).

And a lot of this is more people I see talking on social media.  There were a handful of somewhat-prominent liberal celebrities saying stuff like "well, John McCain wants to take away people's health care, I guess it serves him right that he got brain cancer"  There's just so much hatred toward people who have (slightly?) different beliefs.  It's really crazy to me.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well the Democratic Party is a mess too.  Recently, a poll came out, and the Democrats don't seem to stand for anything but "not Trump" which is weird because the Republican Party has recently just been "not Obama"

(This is probably a good time to say that I think both parties are spinning their wheels).

And a lot of this is more people I see talking on social media.  There were a handful of somewhat-prominent liberal celebrities saying stuff like "well, John McCain wants to take away people's health care, I guess it serves him right that he got brain cancer"  There's just so much hatred toward people who have (slightly?) different beliefs.  It's really crazy to me.


America is extremely diverse. To the point where what may be good for one state is bad for another.  But our union is so intertwined that it's difficult to just let each state do what it wants without others being affected (even though I recognize that was part of America's design -- but we have to keep in mind a lot more technology exists today that makes travel/communication completely different than it was centuries ago, creating a social and economic impact).

Point being, when you have such diversity, people are going to look at things different.  You can either try to "win" and get your way knowing others will suffer as a result or you can go into it trying to compromise.  Once we have very passionate beliefs and want to completely win, then it becomes a game... and as part of that game we start using tactics that are useful for short term gains.  But then it creates a long-term mess.  So the question is the human species intelligent enough to not take the candy and wait for more candy later, or will we always be trying to grab the candy now, like little children?  As great as the human species has been, at times we are not the most impressive bunch and I am not sure what that means for our long term survival.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The healthcare issue is a farce. Most of the people arguing over it don't really care either way, and just want to line their pockets while exempting themselves from anything that might happen. The few who do actually want to put some work into figuring out what works best are screaming into the wind.

Obamacare isn't an option. It never was. It will collapse, and it will do a lot of damage on its way down. Universal healthcare (sometimes called "free" by people who  are slow) will be great if we want higher taxes, lower quality care, and the inability to make our own medical decisions. I don't view that as a good option either. Then again, the old system didn't work either. It drove the cost of healthcare up to ridiculous levels because of the negotiating methods of insurance companies.

The best solution is to lessen the government's role (when do they ever help anything?) and create a competitive market for healthcare. There are places now that don't accept insurance and just perform surgeries with up-front payments, with prices clearly listed on their websites. Those prices are much lower than what you get through normal methods, there is less bullsh-t to deal with, and some people choose that option because they end up spending less than they would if they went through their Obamacare insurance.

Supply and demand. Healthcare isn't a right, it is a business. The problem is, too many people who aren't in that business are trying to control the market. This never works out well and as long as insurance companies are paying politicians to make sure that every citizen must buy a crappy version of their product, this problem isn't going anywhere.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Healthcare isn't a right, it is a business.

The problem with this is when someone walks into an emergency room, whether they have health insurance or not, public hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. I have a hospital near me that went out of business.  Hospitals are public institutions and someone will always end up paying any way.  We have to accept that people without medical insurance are going to inevitably want care when someone urgent has come up and their will be costs around society for that.  We need to build a model that spreads those costs.  And we need to focus on driving down healthcare costs (it's out of control here, and life expectancy is lower than many other countries) which are playing a role in such large insurance premiums and deductibles. 

I just don't see the healthcare industry as a business, to be treated the same way.  People are going to always want it when trouble comes whether they have bought insurance or not and human beings have that great thing called empathy -- developed over thousands of years by evolution because its in our best interest -- that makes it unreasonable to think all of a sudden we are going to start barring people from emergency care.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

That wouldn't happen. Nobody is going to be turned away. The problem is that before Obamacare, it was easier to work with hospitals, negotiating prices and payments (costs are wildly inflated because of insurance companies).

No business is a business like any other. The key to any of them is finding a way to make the business work. That needs to happen on much more local scale, and the federal government really doesn't have a large role to play. The more they get involved, the more expensive it will be, and the standards of care will drop. Obviously, there would be regulations on what can and can't be allowed, but the VA has proven that the government can't run healthcare.

After my father had his stroke in 2009, we did all kinds of negotiating for his care and rehab. He had insurance, but it didn't cover everything. The companies involved had programs for people whose insurance didn't cover the full cost of their equipment, so we ended up paying nothing. This is because the price of the equipment was inflated because the insurance companies paid a lot. The same thing happens with hospital fees. Once you get down to a patient talking to the hospital, costs go down.

The system was messed up for sure... But now the companies that we were working with don't have those programs anymore. They're out of business because they couldn't make the new system work. And these were well known, big companies.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

We should adopt Singapore's health care system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRp3veAd234

Or - and here's a shocking idea! - give every American the same health care plan members of Congress have.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Transmodiar wrote:

Or - and here's a shocking idea! - give every American the same health care plan members of Congress have.

I've been for that for years.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Rest in peace Charlie Gard. sad

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So to those of you adamantly anti-Trump....what's your best case scenario for a Trump presidency?  Do you want him to make / have made a greivous enough mistake that he has to be impeached before 2018?  Or just after 2018 when the Democrats might have more seats in Congress?  Do you want him to do enough damage to ensure a win in 2018/2020?  Do you want him to mess up and make mistakes so you have something to make fun of?  Or do you genuinely want him to succeed, knowing that his successes would be conservative ones?

It's really hard for me to tell.  The "resistance" loves to make fun of Trump's mistakes ("The Mooch" being the latest, but there have been tons) while also being "horrified" by them.  But when things run smoothly and stuff gets done (say, the travel ban) then that's also horrifying.

Understanding your hatred for him at a personal and professional level, is there anything he could do that would make you happy? 

Because, from my vantage point, the Trump presidency has actually been pretty optimal.  He's not doing a ton of damage, the rest of the world seems to be holding everything else pretty steady, we aren't in any wars, and there's an investigation to see if anything he's done to get elected is shady.  He's not doing anything outlandish or fascist (he's too incompetent for the latter), and he can't get anything pushed through a Republican-majority Congress.

And the revolving door of people in and out the White House is actually good in my eyes.  If Trump is constantly trying to work through chaos, he can't be instigating North Korea or doing anything stupid.  If he spends 90% of his time in office hiring and firing people, then that's only 10% of the time he has to do anything else.  To me, that's a win.

(This is why I feared Hillary more than Donald.  She would've actually governed, but poorly, for probably 8 years.  Donald is going to keep the country in neutral for probably less than four.  And standing still is better than going backwards).

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is showing how unqualified for the job he really is.  The question is whether he can handle a real crisis.  Suppose the next North Korean missile test hits Japan.  What are the odds of getting a reasonable, proportional response from the US?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

we aren't in any wars

lol

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Trump is showing how unqualified for the job he really is.  The question is whether he can handle a real crisis.  Suppose the next North Korean missile test hits Japan.  What are the odds of getting a reasonable, proportional response from the US?

Why would we need to respond at all?  This is why we have the United Nations.  Or, you know, China can handle it since they don't benefit in any way by a war in their backyard.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Transmodiar wrote:
Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

we aren't in any wars

lol

You know what I mean.  Everyone assumed we'd be at war with someone like Bolivia because they'd make fun of his hair.  The only wars we're involved in are ones that Bush started.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

In the past week we've flown bombers over Korean air space, targeted the Venezuelan president/dictator, and slapped sanctions on a half-dozen different nations. Plus Syria. Plus AFRICOM. Plus Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Some of this goes back to before Bush. It goes back to Operation Ajax. But the nuggets of goodness coming out of this week are hardly the finger-wavings of happy-fun-peacetime.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Trump is showing how unqualified for the job he really is.  The question is whether he can handle a real crisis.  Suppose the next North Korean missile test hits Japan.  What are the odds of getting a reasonable, proportional response from the US?

Why would we need to respond at all?  This is why we have the United Nations.  Or, you know, China can handle it since they don't benefit in any way by a war in their backyard.

Because we're obligated by treaty to defend Japan.  That's why they never built their military back up after WWII.

786 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-08-01 15:34:44)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Because we're obligated by treaty to defend Japan.  That's why they never built their military back up after WWII.

Yeah but if North Korea nuked Japan, everyone would have an obligation to defend Japan.  That affects everyone in the region and everyone in the world.  The fact that Donald Trump is president would make it more likely that other countries (again, China) would step in before Trump escalates anything.

Unless you think China would just step back and allow nuclear war to happen in a country that borders it.  "Nah, just let Donald Trump handle it" sounds like a pretty bad position for them.  Or anyone.

China and North Korea are only allies because the Chinese doesn't want American troops to be on their border (like they would be if there was a unified Korea).  I don't think China likes them enough to risk a nuclear wasteland as a buffer state.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Why would we need to respond at all?  This is why we have the United Nations.  Or, you know, China can handle it since they don't benefit in any way by a war in their backyard.

lol, I invite you to ask the Chinese to volunteer military support against North Korea. But before you do, maybe take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not talking about North Korea nuking Japan.  What if one of their test missiles with no warhead lands in Tokyo?  That would require subtle, level headed diplomacy.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It'd be 0% about saving Japan and 100% about saving themselves, but maybe they want to die.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017- … 488376.htm

This is from the Chinese-run media.

As a neighbor of the DPRK, China knows well it has a lot to lose if the Korean Peninsula slides further away from denuclearization, so it has been making strenuous efforts, including organizing the Six Party Talks, to maintain the fragile calm on the peninsula and work toward an early solution to the problem.

But the crux of the entire article is that they don't give a shit about what Donald Trump thinks or says.  They aren't going to run in and save him from the North Koreans because he told them to.  But at the same time, they aren't going to die because he's an idiot.  They aren't just going to sit around and hope he doesn't retaliate with a nuclear attack 500 miles away from Beijing.

Or maybe they will.  But any smart country is going to try and defend themselves against Trump's idiocy, and I assume China isn't any different.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

I'm not talking about North Korea nuking Japan.  What if one of their test missiles with no warhead lands in Tokyo?  That would require subtle, level headed diplomacy.

We survived the Cuban Missile Crisis with an alcoholic womanizer in the White House.  Survived the height of the Cold War with an egomaniac asshole covering up his own crimes leading the country.  Survived the 1980s with a movie star president with Alzheimer's. 

Even if Kim Jong Un is suicidal, reason tends to prevail no matter who's in the White House.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Reagan didn't have Alzheimer's until after he was out of office. Though it's become popular to suggest otherwise, there is no evidence to support claims that he was sick in office.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

I'm not talking about North Korea nuking Japan.  What if one of their test missiles with no warhead lands in Tokyo?  That would require subtle, level headed diplomacy.

We survived the Cuban Missile Crisis with an alcoholic womanizer in the White House.  Survived the height of the Cold War with an egomaniac asshole covering up his own crimes leading the country.  Survived the 1980s with a movie star president with Alzheimer's. 

Even if Kim Jong Un is suicidal, reason tends to prevail no matter who's in the White House.

Those guys each had a fully staffed state department with a secretary experienced in international relations.  Trump has a former CEO who seems content to let many positions remain vacant.  There's no undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security.  There's no assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.  There's no assistant secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation.  There's no no ambassador to South Korea.  Any of those positions sound useful in this situation?

793 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-08-02 08:16:40)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

But, again, what are we talking about here?  If we're talking about the destruction of the Earth, there are 348,470,000 people in the US and North Korea.  There are 7 billion other people on the planet that probably don't want to die because Kim Jong Un is crazy and Donald Trump is an idiot.  They have fully functioning state departments and capable leaders that a) don't want to die and b) could step in and help either diplomatically or militarily.  If China is just going to completely sit this out, then leader of the free world Angela Merkel could step in.  Or Theresa May.  Everyone seems to love Justin Trudeau - maybe he can help.

If we are talking about North Korea attacking us/South Korea/Japan/Hawaii/whoever, then it wouldn't really matter who was president.  North Korea has built up a nuclear program under Republican and Democratic presidents.  If Kim Jong Un is suicidal and decides to launch an attack, President Obama/Clinton/Sanders/Cruz/Biden/Pence wouldn't be able to stop that.  And if they were to nuke someone/anyone, then there would be be a war there either way.  The international community would have to step in because it'd be an act of war that would affect the whole planet.

There's no question that I'm not an expert on this stuff.  Call me an idiot if you want....I've certainly said enough stuff in my years here to earn that title.  But at the end of the day, I just think we aren't going to let the world end because of fucking Donald Trump.  And if we are, I certainly don't have any say over it so I'm not going to spend any time worrying about it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If China is just going to completely sit this out, then leader of the free world Angela Merkel could step in.  Or Theresa May.  Everyone seems to love Justin Trudeau - maybe he can help.

... So many responses. Can't pick one.

I'm mostly just observing this conversation, but damn that paragraph almost gave me a stroke.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I'm mostly just observing this conversation, but damn that paragraph almost gave me a stroke.

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/2 … ca-germany

To be fair, the Merkel part isn't true.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Meanwhile Trump and co. are just racking up the potential obstruction of justice complaints.  I also give props to the Boy Scouts of America for publicly disassociating themselves from Trump, who gave a profanity filled, stump speech that had no place there.  I wouldn't care if this guy had the politics of Bernie Sanders, he's a habitual liar, he has zero interest in governing or the American people.  It's all about him and his dumb family.  And no Donald, the White House is not a big dump!!!!!!!  It's not about lavish, it's about service.  You sir are simply pathetic.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Meanwhile Trump and co. are just racking up the potential obstruction of justice complaints

Who's going to charge them?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

One thing I don't get is the need to believe that one extreme being wrong means that the other extreme must he right. I believe that Antifa and Black Lives Matter are hate groups and have probably reached the point of being terrorist organizations by this point (sorry, but if people have to fear for their lives if you know their address, you are terrorising them). That doesn't stop me from believing that the white supremacists are just as bad (though I do question just how right-leaning these groups are, despite what they claim). When I see both of these groups fighting, I see a gang war. I don't see good vs evil, or right vs wrong. It seems pretty simple, right?

So it boggles my mind when I see people in the media feeling a need to raise one group up in order to tear the other down. White racists are bad, so Antifa becomes "peaceful protestors" in the media, or they've even been compared to WWII heroes who stormed the beach at Normandy ( https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/sta … 7340420098 )

Bottom line, I think people have a right to gather and protest (with the proper permits to use public property) and to believe in things that I find disgusting. However, when either side's beliefs extend to violence, assault, rioting, etc, they are wrong. Why is this concept suddenly so controversial?

Also, if the authorities fail to enforce laws to keep the peace during a properly-permitted gathering, they should be held accountable. Their job isn't to decide which citizens are worth protecting and which aren't. Their job is to enforce laws.

And no, believing in someone's right to free speech does not mean that you are supporting what they're saying. It is a notion being thrown around these days, but it is ridiculous.


The world grows more baffling and stupid by the day. And if you disagree with me, you're probably a Nazi or something. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think the bottom line, regardless of what side you are on or whatnot, was that Trump was CLEARLY unwilling to come down hard against white nationalism.  Also, Antifa is called far left.  Wouldn't anyone who defies facism by definition be middle of the road?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Firstly, this isn't really about Trump. He came down clearly against both extreme sides, which is the right position to take. Like I said, it was a gang war. Those who came down hard against one side alone are wrong. Neither of the extremist groups were better than the others, and the authorities involved helped to create a situation where violence would occur.

And Antifa claims to oppose fascism, but they don't really oppose fascism. They want the power to be on their side and they want to silence their opposition through violence. They are nowhere near the middle of the road. As a general rule, the people wearing masks and hitting people over the head with bike locks are not good guys.