American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 10 of 57)

You know the Google guys tried to sell their tech for $1m?

Interesting...

http://www.vividmaps.com/2016/12/trumpl … o.html?m=1

I dont get why they wouldn't pay for it. There would be no reason for ExxonMobile to not being that technology to the market. You say that oil is worth more, but is it? The magic technology could make them hundreds of billions, especially since they could set whatever price they wanted to set. They made 16.2 billion dollars last year. Why would they not want to introduce this new technology that would probably be cheaper to produce in the long run, and would make them tons of money? It makes no sense. There is absolutely no indication that anything like this has happened or would happen. We just have the cries of people who want to demonize oil companies and have them shut down. If there is any sign of a big conspiracy here, it is coming from that direction.

Apple made 53.4 billion dollars last year. ExxonMobile made 16.2 billion. People like to pretend that these oil companies are so rich that they rule the world, but they're far from being the most profitable companies. If they could invent the technology that would bring endless supplies of energy for low cost, and they could find a way to make all of those other companies come to them for it, they would stand to make much more than they are now. They would be in every phone, every car, every house, every high-rise, every street light... Why would they suppress that?

Perhaps, but we have viable alternatives to cable. At the moment, we don't have anything that compares to those forms of energy, aside from maybe nuclear, but there has been a big push to keep nuclear power from being used. The funny thing is that in a lot of ways, nuclear power would be that magic bullet energy source. But the people who are trying to keep it from being used aren't the oil companies (who, again, aren't nearly as powerful as people make them seem), they're the environmentalists and politicians who create regulations.

This is going in circles. You're assuming that oil companies are holding back all of these great advances based solely on the fact that you believe that oil companies are holding back these great advances.
Republicans more widely support drilling for oil, yet also support nuclear power. Democrats usually oppose both. How do these positions factor into the oil company conspiracy?

And, aside from nuclear, what big technological advances have been suppressed by the oil companies? What do they have that we don't?

And now Obama is just burning down the house on his way out. Is this an attempt to make it look like the world went to crap as soon as Trump gets into office, or is he just going crazy for the fun of it? Either way, he is making me feel better about Trump. Can't wait until this idiot is gone.

Agreed. I think that Streep looked like a fool to anyone that isn't already suffering from post election insanity. She tried to make the most elite elites in Hollywood look like voiceless victims. She went on about protecting journalism while referencing a fake news story.

Her speech was just as ugly and hateful as anything Trump says, but people will swoon over her because she said it to a room full of mostly sympathetic audience members.

And Hugh Laurie should probably go work in the UK for a while.

These celebrities look like idiots in their fancy gowns, spewing venom at most of the US, completely oblivious to the fact that they live in a fantasy bubble. They probably cringe every time they have to fly over any state that isn't New York or California.

Trump is a moron and definitely mocked the disabled reporter.  But if Streep wanted to enact real change, she should be focusing on her own party.  Trump is president because of Democratic incompetence as much as from any of the stuff that Democrats are railing against.

I have liberal friends who post daily articles about Trump.  I haven't seen a single one about reforming the Democratic Party or getting in new leadership or new faces in the party.  Which is odd because fixing the Democratic Party is something that Democrats can control.  Complaining about Trump or the Electoral College is just yelling at clouds.

Honestly, I think it is more offensive that Meryl Streep thinks that a guy with a paralyzed arm can't speak for himself and needs her to fight his battles. He is an f-ing journalist for the New York Times!

Yes, the reason why he mocked this particular reporter is what's important, not the repeated act of mocking people like a 3rd grader.  This is who you wanted representing your country to the world.

We agree that Trump acts like a stupid kid. And we have established that he was never my first choice for President. What is important are facts. I couldn't care less if he acts like an idiot when it comes to this conversation. That's not the topic of discussion here. The fact is that the news reported false claims about him. Fake news. But people accept it because it said what they wanted it to say. And they will cling to it like a conservative clings to guns and religion, because it gives them fuel for their hate.

Honestly, if people want to bash Trump for the way he acts, they need to act better.

People will continue to hate on the man and his family, but their service was exemplary, and frankly, despite 8 years of opposition, he still accomplished quite a bit.  Bush did well on a personal level, as did of course Bill and all of their wives.  Trump's wife you'll barely see, she has no interest in the position. 

Trump's entire Presidency begins with huge conflicts of interest, of his own, as well as nearly every cabinet member.  He did not pick "the best of the best," he picked people that kissed his derriere the most.  I for see battling both sides in Congress, as well as governors, judges, foreign leaders, the media, and of course, celebrities.  Because that's what the President ought to do with his time, argue with celebrities.  He takes office as the most unpopular figure to do so since polling began.  He's divisive, rude, and a know it all.  His policies supposedly will return jobs to America.  That won't ever succeed.  The jobs people have lost are outdated and gone for good.  The public simply has not and will not support a large sector of manufacturing and service jobs any longer.  Buying habits (online) and technology (automation) have done away with those pieces of the workforce.  And so in that sense, his #1 priority is a failure no matter what he does.

I would disagree on those points about Obama. We have pretty different views of the man and of his wife. I really don't have an opinion on their family though. I really never got enough information about their family unit to get an impression of how they were, but it wasn't important to. Their private life wasn't important to me.

But I'm not going to go on a long rant about Obama. His presidency was what it was, and now it's over. No need to kick that dead horse right now.

I have never been a big fan of Trump. I think that he can be an ass on an epic scale. I did like the tone of his speech though. Less about what America can do for him and more about what he can do for America. I'm eager to see what he does and whether or not it works. As with any President, I'm willing to give him a chance and hope for the best (yes, I even wanted Obama to make the country better and was disappointed when he didn't). I don't disagree with a lot of what Trump says, but I'm curious to see how much of it is for show. He's been known to go back and forth and change his views on a whim. I don't trust him... but then again, I never trust any politician. Hopefully he can change that (though I will never blindly follow anyone, so "trust" may be a high bar to set).

I wanted to see Hillary's expression as Trump was speaking, but the channel I was watching had a bad angle, so some other guy was blocking her. Hmph!

That's bull that some networks are reporting. The crowd shot I saw was packed all the way back to the Washington Monument, same as any other inauguration. Was it the most crowded ever? I have no clue. But it was far from sparse.

The turnout was not bad.

Look... it won't be Obama numbers. I have no doubt about that. Generally speaking, more conservative people don't worship their politicians the way that liberals tend to. They don't become celebrities, where we keep an eye out for shirtless pictures and then swoon over their "abs" (which I still laugh at, because Obama didn't remotely have rock-hard abs). We don't cry in their presence. We don't let out blood-curdling screams if they lose ( https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/8225 … wsrc%5Etfw ). The Tea Party movement was a rarity for conservatives, because we're not usually big protesters or marchers. That was a specific reaction to specific events.

When Obama was elected, it was a different thing. Obama wasn't just the guy that was elected, he was a pop-culture icon. His inauguration was held up as one of the most historical events in US history. His followers were not simply voters, they were devotees who worshiped the ground he walked on. His was not like a normal inauguration, it was like a Beyonce concert. People wanted to go because their big pop idol was performing.

There were no mass protests. There were no big threats of violence. There were no protesters keeping people from getting to the inauguration. No children setting fires in the streets, or adults setting fires to cars or bashing in windows. Nobody attacking someone because their guy lost and they just can't take it.

And this is not because the conservatives had nothing to fear in Obama, mind you. One thing that is widely overlooked these days is that the way democrats feel about Trump is pretty much the way conservatives felt about Obama. We cringed when he spoke, because he was humiliating us. We rolled our eyes at his ego. As the years went on, we were upset about his divisiveness, his hatred for anyone who wasn't like him, and his lack of concern for the American people or our allies. We felt all of that despair and loss of hope when he was elected... but life goes on. We didn't burn down any cities over it.

So, Trump won't get Obama numbers. Conservatives don't tend to fall all over themselves when it comes to politicians. They vote, and then they keep a watchful eye on the people who get elected, because we don't tend to trust government no matter who wins. When Obama left, how many people did you hear singing "na na na na na na na na hey hey hey, goodbye"? None. Because the two sides process politics very differently. So naturally, the turnout will be different.

What bothers me about the reporting of these numbers (as though this were a high school popularity contest) is that a lot of the reports are using images from earlier in the day to show how empty the place was. They're using different angles (look at how empty it was next to the Washington Monument yesterday, compared to near the podium when Obama was elected!). And it's just so stupid and petty. The turnout was fine. The protests were ridiculous, and liberals should be embarrassed by them. The celebrities who are crying on Twitter and suddenly expressing big concern for the Constitution after eight years of not caring about violations look stupid. The SNL writer who chose to attack Trump's 10 year old son represents the foolishness of that movement.

And that's my opinion on the crowd issue.

As for Trump... yes, he will say stupid things. But so did Obama. If he actually accomplishes some of what he says he will, and if he supports our allies instead of their enemies, and if he promotes America instead of trying to tear it down, and if he doesn't try to drag our country into a race war, then I don't care if he makes stupid comments on Twitter. He will still be a step up.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta … 2781060096

Yep, crazy.

The marches and protests that we witnessed this past weekend were an ugly, shameful, miserable display, and a complete failure for... whatever it was that they were trying to accomplish.

In the wake of Donald Trump being sworn in, disappointment, sadness and a feeling of hopelessness by those who didn't vote for him is to be expected. It's not surprising that they wanted to find some way to express these emotions. But these events were nothing more than angry venting, aimless and without purpose. They were pity parties. They were the foot stomping tantrums that you'd expect from a three year old, not a bunch of grown adults.

What was the point?

I you look around online, you will see people saying that they were standing up for women. That's great! But what is it that they were standing against exactly? I saw everything from abortion to... the vote. Yes, THE VOTE. They were marching with signs that suggested that a century later, they were still fighting the same battle as the suffragettes. But the truth is, they had no clear message. They weren't marching for all women, because anyone who was pro-life wasn't invited. So they were only marching for a specific type of women, and they wanted to shut up other women. Which would appear to be the opposite of actually fighting for women's rights.

Were they protesting the vulgarities of Donald Trump? If so, they fail, due to the fact that they were about a thousand times more vulgar.

Were they marching against violence? Because the people who were set on fire would probably call that a failure too.

Were they declaring that they will fight against Trump's perceived hatred of the environment? Because that argument would be more convincing if they didn't leave the streets looking like a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Nope. They didn't care about women. They didn't care about anything, except the aimless rage that they feel toward losing the election. They are mad. They're scared... but mostly because they are projecting their own dark thoughts and worst fears onto Donald Trump.

These marches accomplished nothing. They stood for nothing. They were not beautiful, peaceful displays. I've been looking at marchers setting Trump supporters on fire. I've watched Madonna say that she wants to blow up the White House. Ashley Judd go on a maniacal, disgusting rant.

You could compare these marches to the millions of people who gathered in Washington DC, and others who gathered around the country during the TEA Party rallies. But those rallies had a message and a purpose. They were about the spending, the debt, the taxation. They weren't random, directionless outrage.

So yeah, I think these marches weren't just a failure, they were an ugly display.

But I did see something interesting. In one of the most disturbing videos that I watched, where a marcher set a pro-Trump woman on fire (!?), there was an interesting moment. A couple of the marchers set aside their hatred for a moment and apologized to that pro-Trump woman and said that they felt horrible, because nobody deserves that. I don't know if they actually did anything about it or would be willing to testify against the woman who committed the crime, but it was interesting.

We need less blind hatred. We need more people understanding that others aren't evil, Nazis or fascists just because they disagree. Disagreement is healthy and it doesn't have to involve hatred or violence. It's part of our system. There is no reason why side A has to hate side B. On the grand spectrum of world politics, the differences that we have in America aren't all that different most of the time. There are people who are fighting for basic rights that we take for granted, and there are women who would be killed for speaking out.

I don't consider these marches a failure or ugly because they dared to march. I only think it was a failure and ugly because of how it was done. It was a hollow production, and a poorly directed one at that. It was a march for women that didn't welcome any woman who didn't believe as they believed, which means that it wasn't a march for women at all. It was petty. It was immature.

But it must have been a hell of a good venting for people. Hopefully they can put that anger and hatred aside and move on with their lives now.

Obama was an establishment stooge too. The problem that the Democrats is that they rely on the establishment. The establishment provides their fear, their outrage and their opinions, while promising to provide fantasy healthcare, free college, free mortgages... It is all fluff. There is a lot that Democrats believe in and are willing to stand for, but if these marches proved anything, it's that they're not doing their homework and they're willing to follow blindly.

I respect the hell out of a lot of Democrats on a personal level. I disagree with them, but that's fine. But as a whole, the party has become like a cult. You can watch Leah Remini's Scientology series and see the same methods of brainwashing used by Democrat leaders. This is dangerous because Democrats in general are more pro-government and aren't as quick to question their own politicians or abandon them. I don't want to sound like I'm insulting Democrats. I'm not. But their general philosophies make them easier targets.

Yes and no. The movement was taken over by establishment politicians, and quickly abandoned by the people. However, the movement still managed to produce results in terms of people being voted out of office and who replaced them. And many of those same people are why Hillary isn't in office now. The movement didn't last, but the mission did. That is what the women's march lacks. There is no mission.

I would have preferred a different President, but he is the result of the outrage that people felt over Obama and the Democrats.

Right on script.

Just to highlight the hypocrisy at work here... Pay attention to how many people boycott the Oscars after marching for women. Will they reject this award show where people give a standing ovation to a man who drugged and raped a child? Or will they tune in to see celebrities in sparklie dresses giving hollow political speeches after they win an ugly statue?

Okay, so...

Obama tried to legitimize the oppression in Cuba, and ended the US policy which allowed Cuban refugees to stay in the US and become citizens. Now they would be shipped back to Cuba like other immigrants. This seems to fly in the face of not just liberal immigration views, but you'd think that liberals would be upset about not allowing refugees in. Even more so than the Syrian refugees, because we are pretty much the only hope for the Cubans who flee their country on dinky rafts. Cuba hasn't gone through a big change where everyone is free and happy now.

It would seem that Obama's decision to end the refugee policy was a political tantrum, because too many Cuban-Americans pissed him off during the election and Cubans tend to be more conservative once they get here. You'd think that all of the celebrities who are upset about Trump's refugee policies would have been equally upset about Obama's... Except, they weren't. Nobody cared when we turned our backs on the people fleeing Cuba. Nobody cared about sending them back after their attempt to flee.

So, I have a hard time buying all of this outrage over how uncaring and how un-American Trump's policies are. The fact is, none of these people really care about refugees or humanity. They care about their fad issues. Hating Trump and supporting Muslim immigrants is in style this season. The red carpet at the Oscars this year is probably going to be all about how well people can match their politics to their shoes. They won't want to over-accessorize with jewels, because it would take away from the flare of their pseudo-intellectual outfits.

I can't stand people who pretend to care, or who pretend to be offended, or pretend to be outraged. I hate fakeness.

That is a fine conversation to have, but not when the new limitations come from people who supposedly want to open our borders, welcome everyone, and wave off the notion of carefully vetting refugees who want to come into the country.

They've essentially taken away from Cubans what they want to give to everyone else, and the telling part of this is how little anyone cared when it happened. Right now, I'm not debating the details of Syrian refugees and all of the pros and cons. I'm just addressing the hypocrisy of the people who are complaining about Trump's policy, which is essentially just to slow down and figure out how to do it without putting our country at risk. But that's racist or something.

The question (and one I don't know the answer to) is whether or not it's possible to vet all the refugees that are wanting to get in.  ISIS has said that it plans on sneaking in people through the refugees, and even if they're bluffing, it's a serious-enough threat.  We can talk about only bringing in women and children, but women and children could be radicalized as much as anyone else.

Then, there's the question of "where do they go?"  I haven't seen a good answer, but it seems like we set up refugees with money and shelter, temporarily.  And I find it a little odd that we do this when we don't even take care of our own?  If we can afford to take care of 100,000s of refugees, why can't we take care of the estimated 1.5 million homeless?  Many of them are women and children, and they're already here.  I understand that homeless in America is better than homeless in a war zone, but it just seems like the refugees are political and the homeless are not.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/bl … ted-states

It takes two years for a refugee to go through the US vetting process, which is one of the strictest in the world.

What would you recommend that's not already included?

Regardless of who was in charge, the United States has played a major role in causing millions of deaths and refugees in Syria.  Russia probably even more so, with a vicious, probably criminal, bombing campaign.  Do we bore some responsibility for this?  Trump clearly doesn't think so.  Don't forget, he's in favor of the USA defaulting on debt payments, so I doubt he cares about refugees. 

We're not even close to discussing the ban and vetting process, in my view.  We're STILL at the point of whether or not the Trump camp have once again overpromised ridiculous overnight decisions?  Implementing plans that are not properly thought through, and will be shredded via legal challenges.  I have said since day one, my biggest issue with Trump was that he has zero respect for the people who work in government, not to mention for the law.  His ego, stubbornness, and ignorance will quickly do him in.

Well, I equate to a family on the verge of bankruptcy that keeps taking on foster children.  It's a noble gesture, but at what point does it become worse for the children?  I know America supposedly has moral superiority, but at what point do the problems of Americans outweigh the problems of other countries?

Now Grizzlor is right that we have a role in what's happening in Syria, and, thus, should have a part to play in it.  And everyone is right that, while self-examination might be a good idea for the US, Donald Trump doesn't have the best interests of anyone when he does stuff like this.  The refugee ban probably has more to do with Trump's business holdings than anything related to American security, and it's more likely to cause problems in the Middle East than fix anything.

The problem is that Trump is playing the mob.  In one week of his presidency, we've had protests regarding women's rights, health care, and now immigration.  And the protesters are just jumping around from topic to topic.  No one is staying on any particular topic, and nothing is getting accomplished.  People need to decide what's most important and stay on topic.  That might mean putting something on the backburner, but jumping around isn't going to work.

I've read that Trump is throwing all this out there at once, getting all the anger and protests out of the way, and then waiting for it all to die down.  If that's the case, the mob is falling right into his hands.

At the end of the day, all of this is temporary.  Trump won't last a full term.  He might not last a year.  He has a small brain and thin skin, and he's going to go crazy with all the criticism he's faced.  He'll quit before the fire gets too hot.

I have a different opinion. What's interesting to me right now is the hypocrasy from the left. They're protesting, calling Trump a racist and a bigot and a dictator. But most of what Trump has done to earn the title of "dictator" is just undoing all of the over-reaching of the Obama administration, which nobody minded. He's telling law enforcement to... enforce the law. He's putting a hold on the refugees, just like Obama did with Iraq back in (I believe) 2011. They're saying that he is a tyrant because he is favoring the Christian refugees, but they're ignoring the fact that the order is to give preference to Christians and other more oppressed refugees (like gays, who will be killed for being gay, for example). We have world leaders criticizing Trump's refugee policy, while their own countries have similarly restrictive policies. We have people reporting half truths and half quotes, just to paint a nasty picture.

The thing that is fascinating to me is that nobody cared when Obama did it. Nobody cared about Obama's executive orders. Nobody cared when Obama stopped Iraqi refugees for six months (we had a hand in that too, right?). Nobody cared when they passed Obamacare with the acknowledgement that they didn't really know what was in it, but they'd figure it out after it was passed (and it was a disaster, let's not forget, but people don't mind that).

All of this outrage, with the protests and the physical assaults and the burning of cars and the smashing of windows... it's not because people care about any issues. It's because they're throwing a tantrum. I would bet you money that you couldn't stop a random protester and have a real conversation on the issues with them. They might shout a catchphrase at you, and then they'd light your hair on fire or something. These aren't protests. They're riots, with the media attempting to give them a noble makeover.
The celebrities who are speaking out don't really care. If any of them cared about women or what's right and wrong, they wouldn't give a f---ing standing ovation at the Oscars to a man who drugged and raped a child.

These people, largely fueled by people and organizations who organize protests and riots for a living, aren't even reacting to a thing that Trump has done. Half of them started bitching about how horrible the world was under Trump's rule weeks before he was inaugurated. It's all a big joke. You have people calling Trump a monster for endangering the environment, and they leave their marching path looking like a post-apocalyptic wasteland when they leave.

And what do I think of Trump so far? I actually don't hate him as much as I thought I would. I like his stance on immigration. I like that he isn't cowering to the demands of countries who need us more than we need them. Our country gives a lot to this world, and that isn't likely to end. But it's gotten to the point where people expect us to give, and they expect to keep taking. They expect to be able to tell us what we should be giving them. They expect us to put our citizens, our economy and our safety after all of theirs. I don't want America to become a country that doesn't help the rest of the world. We do good and that's a part of who we are. But I agree with Slider_Quinn21's comparison to the foster kids. You have to start by solidifying your own home, and then you can work toward helping others. Obama's policy was more like the nerdy kid at school who wants so desperately to be liked by the popular kids that he will do anything they say and usually ended up looking like an idiot for it. That doesn't work for the most influential country in the world.

It sounds mean, but it's reality. If you're in charge of a company, the best interest of that company is your primary concern. If you're in charge of a family, the best interests of that family are your primary concern. If you are the President of the United States, it seems fairly obvious that the best interests of this country should be your primary concern. What we have with Trump is a drastic swing in the opposite direction from Obama. Obama wouldn't even acknowledge radical Islamic terrorists. He was turning his back on Israel. He was telling law enforcement agencies to stop enforcing border laws. He was not working toward the best interests of this country in any way, shape or form. Obama was not a leader. Trump is very much a leader... which may turn out to be a bad thing, but we'll have to see about that.

We could have had a more level-headed President, but the media pushed Trump in the primaries as a joke. They thought that people would accept Hillary because they didn't have any other choice. They thought that they could force America to swallow the bitter pill of Obama and then ask for more. Hillary Clinton had the nerve to refer to half of this country as a basket of deplorables. What kind of ego does that take?

I disagree with Slider_Quinn21 about Trump doing all of this for his business ventures. Nobody cared when Obama continued to make money off of his books while he was in office, yet they act as though it's unheard of for Trump to benefit from his pre-Presidenial life. Again, it's not the cause that people have a problem with, it's just another form of aimlessly lashing out.

I want there to be debate about the issues. I want there to be discussion. I want people to question Trump, and you can bet that I'll be keeping my eye on him, because I don't trust him. But none of these riots and tantrums are that. The pu**y hats did nothing, because there was no goal there. All that march gave us was a hilarious video where Ashley Judd's maniacal rant was edited into a Star Trek episode ( https://youtu.be/ghVSZNYPXtw ). But you listen to her speech and she says it all... she is randomly listing bad sounding things that have nothing to do with Trump or our country. She sounds like a lunatic, and she is cheered for it! At one point she just says "Scarlett Johansson"! What does that mean!!!?!?!??

So that's what I think. I think these people look and sound like Arkham Asylum escapees, not revolutionaries.

pilight, I did check out the link that you posted. The problem is... look at step 1. They identify themselves to the UN. This isn't a country like the US or Canada, or Australia, where you can track someone back to their birth and follow them through their entire life. This is a country where people can lie about any number of details, and who knows any better? To the best of my knowledge, there is no secret ISIS database that we've hacked into, which lists all of their recruits. The vetting system obviously isn't good enough, because the refugee camps are being overrun by mobs. The countries that take the most refugees are seeing drastic spikes in violent crimes, and women and children are being told to get used to the idea of being raped because it's just the way things are now. In some of these countries, entire portions of cities are being deemed "no-go zones", where police won't even bother patrolling anymore because they don't run the place.

The desire to help is good and noble. But doing it blindly is foolish. Slowing down traffic from countries that even Obama listed as sources of terrorism is not racist or hateful, it's smart. It's also smart to start thinking of ways to help these people that don't involve them all leaving their own country.

What would I recommend in terms of screening? I have no idea. I honestly don't. But looking around the world, it's pretty obvious that whatever they're doing isn't working.

For someone who is supposedly not a manic Trump supporter, you do a pretty good impression of him.  "I read the first bullet point of this plan and I can tell you it's terrible and we can do something better."