Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnh

Trump in charge (ex race for the US presidency thread)

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

This may be lost on readers if they're not aware of what's behind your comment. :)

The president apparently told top scientists they should stop hurricanes from reaching the US coast by dropping nuclear bombs on them.

Another recent gem is that he told supporters that a hurricane is nothing but a very big tornado.

He isn't the first to suggest/ponder that, it's been kicked around since the 60's. There is chance it could be effective if done early enough while forming - but probably not. Then there's the risk of creating a larger radioactive hurricane. Kinda like launching ICBM's at meteors, and having a shit ton of radioactive fragments falling through the atmosphere.

 

That was a year ago with Michael. And to be fair most every state gets tornadoes and more people can relate to the power and damage of a tornado, whereas only a comparatively small number have had the misfortune to truly understand a hurricane - so in that regard it is not the worst analogy to paint a picture. Scientifically it's totally wrong, it's apples and oranges - but as we know that's not something that has ever been a barrier to a sound bite or a tweet from The Donald!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/08/2019 at 22:14, Chach said:

I find it really surprising these are still considered progressive or left wing policies in any western liberal democracy.

 

@Chach that statement stuck in my craw a good bit. It struck me as very arrogant "elitist-type" comment. My knee-jerk was to say something vapid like

 we've been a democracy a hell of a lot longer than you, so what do you know, or some other stupidity, but I resisted (barely lol). But I kept coming back to that statement, and wondering why the hell that was so weird to you and why your response was so baffling to me.  @Sibdaneand @markjazzbassist I tend to differ with on a fair amount of stuff, but I get them, even when they are clearly wrong 😁 Most of the Europeans, and you specifically (due to more interaction in the last few pages) I simple don't "get" at all. I figured it was more about definitions and perspectives more than anything. I think that's largely true, but the "how" our governments got to where we are, broadly speaking, is a bigger disconnect than perhaps I realized. It's easy as American to look at UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and assume we're basically the same people. We were all Brits or British colonies, we speak the same language, look similar, all are democracies, have been allies or supported each other in almost every military conflict since WW1. Seemingly similar values, y'all basically think like us/we think like y'all whichever. Ish....

I have confessed ignorance on the British system government. It's not something we are taught in school, much beyond the US Colonial period and whatever is mentioned in World History classes. The history or civics of it has to be something you specifically seek to learn or understand. Labor, Tory, democratic socialist parties, coalition governments, no-confidence votes, suspending parliament,  Commons, Lords even the term "liberal democracies" are all just odd nebulous terms to most Americans, because the really don't exist in America political lexicon. 

I do love history, and have studied (as an adult, not as a student) it quite a bit, especially Russian, "Balkan" WW1/WW2 and more recently 19th century and inter-war Europe - but have little attention span for the nuts and bolts of how/why the respective governments worked, or didn't work. Go figure, it was Peaky Fucking Blinders that sparked my interest between the two, especially the relationships between government, workers, labor, socialists, communists. I have read a fair amount on the Russian Civil War between the Reds and the White, and frankly it's confusing as hell between all the factions and the Slavic names. But being exposed (dramatic fiction or not) to the impact from a perspective of 1920's England's society, economy and politics piqued my interest in the whole socialist movement and rise of the Labor party.

As a result a bit of the gaps between "A and D" have been at least partially filled in, and I have learned a lot. I still keep up with the "Brexit" and "General Election" threads, even though I don't understand most of the nuances or references, but it's starting to make more sense. Basically I'm just less ignorant, but far from being able to add anything of value. And before one of you jokers wacks the low-hanging fruit, I'm going to beat you to it - So, how is that different from any other thread?:shakingfist::guns:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ghoat said:

@Chach that statement stuck in my craw a good bit. It struck me as very arrogant "elitist-type" comment. 

 

Psychologists refer to this feeling as "cognitive dissonance" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the gist. Personally I had no knowledge that the Labour Party originated directly from the union labor workforce, had no idea that the socialist movement was as big in the UK as it was, ditto the labor unions themselves. The fact these became political allies years ago, and eventually the base of the Labour Party, makes sense. That this occured as the UK was in transition from a monarchy to a democracy is profound to me. If my basic grasp is correct, labor and various social democracy groups were the voice of opposition against those who controlled power in the UK. The ones that presided over a tumultuous 50 years that included a recession, a devastating war, a deep depression followed by an even more devastating war that left the entire continent exhausted and battered. 

 

But you have to realize, Great Depression aside, America experienced none of that. In part because the direction we took - a democracy with a capitalist economy that was generally isolationist and focused internally. But far more due to timing and luck. We were a minnow in world affairs and nobody much gave damn about us. European countries and economies were matured, and fighting - literally at times -  for natural resources and influence across the globe. We were the opposite. We had literally more land and natural resources than we knew what do with - in no small part because the world powers bailed on North America, either just leaving or selling us land to focus thier resources elsewhere. Our biggest problem was we didn't have enough people. 

There was a ton of domestic and international turmoil in Europe in the period at the end of the US Civil War in the 1860's to 1914, but we were in an expansionist boom almost that whole period. We were trying to build railroads and infrastructure to populate the Pacific Coast and we had domestic access to virtually all the raw material - except people. We were begging for people all over the world to move here. There was work, no shortage of food, hell we would give you 40 acres of land if you would move to our underpopulation areas and plant a farm. 

We stayed out of both World Wars as long as possible focused on domestic growth. And when we did move to wartime footing in both cases the economy and industry grew exponentially during and after the war, "The Roaring Twenties" and "The Baby Boomers" generation saw us become the richest and most powerful nation in the world at the time. Again, that's more fortuitous circumstances than "Good Ole America". The belligerents in World War I all had a significant part of entire generations of young men die. And even more returned home physically or mentally damaged to the workforce in shattered economies. We lost a very small portion of that generation, and they returned to a boom economy. 30 years later another European generation faced the same fate, with even more dead, and this time they returned home to over a million dead civilians, and bombed cities. We had greater losses, but proportionately far less than others. Our soldiers returned to an economy that had transformed and was in hyper growth. We had damaged airfield and port in Hawaii that was repaired by 1942. The Japanese launched something like 10,000 balloon bombs, think total of five or six people were killed somewhere in Oregon. The wars simply weren't fought in our yard, they were in someone else's. Ours were untouched while others were wrecked.

The social changes that occured in Europe over those 50-75 years that eventually toppled the government of all European powers, twice in some cases, didn't occur in America. Our population, society and nation changed dramatically during that time - and it wasn't without growing pains or perfect by any means.  But we were well over a hundred years into democracy, with almost no changes to the original Constitution. We had massive changes to the country due to growth, but the government "evolved" and grew with it. We were fortunate to have decades of mostly uninterrupted peaceful exponential growth - economically and as a youthful nation finding it's identity. That's a stark contrast to was occuring in the hearts and minds of European citizens and those whole ruled them.

Socialism and/or Communism never came to the America as a movement or into the body politic in the 20th Century. Maybe it wasn't "exported" because it's adherents wanted to change THEIR country, and stayed to do so. Maybe for the Europeans who chose to immigrate, America was the "change" they wanted and accept it as it was. Many initially settled in enclaves while they found work, learned the language or generally assimilated themselves into American society, even "Americanizing" thier first or last names in many cases - that whole "Melting Pot" thing. Then they gradually scattered across the country, bringing bits and pieces of their language and culture with them. Except the Irish. I swear they all joined the police force, fire department, built pubs and never left Boston....But there was no massive social-political movement or upheaval that radically reshaped the nation or redirected the the direction of our government.

 

Throughout the 20th century in the US the terms Socialism or Socialist have generally been met with disinterest at best, and outright hostility at worse. Since it never really appeared here as a movement, it was "introduced" in 1939 by Adolph and Benito, and ergo is analagous with Totalitarianism. Almost every conflict, or near conflict the US has been involved with has been with a socialist government. Those of us who are older have grown up hearing hearing the revolutionaries or socialist leaders talk about bringing revolution, destroying democracy and capitalism and we are almost always the example. We have been doing this democracy and capitalism thing for a couple hundred years now. And while it's not perfect, it's all we have even known, it's got us to this point and we kinda like it. 

For a lot of Americans the first things that spring to mind aren't Canadian Health care, Einstein, Bernie, our own Social Security or policies of many of our close allies. It conjures up failed oppressive dictatorships, or hostile regimes personified by thier leaders. Socialism is Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, the Kim Jungs, Mussolini, Che Guvera, Ho Chi Min etc...

Not saying that's even remotely correct or fair, and there is no doubt that is beginning to change, especially among 35 and below crowd. But as general rule, in the American political arena, the distinction between socialist policies and a full on anti-capitalist socialist regime isn't always made.

 

Please understand, yes, I'm an American and I love American. But I don't think we're superior, have some divine gift, always get it right, and are inherently "better" because of the latitude we were born in. We have just had the good fortune of timing, resources, some luck, and geopolitical events beyond our control. Not to mention we got all the fruits, but skipped a thousand years of development, and got the benefit on some of the best and brightest from around the world that made incalculable contributions to this country. Not better/worse but our path has been unique, our perspective is little different, still evolving and Bob's your uncle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Here's the gist. Personally I had no knowledge that the Labour Party originated directly from the union labor workforce, had no idea that the socialist movement was as big in the UK as it was, ditto the labor unions themselves. The fact these became political allies years ago, and eventually the base of the Labour Party, makes sense. That this occured as the UK was in transition from a monarchy to a democracy is profound to me. If my basic grasp is correct, labor and various social democracy groups were the voice of opposition against those who controlled power in the UK. The ones that presided over a tumultuous 50 years that included a recession, a devastating war, a deep depression followed by an even more devastating war that left the entire continent exhausted and battered. 

 

But you have to realize, Great Depression aside, America experienced none of that. In part because the direction we took - a democracy with a capitalist economy that was generally isolationist and focused internally. But far more due to timing and luck. We were a minnow in world affairs and nobody much gave damn about us. European countries and economies were matured, and fighting - literally at times -  for natural resources and influence across the globe. We were the opposite. We had literally more land and natural resources than we knew what do with - in no small part because the world powers bailed on North America, either just leaving or selling us land to focus thier resources elsewhere. Our biggest problem was we didn't have enough people. 

There was a ton of domestic and international turmoil in Europe in the period at the end of the US Civil War in the 1860's to 1914, but we were in an expansionist boom almost that whole period. We were trying to build railroads and infrastructure to populate the Pacific Coast and we had domestic access to virtually all the raw material - except people. We were begging for people all over the world to move here. There was work, no shortage of food, hell we would give you 40 acres of land if you would move to our underpopulation areas and plant a farm. 

We stayed out of both World Wars as long as possible focused on domestic growth. And when we did move to wartime footing in both cases the economy and industry grew exponentially during and after the war, "The Roaring Twenties" and "The Baby Boomers" generation saw us become the richest and most powerful nation in the world at the time. Again, that's more fortuitous circumstances than "Good Ole America". The belligerents in World War I all had a significant part of entire generations of young men die. And even more returned home physically or mentally damaged to the workforce in shattered economies. We lost a very small portion of that generation, and they returned to a boom economy. 30 years later another European generation faced the same fate, with even more dead, and this time they returned home to over a million dead civilians, and bombed cities. We had greater losses, but proportionately far less than others. Our soldiers returned to an economy that had transformed and was in hyper growth. We had damaged airfield and port in Hawaii that was repaired by 1942. The Japanese launched something like 10,000 balloon bombs, think total of five or six people were killed somewhere in Oregon. The wars simply weren't fought in our yard, they were in someone else's. Ours were untouched while others were wrecked.

The social changes that occured in Europe over those 50-75 years that eventually toppled the government of all European powers, twice in some cases, didn't occur in America. Our population, society and nation changed dramatically during that time - and it wasn't without growing pains or perfect by any means.  But we were well over a hundred years into democracy, with almost no changes to the original Constitution. We had massive changes to the country due to growth, but the government "evolved" and grew with it. We were fortunate to have decades of mostly uninterrupted peaceful exponential growth - economically and as a youthful nation finding it's identity. That's a stark contrast to was occuring in the hearts and minds of European citizens and those whole ruled them.

Socialism and/or Communism never came to the America as a movement or into the body politic in the 20th Century. Maybe it wasn't "exported" because it's adherents wanted to change THEIR country, and stayed to do so. Maybe for the Europeans who chose to immigrate, America was the "change" they wanted and accept it as it was. Many initially settled in enclaves while they found work, learned the language or generally assimilated themselves into American society, even "Americanizing" thier first or last names in many cases - that whole "Melting Pot" thing. Then they gradually scattered across the country, bringing bits and pieces of their language and culture with them. Except the Irish. I swear they all joined the police force, fire department, built pubs and never left Boston....But there was no massive social-political movement or upheaval that radically reshaped the nation or redirected the the direction of our government.

 

Throughout the 20th century in the US the terms Socialism or Socialist have generally been met with disinterest at best, and outright hostility at worse. Since it never really appeared here as a movement, it was "introduced" in 1939 by Adolph and Benito, and ergo is analagous with Totalitarianism. Almost every conflict, or near conflict the US has been involved with has been with a socialist government. Those of us who are older have grown up hearing hearing the revolutionaries or socialist leaders talk about bringing revolution, destroying democracy and capitalism and we are almost always the example. We have been doing this democracy and capitalism thing for a couple hundred years now. And while it's not perfect, it's all we have even known, it's got us to this point and we kinda like it. 

For a lot of Americans the first things that spring to mind aren't Canadian Health care, Einstein, Bernie, our own Social Security or policies of many of our close allies. It conjures up failed oppressive dictatorships, or hostile regimes personified by thier leaders. Socialism is Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, the Kim Jungs, Mussolini, Che Guvera, Ho Chi Min etc...

Not saying that's even remotely correct or fair, and there is no doubt that is beginning to change, especially among 35 and below crowd. But as general rule, in the American political arena, the distinction between socialist policies and a full on anti-capitalist socialist regime isn't always made.

 

Please understand, yes, I'm an American and I love American. But I don't think we're superior, have some divine gift, always get it right, and are inherently "better" because of the latitude we were born in. We have just had the good fortune of timing, resources, some luck, and geopolitical events beyond our control. Not to mention we got all the fruits, but skipped a thousand years of development, and got the benefit on some of the best and brightest from around the world that made incalculable contributions to this country. Not better/worse but our path has been unique, our perspective is little different, still evolving and Bob's your uncle.

 

What the fuck you going on about Billy Bob you been drinking to much moonshine  or what 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of all that was that you were shocked that "The Squad" are considered "progressive" or even "liberal" in our political arena. So I did a lot of digging trying to understand why you had that viewpoint that seemed absurd. I'll be damned, but there is pretty good reasons for you to think that. I simply compared the different road taken to arrive at a similar place in time.

And nah, we stole both ideas. Like a hip-hop artist mashing a couple things up. Both Greece and the Adam Smith estate tried to file for copyright infringement, but neither filed the proper paperwork with the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ghoat said:

The point of all that was that you were shocked that "The Squad" are considered "progressive" or even "liberal" in our political arena. So I did a lot of digging trying to understand why you had that viewpoint that seemed absurd. I'll be damned, but there is pretty good reasons for you to think that. I simply compared the different road taken to arrive at a similar place in time.

And nah, we stole both ideas. Like a hip-hop artist mashing a couple things up. Both Greece and the Adam Smith estate tried to file for copyright infringement, but neither filed the proper paperwork with the EU.

If you go back I actually said I was surprised that things like universal healthcare and anthropogenic global warming  were considered leftwing or liberal issues in the states. I think you can make a good conservative argument for universal healthcare and not polluting the planet.

I've come to see that in reality conservatives and progressives need each other, its a symbiotic relationship that is useful to the group in general, both sides over reach and you can see demonstrated in the world how problematic that has been when one side has had too much power and become authoritarian.

The squad are great but I get the feeling a couple of them would over reach if they got the opportunity, AOC and Pressley in particular.

I'm not a fan of this kind of identity politics

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see the issue with it. In a country that is riddled with racism, to have a voice for different people is a good thing. A country with a massively mixed population should have a massively mixed government, not just he represented by wealthy old white men surely?

I think AOC is fantastic personally. She scares the shit out of wealthy old white men, that’s no bad thing in politics to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StevO said:

I don’t see the issue with it. In a country that is riddled with racism, to have a voice for different people is a good thing. A country with a massively mixed population should have a massively mixed government, not just he represented by wealthy old white men surely?

I think AOC is fantastic personally. She scares the shit out of wealthy old white men, that’s no bad thing in politics to me. 

Personally I don't think she's terribly bright - not just because I disagree with a lot of her proposals, I just don't think she's terribly bright. 

But I absolutely agree that there needs to be dissenting voices, viewpoints and opinions, even if they're not ones I particularly like. If 20 stupid ideas from either side lead to one good idea that makes a difference, that's a good thing.

I would like to have seen over the course of a 4-year presidency or maybe even an 8-year presidency what George W's "compassionate conservatism" would have actually looked like. In theory to me at least that still meant basic conservative principles a little more limited government and people's lives, but not gutting social programs in the process. Of course less than nine months into his presidency 9/11 occured, and completely changed whatever plans he had, so we'll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, my dislike of AOC, or The Squad as a whole, is not due to their gender, ethnicity or religion, I don't like their policies. But we certainly don't need more wealthy old white guys in DC, of either party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chach said:

I've come to see that in reality conservatives and progressives need each other, its a symbiotic relationship that is useful to the group in general, both sides over reach and you can see demonstrated in the world how problematic that has been when one side has had too much power and become authoritarian.

I knew you would eventually say something I agreed with ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, StevO said:

I don’t see the issue with it. In a country that is riddled with racism, to have a voice for different people is a good thing. A country with a massively mixed population should have a massively mixed government, not just he represented by wealthy old white men surely?

She's not saying there should be more diversity in government, she's saying that a persons politics should be determined by their skin colour/sexuality/religion. Politics based on "group identity" is not something we should be aspiring to, we've plenty of example in history of how that has lead to less cohesive societies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chach said:

She's not saying there should be more diversity in government, she's saying that a persons politics should be determined by their skin colour/sexuality/religion. Politics based on "group identity" is not something we should be aspiring to, we've plenty of example in history of how that has lead to less cohesive societies.

I completely disagree, I think you’re looking for that negative view in what she says. All I hear from her is if you are black, represent what black people want, if you’re Muslim represent what Muslim people want. If you’re brown represent what brown people want. Don’t turn up and represent what you think other politicians want. 

Would you rather everyone just represent the same old white ideas that have ruled the government since day one?
For a capitalist country it seem that only certain groups are allowed to capitalise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, StevO said:

I completely disagree, I think you’re looking for that negative view in what he says, all I hear from Trump is if you are white, represent what white people want, if you’re straight represent what straight people want. If you’re rich represent what rich people want. 

Would you rather everyone just represent the same old white ideas that have ruled the government since day one?

How do we feel about the bolded now?

We haven't made the progress we have made using this kind of divisive language, you look at the great civil rights leaders and they used language that appealed to our sense of common humanity., this language is a backwards step in my opinion specially from a politician elected to represent a fairly diverse constituency.

 

ps Regarding the italics, I really have to know what do you mean by "white ideas?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/09/2019 at 02:51, Chach said:

She's not saying there should be more diversity in government, she's saying that a persons politics should be determined by their skin colour/sexuality/religion. Politics based on "group identity" is not something we should be aspiring to, we've plenty of example in history of how that has lead to less cohesive societies.

But who you are does represent your political view, as does your colour religion sexuality and your location, that does make it more diverse if we didn’t use those factors there would be less diversity, I fail to understand your argument,  the last power house who tried to take away those factors that made us diverse and different were the Germans when they wanted to create the arian state where everyone was the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Palfy said:

But who you are does represent your political view, as does your colour religion sexuality and your location, that does make it more diverse if we didn’t use those factors there would be less diversity, I fail to understand your argument,  the last power house who tried to take away those factors that made us diverse and different were the Germans when they wanted to create the arian state where everyone was the same. 

Don’t confuse Germans and Nazis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Chach said:

How do we feel about the bolded now?

We haven't made the progress we have made using this kind of divisive language, you look at the great civil rights leaders and they used language that appealed to our sense of common humanity., this language is a backwards step in my opinion specially from a politician elected to represent a fairly diverse constituency.

 

ps Regarding the italics, I really have to know what do you mean by "white ideas?"

What progress has been made? 
Yeah, black people can vote and can sit on the bus. They can also be shot by the police and no one gets prosecuted. I don’t see progress on how minorities are treated over there at all. I’ve been lucky enough to travel a lot of the world, I’ve seen a lot of Europe, I’ve seen the Far East, Caribbean, parts of Africa, yet only one country I’ve been to have I seen a black man be called a nigger, in the street, in broad daylight while not doing anything other than going about his business. Even more strangely, I’ve seen similar things happen on other occasions. This incident happened in Vegas on the strip, one occasion in a bar in Birmingham Alabama whole Arctic Monkeys played (I told the bar staff who said “it happens”) and in Florida, in a car park outside Disney. Maybe I’ve been unlucky, but I’ve missed the progress. All I know is I’ve never seen these things happen in the UK, I’m sure they might. 
 

By white ideas I mean any political ideas that are there to keep the old white men in power. All of your presidents apart from one have been white men, that’s not a coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've personally seen 3 examples of racism in the United States, and that show no progress for minorities in the country. I'm assuming if you been in London pub when Zouma gave up a needless penalty not a single person in that bar would have dared utter a racist epitath because, well progress has been achieved in the UK.

Racism is unacceptable, and has been for oh 5000 years or so, but it lives. And people are stupid. But individual stupidly does not equate to institutionalized racism or oppression, it just doesn't.

What do you consider progress besides voting and riding in the front of buses? Economic gains, home ownership, business ownership, education, participation in local state or federal government? Pick a time period - last 40 years, 20 years, 4 years....and show me little/no progress across the spectrum.

Perfect, hell no. Long way to go in some areas, absolutely. But respectfully, I think you are taking a macro view based on 4-5 micro examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

So you've personally seen 3 examples of racism in the United States, and that show no progress for minorities in the country. I'm assuming if you been in London pub when Zouma gave up a needless penalty not a single person in that bar would have dared utter a racist epitath because, well progress has been achieved in the UK.

Racism is unacceptable, and has been for oh 5000 years or so, but it lives. And people are stupid. But individual stupidly does not equate to institutionalized racism or oppression, it just doesn't.

What do you consider progress besides voting and riding in the front of buses? Economic gains, home ownership, business ownership, education, participation in local state or federal government? Pick a time period - last 40 years, 20 years, 4 years....and show me little/no progress across the spectrum.

Perfect, hell no. Long way to go in some areas, absolutely. But respectfully, I think you are taking a macro view based on 4-5 micro examples.

I can only speak from online experience as I used to play a lot of backgammon and hearts (card game) and the computer always identified the location of your opponent(s). I don't do it so much anymore but far and away the most racist language in the comments section was from Americans. It was endemic and was more often "nigga" than "nigger" but used as the "go to" insult of someone who didn't like your move; Ste is citing three examples but I could (had I taken screenshots) offer probably three thousand. Keyboard warriors obviously but very telling for me.

And I was/am (to a lesser extent) good at those games so the computer was matching me with appropriate opponents, no knuckle dragging hicks because they are games of skill, so these people weren't stupid. I ended up disabling the comments option which was a shame because I had many interesting conversations with people from all over the World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

So you've personally seen 3 examples of racism in the United States, and that show no progress for minorities in the country. I'm assuming if you been in London pub when Zouma gave up a needless penalty not a single person in that bar would have dared utter a racist epitath because, well progress has been achieved in the UK.

Racism is unacceptable, and has been for oh 5000 years or so, but it lives. And people are stupid. But individual stupidly does not equate to institutionalized racism or oppression, it just doesn't.

What do you consider progress besides voting and riding in the front of buses? Economic gains, home ownership, business ownership, education, participation in local state or federal government? Pick a time period - last 40 years, 20 years, 4 years....and show me little/no progress across the spectrum.

Perfect, hell no. Long way to go in some areas, absolutely. But respectfully, I think you are taking a macro view based on 4-5 micro examples.

I’m only passing my opinion based on my experiences. My personal experiences from around the world is that I’ve seen black people be racially abused more in a country I visit for no more than a few weeks a year, than I have in a country I’ve spent 35 years. 

Im sure there has been lots of progress, but just because it’s better than it was 100 years ago doesn’t make it right.

I see your politicians are mostly old white men, I see you population as being all kinds of mixed races. I believe your government should represent its people, and from the outside looking it it doesn’t look that way. I may be very very wrong, but I’m saying what I see. 
 

I love your country, it’s a second home to me and has been all my life. I’ve family in Florida and Georgia, it pains me to say it but I’ve seen institutionalised racism from them. From my uncle in his 80s down to cousins in their 20s, racism that is passed down through generations. It’s embarrassing to see it, but gladly it’s in private and I can’t change my family, I still love them. Racism in America is part of the fabric, it’s always been that way. White kids don’t get shot in the street by the police, black kids do. That’s as bad as it can be. 
 

How much harm could really be done to the country if more black, brown, Hispanic, Asian, native Americans or even more females were in power? The rest of the world has been laughing at America since Trump was elected, would it be that bad if someone other than an old white guy was in charge? 
 

If I didn’t care so much about your country I wouldn’t even bother posting, but I do. I hope one day someone gets it right, I don’t think the population will let that happen though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/09/2019 at 07:44, StevO said:

I don’t see the issue with it. In a country that is riddled with racism, to have a voice for different people is a good thing. A country with a massively mixed population should have a massively mixed government, not just he represented by wealthy old white men surely?

I think AOC is fantastic personally. She scares the shit out of wealthy old white men, that’s no bad thing in politics to me. 

I’m a big fan of AOC, too. She’s one smart cookie and should go far. As for others in the squad, I worry about their antiSemitism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how is it anti-semitic to call out israel for their massive human rights violations against Palestinians?  i have friends that are both israeli and Palestinian and the israeli argument just doesn't add up.  not to mention the west bank settlements that are a breach of the agreements they made.  the open air prison known as the gaza strip, the only reason israel gets a pass is because of all the nut job right winger evangelicals that think israel is God's chosen people (last time i checked Jesus said everyone is welcome to the kingdom of God) and are all Pro-Israel. If it weren't for that most americans would view them the same as Iran.  instead they get a religious free pass for oppressing Palestinians.  no thanks from me.  not anti-semitic to call israel for the bully they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I’m a big fan of AOC, too. She’s one smart cookie and should go far. As for others in the squad, I worry about their antiSemitism. 

She’s the first politician, if you can call her that, who I’ve watched on TV and actually felt inspired in as long as I can remember. I wish we had some like her over here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MikeO said:

I can only speak from online experience as I used to play a lot of backgammon and hearts (card game) and the computer always identified the location of your opponent(s). I don't do it so much anymore but far and away the most racist language in the comments section was from Americans. It was endemic and was more often "nigga" than "nigger" but used as the "go to" insult of someone who didn't like your move; Ste is citing three examples but I could (had I taken screenshots) offer probably three thousand. Keyboard warriors obviously but very telling for me.

And I was/am (to a lesser extent) good at those games so the computer was matching me with appropriate opponents, no knuckle dragging hicks because they are games of skill, so these people weren't stupid. I ended up disabling the comments option which was a shame because I had many interesting conversations with people from all over the World.

Online gaming is a cesspool of racism. I played World of Tanks a lot and the ingame chat got so bad, the company stopped cross team chat to reduce the abuse, although all that meant was that the angry players would through around the insults to their own teammates. 

Its not just a matter of intelligence, the online world gives an anonymity and thus freedom from accountability which just sets the stage for any form of abuse. Reporting players, in WoT at least is pointless, as the automated function does sod all, and even video evidence submitted by a manual ticket to complain usually gets a copy paste reply from the “customer service” support line. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, StevO said:

Im sure there has been lots of progress, but just because it’s better than it was 100 years ago doesn’t make it right.

I see your politicians are mostly old white men, I see you population as being all kinds of mixed races. I believe your government should represent its people, and from the outside looking it it doesn’t look that way. I may be very very wrong, but I’m saying what I see. 
 

You will find zero argument from me on that (better not right).

The US population is confusing as hell because of the somewhat confusing differentiation of race vs ethnicity, especial when it comes to white/non-white Latino and Hispanic - which seemingly are used interchangeably or incorrectly. Blacks/African Americans are about 13%, Asians about 5% and multi race and "other" somewhere about 11% So if white is about 65% that would put "Hispanic" due to lack of better terms at 15%. So the US is roughly 65% white, which includes European ancestry.  Regardless of the 100 current US Senate there are 4 Hispanic, 3 Black, 3 Asian and 1 mixed race - leaving 89 "white". While that doesn't match the population, you could also argue it should be 100% white (which I don't for the record). With only 2 seats per state, and no state has less than 50% whites. For example, South Carolina has 1 black (republican!) senator and 1 white. The population is roughly 70/30 white black. So with 50/50 on senators, blacks are over-represented by 20% and white under-represented 20%. While the Senate could be, and should be more diverse, it's not "simple math" The House is much different and closer, because it ties to a state's population and the districts are much smaller that "half the state". Of the 435 House seats there are 122 minorities, including 56 black. So whites that are 65% of the population are represented by 70% of the seats. Blacks are 13% of the population and have that same percentage of the seats. That starts to look more representative, yes?

It's absurd to me to look at the make up of our government and use that as a basis or THE basis that the American system is racist. That is overly simplistic, and IMO, intellectually lazy. I do not dispute there is racism in they system at all, but there are several factors that contribute to why "old white men" are disproportionately represented. It is changing, and that trend is good for the country, but I strenuously disagree that the primary reason it's not an exact mirror image of the current population is due to inherent racism (or sexism). 

Let me give you a different perspective or thought on "identity politics" to ponder. For me, a representative should do their best to represent their entire constituency - practically impossible from a diverse electorate, but still. Use Ilhan Omar of Minnesota as an example - she is a black Muslim. If that drives the vast majority of her policy, what about the 60-70% of whites in her district the and the 70-75% Christians? If we as a electorate expect our representatives to primarily push policy based on identity, then the racial diversity of government disappears when the WASP majority in this country votes accordingly, and we get even MORE old white men in power. And honestly, as a WASP, that's the last fucking thing I want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At no point did I say it was THE reason. This debate started because someone didn’t like what a politician said, I liked what they said. Your government is just an example I gave of lack of representation. My reasons for thinking the states is a racist country is pretty much laid out across every single post I’ve made in this thread. The things I’ve seen in your country, the press your country gets, the news we see over her about the states is of a very very racist country. Add to that the rest of the world think you’ve elected a racist president, it appears from all outside angles as a racist country. 
 

For the record, I’m not saying any TT members are racist, I don’t know you all well enough but the few I do feel I know well enough I don’t think are racist. I’ve just seen too much racism and met too many racists over there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, StevO said:

I love your country, it’s a second home to me and has been all my life. I’ve family in Florida and Georgia, it pains me to say it but I’ve seen institutionalised racism from them. From my uncle in his 80s down to cousins in their 20s, racism that is passed down through generations. It’s embarrassing to see it, but gladly it’s in private and I can’t change my family, I still love them. Racism in America is part of the fabric, it’s always been that way. White kids don’t get shot in the street by the police, black kids do. That’s as bad as it can be. 
 

I couldn't agree more it's generation passed, ESPECIALLY in the Deep South, where you have spent a lot of time. I spent 3 years as a youth in Japan, where I was certainly a minority, I lived in Alaska 3 years, and I have traveled a good bit, but I was basically born and raised in Mississippi, and have grown up in Alabama. My great-grandmother used the terms "nigger woman" or "nigger man" to describe people - more as an adjective, not spat as an insult. She was born in rural Mississippi in 1915 or so, and lived there until she died in the 1990's. It was their world, and how they spoke, which explains it, with justifying or condoning it.  My grandmother I heard much less of that type language from. My Mom went to school during public school in Mississippi during the desegregation 1960's, I don't recall hearing that language from her. My wife and I have raised our daughters to be as color-blind as possible. Not all do, some pass the stupidity right down the gene pool, explicitly or tacitly. Momma was right "you can't fix stupid", but you can damn sure limit your interaction with it!

This is probably still the "worst" part of the country, still has the farthest to go and should continue to be held accountable. But to not recognize the gradual evolution and progress in society and broadly characterize "Southern-Americans" as little more than a bunch of racists Confederate Flag waving hicks is counter-productive in every sense of the world. And I am NOT accusing you have do that, just to be clear.

 

"White kids don’t get shot in the street by the police, black kids do" makes for a good poster at a march, but it's bollocks. Discussion for another time/day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I couldn't agree more it's generation passed, ESPECIALLY in the Deep South, where you have spent a lot of time. I spent 3 years as a youth in Japan, where I was certainly a minority, I lived in Alaska 3 years, and I have traveled a good bit, but I was basically born and raised in Mississippi, and have grown up in Alabama. My great-grandmother used the terms "nigger woman" or "nigger man" to describe people - more as an adjective, not spat as an insult. She was born in rural Mississippi in 1915 or so, and lived there until she died in the 1990's. It was their world, and how they spoke, which explains it, with justifying or condoning it.  My grandmother I heard much less of that type language from. My Mom went to school during public school in Mississippi during the desegregation 1960's, I don't recall hearing that language from her. My wife and I have raised our daughters to be as color-blind as possible. Not all do, some pass the stupidity right down the gene pool, explicitly or tacitly. Momma was right "you can't fix stupid", but you can damn sure limit your interaction with it!

This is probably still the "worst" part of the country, still has the farthest to go and should continue to be held accountable. But to not recognize the gradual evolution and progress in society and broadly characterize "Southern-Americans" as little more than a bunch of racists Confederate Flag waving hicks is counter-productive in every sense of the world. And I am NOT accusing you have do that, just to be clear.

 

"White kids don’t get shot in the street by the police, black kids do" makes for a good poster at a march, but it's bollocks. Discussion for another time/day.

 

 

Agree with most of this, being from the South, but the part in bold isn't necessarily bollocks. There is definitely a disparity between the way whites and blacks are treated when it comes to the justice system here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Steve, just because I'm debating with you or disagreeing with you on something doesn't mean I don't appreciate the difference in perspective. You were looking at it from the outside, and have personal experience is here as well. I am right in the middle of it, but also have the perspective of having lived outside of it and having that perspective.

So whether I agree or not, doesn't mean that I don't genuinely appreciate your (any anyone else's) contribution in a civil discussion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

There is definitely a disparity between the way whites and blacks are treated when it comes to the justice system here.

Totally agree. But that's MUCH broader - the entire criminal justice system, social economical realities, education, cultural and societal differences as well as racism.

But that's entirely different from the narrow suggestion that cops kill blacks kids in the street and don't kill white kids. That, as a stand alone statement, is bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Totally agree. But that's MUCH broader - the entire criminal justice system, social economical realities, education, cultural and societal differences as well as racism.

But that's entirely different from the narrow suggestion that cops kill blacks kids in the street and don't kill white kids. That, as a stand alone statement, is bollocks.

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

And Steve, just because I'm debating with you or disagreeing with you on something doesn't mean I don't appreciate the difference in perspective. You were looking at it from the outside, and have personal experience is here as well. I am right in the middle of it, but also have the perspective of having lived outside of it and having that perspective.

So whether I agree or not, doesn't mean that I don't genuinely appreciate your (any anyone else's) contribution in a civil discussion :)

Wouldn’t think anything else mate. We come here for debate and we only debate things we are passionate about. 
 

My mum went to school in Albany (I think it was Albany, she took my sister to see where she lived a few years back but I’ve never been). I love the south, the southern hospitality is something special, I went to Mrs Wilkes restaurant in Savannah last year and had one of the best meals I’ve ever had. I only get so frustrated about these issues because I care about the place so much. 
 

Four weeks today I fly to New York and then on to Atlantic City, but I’m expecting to see new things and new experiences there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

But that's entirely different from the narrow suggestion that cops kill blacks kids in the street and don't kill white kids. That, as a stand alone statement, is bollocks.

Again with the press the country gets, I can name black kids who have been killed in the street and police not charged with anything. I’m not aware of this happening to white kids, if it has it’s not been reported that I’ve seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, StevO said:

Again with the press the country gets, I can name black kids who have been killed in the street and police not charged with anything. I’m not aware of this happening to white kids, if it has it’s not been reported that I’ve seen. 

More so than any other demographic, I would say there is an inherent the distrust of police within the black community, regardless of the officer's color. I believe that is generally understood are police departments, and most or trying I need to continue to dry to reach out to the communities and improve relations. But by the same token those communities have to be willing to accept that effort, and do their part as well, even if 75% of the burden is on the police force, the community still has to do their 25% or it can never improve. 

You will have a community that has a high crime rate and demands something be done about it, and then often times when patrols increase it raises tensions and there are complaints in the same community about heavy police presence and arrests. People will not cooperate with the police - even when they match the community and are uneasy by their mere presence. 

When there is a fatal shooting by an officer in the line of duty, there is always an investigation. Actually if an officer even discharges his service weapon there is an investigation. I'm not foolish enough to assume that justice or the truth always comes out of these investigations, but there is really no other option then to let the process at least run. If the victim is white, or the officer is black, typically is that news, and the races might not even be mentioned initially unless something dodgy surfaces. But in cases where the officer is white and if the victim is black there can be racial assumption applied before there are any facts whatsoever which greatly complicates the process. 

Michael Brown, Ferguson Missouri. Initially reported as white cop gunning an unarmed black teen down in the street in broad daylight. The national rise to prominence of Black Lives Matter, "Hands up, Don't Shoot" chanted, on shirts and signs, the Ferguson Riots, as well as being a huge influencing factor on Colin Kaepernick's NFL protest come from this case, and primarily the initial reporting of this that became a worldwide sensation.

When you have the time read through this. There's a lot of information on the investigations the witnesses forensics etc. For more information then the media went back to cover or report after the new cycle was over, they were on two other news stories and other controversies.

I want even summarize it but if you're so inclined, read the evidence presented to investigators and draw your own conclusions.

And yes there other cases, and names that are familiar to us all, but this was probably the biggest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MikeO said:

it will backfire just like the clinton one did.  the only way to get him is to get the audio released of him saying i won't give your country aid money unless you investigate Bidens, in which then he's toast.  until then its just political theatre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, markjazzbassist said:

it will backfire just like the clinton one did.  the only way to get him is to get the audio released of him saying i won't give your country aid money unless you investigate Bidens, in which then he's toast.  until then its just political theatre.

I was just trying to deflect🤣.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MikeO said:

this is heating up.  i still don't think there is enough meat there to get him impeached or ruin him, but if a true cover up is able to be proven, he could be busted then.  Something with republicans and illegally trying to beat their opponents.......cough cough......Tricky Dick Nixon.........cough cough........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me how ignorant most Americans are when it comes to civics. I would be willing to bet a significant percentage of not a majority of the people that have been screaming for Trump to be impeached since the day he was inaugurated think that it means it removes him from office (I think it was also the case for those screaming for Clinton's impeachment).

The sheer gravity and threshold to bring an impeachment hearing to a vote is significant enough, that it's only succeeded twice in our history and both of those were overturned by the Senate - and a president has never been removed from office by the legislature.

I really I think this is going to proceed against Pelosi's better judgment, because it's high risk high reward. If Trump "wins" I think 2020 will be a bloodbath for the Democrats - however should they succeed I believe it is their best chance to get the WH and Senate in 2020.

I would imagine that we are going to see some of the most ridiculous partisan shit from both sides, but it's impossible to not watch - like lesbian midget mud wrestling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

people realize what it is, a black mark against the president they can use in the next election cycle.  but, nixon resigned rather than go through with it, maybe just maybe they're hoping for the same.

I can’t see him resigning, I honestly think he is revelling in the fight he will never see that he is or can be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/09/2019 at 11:34, markjazzbassist said:

people realize what it is, a black mark against the president they can use in the next election cycle.  but, nixon resigned rather than go through with it, maybe just maybe they're hoping for the same.

I disagree. I'm not talking about people here, that are pretty educated about politics and civics and understand the difference between an impeachment and removal from office. It's exactly as you said if successful, an official reprimand by congress that the DNC can use against every GOP candidate in 2020. If it fails to get out of the House, I think the GOP/RNC will batter the democrats with it in 2020.

Personally, I think the outcome of this will determine control of the House, Senate and likely the WH. Maybe not quite a Hail Mary, but I do think the democrats are putting most all their 2020 eggs in this basket. And I think it's going be a nasty fight, like Kavaugnah-esque.

And like Palfy, I don't see him retiring, he seemingly enjoys the fight too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’d piss on the constitution and tear it up before he gave up the fight. I’m pretty sure he’d fight for a 3rd term if he thought for a second he could get away with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The threats are becoming more extreme every day, and I can't help but think the US is becoming a bit of a powder keg. If the name of the whistleblower is revealed and someone takes a potshot, this country could explode. Trump is accusing a Democratic leader of being a traitor who should be shot. He's also after the blood of the whistleblower and those who leaked information about his phone call. With his administration stonewalling and ignoring subpoenas, House leaders are threatening to claim their law enforcement rights and have them arrested. This is getting ugly, and I remain convinced that, at some point, Trump will declare a state of emergency and try to disband Congress. In the meantime, it's only a matter of time before government instability, the president's threats against the Fed chairman, and tariffs/trade wars will cause a meltdown on Wall Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Bowen is a massively intelligent, hugely respected (and unbiased) long term student and commentator on the middle east so when he writes stuff like this where he plainly can't contain his anger at Trump's "great and unmatched wisdom" (personal view of himself, what rational sane mind says that?) you really have to despair.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50039856

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read today that Hillary is claiming that the Russians are "grooming a Democrat" to be an independent challenger and that this person is a woman.

It's clearly Tulsi and I find this kind of smear to be disgraceful. Tulsi is guilty of nothing but wanting to keep American troops from being sacrificed in Middle Eastern wars.

If what this article says is true then YES. I am a Russian bot. I'm not an American but of all the Democrats I support Tulsi the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading (again, for the nth time) Catch-22 and found a perfect description of Trump; kudos Mr Heller, ahead of your time...

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...