Jump to content
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

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

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...

×
×
  • Create New...