Jump to content
IGNORED

US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)


johnh

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Chach said:

Politicians lie because they are people and people lie, all of them including you. 

What you lie about, to what end, the frequency and potential damage your lies cause are important, if you don't believe that  you are going to have to retract your statement about it being nothing to do with idealism.

 

Should be all of us, instead of all of them unless you’re an alien coming to fix the world (if that’the case, good fucking luck!);)

Of course I believe that, I’m just holding everyone to the same standard. Admittedly my own standard, but doesn’t everyone do that?

Politicians lie to deceive the people who have entrusted them with the power to lead their country. Trump lies because he an arrogant fucknut. Both have damaging consequences in my opinion, and both are as dangerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I also disagree with your premise that all politicians lie, its simply not true but an accusation of lying with no basis in evidence is good enough to find someone guilty in the court of public opinion now.

To be honest its no wonder the quality of politicians seems to be waning, who'd do the job in the information age, changing their mind on policy brings accusations "lying" now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chach said:

Well I also disagree with your premise that all politicians lie, its simply not true but an accusation of lying with no basis in evidence is good enough to find someone guilty in the court of public opinion now.

To be honest its no wonder the quality of politicians seems to be waning, who'd do the job in the information age, changing their mind on policy brings accusations "lying" now.

And you should, I should be more careful and quantify the statement by saying "most politicians", because it tarnishes the reputations of decent politicians who are few and far between. Although I didn't say all, I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I'll hold my hands up there.

I'm not talking about the changing of opinions of policy, that's not necessarily lying. New facts and challenges come along all the time and they need to adapt. However, the way communicate this change is the difference. They could adapt by saying "we've just found this out, so I retract what I had previously said based on this new evidence, and heres the new opinion" (or words to that effect), and not "spin it" to make it look like they never meant what they said. If they actually spoke with some transparency, they'd get a lot more respect, and we might not have the supposed "straight-talker" nutjob in place now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chach said:

It really is a good job that Trump is unpopular and the economy is in good shape, if more of the  country was behind him he could have absolutely wrecked the joint.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/trump-urges-change-to-senate-rule-as-shutdown-enters-second-day/9347412

 

 

republican senators have come out and said everything is fine except the white house.  they work out a deal the 2 of them and then the white house people (trumps advisors) get involved and go hardline and the deals fall through.  Lindsey Graham was quoted as saying this.  Sounds like the senators just want to get it passed but Trumps the one holding it up.

 

Gonna be hard to shake this one, power in both houses and white house and a government shutdown?  he's fucked it up bad for the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chach said:

It really is a good job that Trump is unpopular and the economy is in good shape, if more of the  country was behind him he could have absolutely wrecked the joint.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/trump-urges-change-to-senate-rule-as-shutdown-enters-second-day/9347412

 

 

The problem with this is that we see this cycle again and again, and it provides firepower for Republicans to get elected. Until we elect two Democrats (or at least non-trickle down Republicans) to two terms successively, we'll see the cycle repeated, and we haven't done that in the 30 years I've been alive. Reagan sent the economy into the toilet, which, I believe, is why H.W. got only one term. Clinton's administration built the economy back up steadily, though during his presidency it didn't look that pretty. Baby Bush destroyed it again, though the economy looked OK for most of his presidency. Obama's administration took the crushed economy, revived it, and now Trump is benefiting from the work done over the previous eight years. Chances are, this tax bill will have dire effects, and whoever takes over in 2021 will have to do the hard work of saving the country from a mini-recession or worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2018 at 15:13, TallPaul1878 said:

There's a lot going on in America. The interference in politics by vested interests is incredibly powerful. Movements like BLM and Antifa are all bought and paid for, I'm sure that right wing groups are just the same with financial backing from corporate agitators.

I'll tell you what I thought was the reason that Trump got in and what I believe went on in the minds of his more salient voters. I personally thought that Trump would go big on investing in the infrastructure of America. Compared to Europe the infrastructure is in the dark ages. I was expecting big mass transit programs, upgrading the internet networks and power grid.

The way he was talking was that America would catapult itself to the cutting edge of technology and aim to have the best of everything. The best trains, the best internet network, everything really that the population rely upon to go about their business.

It's a pretty ballpark figure that every $1 spent on infrastructure will see a $3 return on investment for the whole economy.

None of that has come to pass at all. I fear nothing will change in the good old USA now. Personally I think we're heading for another economic crisis, I think it's gonna end up in armed conflict too.

4

You really thought Trump would raise taxes? Because that's the only way that this could ever be accomplished; there's a very clear reason that American infrastructure is so far behind Western Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

The problem with this is that we see this cycle again and again, and it provides firepower for Republicans to get elected. Until we elect two Democrats (or at least non-trickle down Republicans) to two terms successively, we'll see the cycle repeated, and we haven't done that in the 30 years I've been alive. Reagan sent the economy into the toilet, which, I believe, is why H.W. got only one term. Clinton's administration built the economy back up steadily, though during his presidency it didn't look that pretty. Baby Bush destroyed it again, though the economy looked OK for most of his presidency. Obama's administration took the crushed economy, revived it, and now Trump is benefiting from the work done over the previous eight years. Chances are, this tax bill will have dire effects, and whoever takes over in 2021 will have to do the hard work of saving the country from a mini-recession or worse. 

We have the same issue in Australia, there's this accepted wisdom that the conservative (coalition*) are better at managing the economy even though it has no basis in evidence.

The Howard conservative government that governed between 1996 and 2007 were judged by a study done by the IMF to be the most profligate government in the post-war period yet because the economy was booming due mostly to an externally (China) driven mining construction boom, they got the credit for being amazing.

Despite trying to buy the GE with massive tax cuts in 2006 they got kicked out in 2007 by the centre left Rudd government, just in time for the GFC.

The 2006 tax cuts caused a structural deficit because the increased revenue from the mining boom fell off a cliff after the GFC, but somehow that gets ignored.

They then teamed up with industry to oppose the MRRT (mining tax on non renewable resources on profits over $75 mil) and the Carbon price ($23 per tonne switching to emissions trading a few years later) leading them to only get through heavily modified.

The carbon tax came with compensation via lower taxes for low to middle income earners, when they got back in in 2013 they repealed the carbon tax but kept the compensation, cue more structural deficit.

The reality is all the work on market reform via deregulation and free trade has been done, western governments actually have very few levers to pull to effect change especially now monetary policy is run by central banks and interest rates are at record lows. Taxes have to go up or new taxes have to be introduced.

*The Liberal (conservatives) party don't have have the numbers to govern in their own right so form a coalition with the National (conservative nutjobs) party, which means we end up with a conservative nutjobs in the governing party.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MikeO said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42829555

What does, "I would certainly apologise if you'd like me to do that" mean? If you're only apologising (which he didn't anyway) because someone asks you to you're not really apologising at all:rolleyes:.

"I'm a giant cuntrag and couldn't give a shit what you think" I believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

One of the few positive moments of this year’s Grammy’s, minus the opening performance. A little absurd the focus on women and the lack of recognition/awards given to female artists.

Have those complaining ever considered that they just didn't deserve more awards? That perhaps there were more men who produced the better music over the past year?

Just something for them to think about. Maybe. Nah, fuck it, it's all down to sexism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Have those complaining ever considered that they just didn't deserve more awards? That perhaps there were more men who produced the better music over the past year?

Just something for them to think about. Maybe. Nah, fuck it, it's all down to sexism.

How many men were given the possibility ahead of women to make the music would be the retort, I'd imagine.

But on the whole I agree with you. You can't force equality and trying to do so undermines genuine efforts for positive change. Some times jobs etc. are dominated by a gender because that gender is generally better suited to it. Provided everyone is given equal opportunity and pay, this will eventually stabilise. But this complaining is only going to be detrimental overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Matt said:

But this complaining is only going to be detrimental overall.

No its not, there is always extremes of ideas on both ends of the spectrum and the broad middle reaches a consensus that recognises merit in both where its due.

You're clearly just an old chauvinist mansplainer :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chach said:

No its not, there is always extremes of ideas on both ends of the spectrum and the broad middle reaches a consensus that recognises merit in both where its due.

You're clearly just an old chauvinist mansplainer :P

 

:shakingfist:

Extremes just add momentum to the the pendulum, so it swings higher and higher instead of settling in the middle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

Have those complaining ever considered that they just didn't deserve more awards? That perhaps there were more men who produced the better music over the past year?

Just something for them to think about. Maybe. Nah, fuck it, it's all down to sexism.

I hear this argument all the time, particularly when it comes to Affirmative Action in the US. "But why should a white guy be penalized because of this program? We should choose people based on ability, not colour or ethnicity." Of course this sounds sensible, but in practice it continues subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, biases that have existed for years. I have no problem giving preference to groups that have suffered discrimination for years; it's the price we pay for allowing that to happen. When it comes to awards, and for the same reason, I have no problem with using bias to even things up. If more whites win awards than minorities, it implies that whites are naturally better than minorities. If more men win awards than women, it implies that men are naturally better than women. While there are exceptions (where physical strength is an issue), this is simply not the case, so we may well be witnessing bias of some sort.

When was the last time you took a commercial flight piloted by a woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

When was the last time you took a commercial flight piloted by a woman?

Last year:). Admittedly it was the first time I've ever experienced it.

Gender aside what baffles me more is how anyone could get an award for the derivative crap that masquerades as "popular" music nowadays, everything sounds like it's been written by committee (I appreciate I'm not the target audience but still).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Last year:). Admittedly it was the first time I've ever experienced it.

Gender aside what baffles me more is how anyone could get an award for the derivative crap that masquerades as "popular" music nowadays, everything sounds like it's been written by committee (I appreciate I'm not the target audience but still).

I've noticed an uptick in women pilots, actually, but they are still a small minority. What about black pilots? In all my years of flying (and I'm a 3.6-million miler on Delta alone), I remember just one flight within the US that had a black pilot. I don't recall any Asian pilots at all. The vast majority are white guys. How can we explain this other than bias?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

I hear this argument all the time, particularly when it comes to Affirmative Action in the US. "But why should a white guy be penalized because of this program? We should choose people based on ability, not colour or ethnicity." Of course this sounds sensible, but in practice it continues subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, biases that have existed for years. I have no problem giving preference to groups that have suffered discrimination for years; it's the price we pay for allowing that to happen. When it comes to awards, and for the same reason, I have no problem with using bias to even things up. If more whites win awards than minorities, it implies that whites are naturally better than minorities. If more men win awards than women, it implies that men are naturally better than women. While there are exceptions (where physical strength is an issue), this is simply not the case, so we may well be witnessing bias of some sort.

When was the last time you took a commercial flight piloted by a woman?

Using bias to influence things is just adding fuel to the fire. We today cannot be held responsible or accountable for what has happened in the past, in my opinion. What we can do, however, is try and shape the future. If equality is what we want going forward, then preach it, live it, implement it. Recompensing for the mistakes of the past will only continue to create division, which will forever inhibit the progression to equality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first off the grammy's have always been an industry insider event where the big labels pass the awards between themselves while slapping themselves on their own backs.  anyone who takes it seriously is a moron, there are plenty of artists who don't attend the event (aimee mann was playing a show in cleveland when she was told she won for best folk album) and don't give a shit because they realize its simply a ego masturbation event for big artists and labels.  

 

to trump, he will go down on the money laundering, i've read so many transcripts and reports and the Trump SOHO is essentially a property used exclusively for money laundering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promotion routeway in my work required a blind application were they just took whoever scored highest.  When I turned up to the welcome event it was the whitest most male room I'd been in, to the point it was noticable. Yet half the country would find that racist now. 

Personally I'd find it racist if they cherry picked to get the ethnicity levels. The way we're heading I probably would have missed out as a white man under the current regime where quotas seem to be a thing. 

Best person for the job. End of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

Have those complaining ever considered that they just didn't deserve more awards? That perhaps there were more men who produced the better music over the past year?

Just something for them to think about. Maybe. Nah, fuck it, it's all down to sexism.

That's kind of silly and dismissive, especially in a category like "Best Pop Solo Performance" (what the hell does that mean anyway), where pop is dominated by women and four women were nominated along with the one man that won. Also, Bruno Mars? Really?

That doesn't even dive into the systemic issues behind what you wrote, though Steve touches on them above, but you can continue believing women have equal opportunities if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

That's kind of silly and dismissive, especially in a category like "Best Pop Solo Performance" (what the hell does that mean anyway), where pop is dominated by women and four women were nominated along with the one man that won. Also, Bruno Mars? Really?

That doesn't even dive into the systemic issues behind what you wrote, though Steve touches on them above, but you can continue believing women have equal opportunities if you like.

I don't think that's the point being made. I think (correct me if I'm wrong, Romey and others), the inequality is well understood and recognized by the posters here. The issue is with people complaining they've lost without even considering it was the best candidates that won; it must be sexist based voting to screw women over again. There was a similar complaint about black musicians a few years back (can't remember which competition), whilst no one complained that the MOBO awards didn't have enough white candidates...

PC has gone so far it's created a paranoia, and even a platform for people to abuse so that they can get what they want without warrent. The point I was making, and I think the others agree, is that see the person and lead the change from there, not token balance for a fake equality.

Sorry, this is a bit rushed, need to leave. But hope I've made my point without causing more trouble :lol: 

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...