US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Chach]

6 hours ago, Ghoat said:

On one hand, the fact that a democratic nation will tell our democratically elected leaders they are not allowed into their country is a little disconcerting, I won't lie.

On the other hand if you spent the last year consantly publicly telling Israel to go suck a dick, I think Israel has the right to say no, fuck you.

I'm very concerned about the precedent it sets. But Free Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences. (As anyone married welln knows). I am legitimately torn on this.

 

I think the correct response from Israel is give reasoned responses as to why they think shouldn't have suck a dick, theres valid reasons to criticise Israel (and also the Palestinians) and its actually part of their job as legislators to criticise matters of foreign policy.

This is not a case of someone losing their show on TV because they've said things that would offend the sensibilities of advertisers. I wouldn't be so concerned if Trump wasn't goading the Israeli's into it so he can run a campaign by proxy against minority Democrats. It's despicable illiberal behaviour that you would expect from Putin or Erdogan not an American president.

[Chach]

6 hours ago, Ghoat said:

I will agree, he absolutely change the conversation and was drastically different from his opponent in the party and the opposing party. So is that what made him an American Hero in your eyes? That is a clarifying question, because regardless of your answer I don't have a follow-up question

Yeah you also get the feeling that he genuinely cares about working class people and that is rare in politicians now. Everyone is trying to appeal to "aspirational" voters.

[markjazzbassist]

9 hours ago, Ghoat said:

I will agree, he absolutely change the conversation and was drastically different from his opponent in the party and the opposing party. So is that what made him an American Hero in your eyes? That is a clarifying question, because regardless of your answer I don't have a follow-up question

No offense but this is likely because you’re a repub.  as a liberal I’ve known about sanders and been a huge fan for over a decade. he was the only person who held similar beliefs to me as all the dems were center left, he was the only real liberal out there.  Also he was an independent which is huge in our dem/repub only landscape.  I wanted him to be the nominee so bad last cycle and think it would have been a great battle with trump.  I have met many people from Vermont and they all love him.  They said every weekend he’s out in Vermont with the people, he doesn’t stay holed up in Washington.  He’s a national treasure, a real public servant.  He’s had the same message for 30 years he hasn’t changed.  Rare in politics.

[Ghoat]

Shut it MJB, I asked for an outsiders perspective! I kid, I kid

And and you're probably correct, no offense taken. Also senators for the most part unless they are majority/minority leader don't tend to be as newsworthy (or bombastic) as representatives are. He has just kind of struck me as the odd duck, mainly due to the (I), kind of like your eccentric uncle you only see every couple years at reunions. And I really don't mean that in a bad way. While I completely disagree with almost all of his domestic and social policies, I will give him credit for being consistent with his core values, regardless of what me or anyone else may think about them. And he does seem like a generally decent human being. 

Fine, you two "liberal granola-eating pinko hippies" have swayed me a little bit on this one, but don't let it go to your head

[MikeO]

Seems like a nice chap!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49349794

[MikeO]

Spitting the dummy because he can't get his own way again I see

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49423968

[Sibdane]

9 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Spitting the dummy because he can't get his own way again I see

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49423968

Would you expect anything different?

He's insane.

[Ghoat]

I don't think he's wrong on any of this really. Or at the very least, it's points worth considering.

[markjazzbassist]

I don’t care what a celebrity has to say about politics.  

[Chach]

13 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Piers Morgan: "The Left Have Become Unbearable"

When did Piers Morgan become so woke?!

I don't think he's wrong on any of this really. Or at the very least, it's points worth considering.

a) He only makes reference to liberals not the left

b) he refers to the liberals as a homogenous group which they are not

c) the phenomenon he is referring to is actually a very small group of people on the authoritarian left, those people are not liberals 

d) Piers claims to be a liberal but he has devolved into a provocateur spewing right wing talking points for attention

e) Piers thinks Twitter is real life which is why he is confused about what is really going on

f) Piers is not a very interesting thinker 

g) Piers is an arseclown

[Ghoat]

3 hours ago, Chach said:

a) He only makes reference to liberals not the left

b) he refers to the liberals as a homogenous group which they are not

c) the phenomenon he is referring to is actually a very small group of people on the authoritarian left, those people are not liberals 

d) Piers claims to be a liberal but he has devolved into a provocateur spewing right wing talking points for attention

e) Piers thinks Twitter is real life which is why he is confused about what is really going on

f) Piers is not a very interesting thinker 

g) Piers is an arseclown

a, b, c is the same thought, rephrased 3 times. (A)

d, f, g is the same thought, you don't care for the guy (B)

e not sure where twitter comes from, it's not mentioned anywhere. Or maybe it's just part of (B)

So

(B) - you have low opinion of him, I have no problem with that whatsoever

(A) - I do not know if you are referring to the left/liberal wing in Australia, the US or the UK. I took his thoughts in context of American politics (and yes I know he is a Brit). US Politics I understand because I lived in the middle of it for 50 years, the others I plead ignorance on. I try to follow the Brexit and General Election thread, but honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around most of the discussions. So I'll hold any further thoughts, before I realize I'm ignorantly in a discussion about oranges, when I was discussing tangerines.  

[Chach]

16 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Incoherent word salad.

I am just going to assume you are pretending to be confused after publicly agreeing with the philosophy of Piers Morgan and we'll leave it there

[Ghoat]

5 hours ago, Chach said:

I am just going to assume you are pretending to be confused after publicly agreeing with the philosophy of Piers Morgan and we'll leave it there

I'm not pretending shit, I'm not going to react/comment to your post without understanding the context or clarifying what you meant - crazy concept I know.

I agree with what he says as it applies to current MO of liberal/left in the US when it comes to different opinions on policy. Words like racist or sexist are vastly overused to poison the well of debate or discussion. Example, college campuses. When a liberal speaker, or Prof (even when it has nothing to do with the class that they are instructing) espouses their opinion, it's free speech - and I have no problem w that. When a conservative speaker or Prof does the same it's "hate speech" and often protests or movements aim to mute it. That's not dialogue or debate on any planet. I currently have two daughters in college/university and could cite you a multitude of their experiences. 

I have no idea what your world is like, but Morgan's thoughts are pretty spot-on to the climate in the US. It's absurd, and Trump is an absurd foil to that - it's not a good path for the US politics on either side of the isle.

If that is still incoherent word salad to you just let me know and I'll rephrase with smaller words.

[Chach]

16 hours ago, Ghoat said:

I'm not pretending shit, I'm not going to react/comment to your post without understanding the context or clarifying what you meant - crazy concept I know.

I agree with what he says as it applies to current MO of liberal/left in the US when it comes to different opinions on policy. Words like racist or sexist are vastly overused to poison the well of debate or discussion. Example, college campuses. When a liberal speaker, or Prof (even when it has nothing to do with the class that they are instructing) espouses their opinion, it's free speech - and I have no problem w that. When a conservative speaker or Prof does the same it's "hate speech" and often protests or movements aim to mute it.

You're doing exactly what he is doing and taking the actions of a small group of authoritarians on the left and applying it to anyone/anything that identifies as left or liberal.

Liberalism is a long established philosophical tradition and people closing down debate ie shouting down Ben Shapiro giving a talk at a Uni, or attacking Charles Murray at Middlebury College ARE NOT FUCKING LIBERAL BY ANY DESCRIPTION despite what they might claim. So people generalising like Piers or arseholes like Turning Point conflating liberalism with "the left" because it fits their narrative are just as guilty as the people demanding that everyone recognise biological sex is a social construct.

There is a culture war going on and it is a moral panic, but it's both sides of the political spectrum engaging and people ,including you its seems in this instance, are choosing to see it only through the lens that confirms their own bias.

[MikeO]

https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html

[Matt]

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html

If it was anyone else, I’d laugh it off. But...

[Ghoat]

I used college a single example, not "one thing" that makes everything else true. The academia world in the US has always been far left of center - and you can make a good argument that it should. But has becoming seemingly much more intolerant of opposing views which is an odd contradiction in and of itself.  And currently in the US it's the further left that is the loudest, and the moderate left is either unwilling or unable to guide the party narrative - ergo the left as a whole appears WAY left, regardless of how true that may or may not be.

You will hardly go more than a couple days in the US cable tv news cycle, where you don't have someone on the left calling someone on the other side, or competing policy, racist this, racist that. It can be tactically effective, paint the opposition as racist, in an attempt to discredit anything they say that's opposing - I get it. But it's strategically untenable to use across the board nationally.  Opposing most everything initially on hate, racism personal (ie because it's Trump) as opposed to legitimate philosophical difference or alternatives doesn't seem effective. Example - because your party lost the WH based on the system we have always used to determine the winner doesn't equate to racism. Ask Marcus Rashford what racism looks like - it weaken your argument significantly to misuse something like that to unrelated political disagreement. 

In the US political climate the left (at least currently) is largely attacking everything on the right as wrong because the right is merely angry, homophobic, racists. Not because the left has a  better plan or a better vision to advance, but because the right is invalid. That is the crux of Piers' piece to me, and I think it has merit, nothing more or less.

And you've mentioned the authoritarian left a couple times. That's not really "a thing" over here as  a political philosophy, so I don't understand that context. Maybe you mean the people who say they are liberals but you say a not fucking liberal by any description? I didn't follow that. 

 

[Ghoat]

54 minutes ago, Matt said:

If it was anyone else, I’d laugh it off. But...

If it was any other news source I'd give it more consideration. Of course like you if it was any other president I would ignore it...

[Matt]

2 hours ago, Ghoat said:

If it was any other news source I'd give it more consideration. Of course like you if it was any other president I would ignore it...

I was taking the news source into consideration...

[Ghoat]

54 minutes ago, Matt said:

I was taking the news source into consideration...

It almost doesn't matter, CNN has already picked up the story and run it, quoting the original source. It will be posted all over Facebook and retweeted so many times that it will become absolute "fact" regardless of validity. Just like when Al Gore said that he invented the internet*

*Al never said that.

[markjazzbassist]

point of the matter is you could post that article with obama and no one would believe it.  obama white house had no investigations, no members of staff going to jail, no scandals with pornstars.  just a halfway decent human trying to do their job.  the trump white house is a farce, they've disbanded the weekly press briefings and are combative over everything.  not to mention the scandals, the staff being jailed, the pornstars, the meeting with russians to "just see what they offer", etc.  night and day.

[Ghoat]

The left has such a visceral hatred of Trump, they flat go crazy at times, say, do or repeat almost anything about him. Truth or not, the hatred is so real, it doesn't matter. Remember how one of the first things he did was remove the bust of MLK from the Oval Office? Truth was, a reporter was asked if he had seen in, he said he looked but didn't. A reporter jumped on that and tweeted it out. It fit the outrage that Trump had been elected by racists dummies, and likely was something the reported believe or wanted to believe. A shitstorm naturally followed and even tho the reporter in question recanted, the outlets that reported on his report didn't it was still "out there" and it was news. It's not an isolated event, but it's one that jumps to mind, very early in his administration.

I think if the left (overall) and the media in general "treated" Trump the way they did W in his second term, or pre-9/11 in his first term, he may sitting in the teens approval-wise and unable to get anything passed by this stage. Given enough rope, I'm guessing he would have hung himself by now, he doesn't need help to be unlikable. Punching at air with stupid tweets, petty jabs, and childish remarks and the like could have easily alienated him almost totally from the GOP (who didn't even want him as the nominee). But starting with the "deplorables" label to those who supported and voted for him, daily attacks on everything about him with racism and xenophobic overtones - and naturally anyone who agrees with anything he does - has backfired. Now he is almost a martyr to many on the right - and he plays the shit out of that card. Trump had very little GOP support in congress when elected, especially from the incumbents. Would he have ever had it otherwise? I have my doubts.

I don't disagree in the least that the shit we have seen from Trump and his administration in 2+ years is unprecedented. I have no doubt that he has done some sketchy, or at least dubious shit in the last 2-3 years, none at all. But if you look at CNN on any given day, you will be hard pressed to find 1 if any headline regarding the administration that doesn't have a negative headline. Day in day out. It makes it real easy at some point to disregard the media as biased, and be skeptical of the reporting as a whole. The makes the "fake news" resonate, and not only to those who always believed that anyway. Do I worry that we miss a wolf because we have grown numb to the predictable cries of "wolf" - yeah I actually do.

I'm not defending Trump, or try to make anyone like him. I DO like some of his policies and directions, but hell, he makes me cringe almost as often as not, and is often flat-out embarrassing.  I'm asking you consider if the left, and the media outlets that support them, have chosen to way to oppose him and his administration that has helped enable Trump to have the support and backing he does. Mainly because they have inadvertently alienated almost the entire right in the attempt to de-legitimize Trump himself.

[markjazzbassist]

on the flipside, if Trump were a democrat do you think the repubs would be ok with this?  hell no, it would be the exact same treatment.  they demanded an american citizens birth certificate from Obama after all, even though its one of the basic requirements for the job and he was one.  the conservative media machine and spin machines are in fact better than the liberals.  they have successfully labeled the media evil, and have average americans believing conspiracy theories (see clintons, and every other trump tweet).  the liberal machines couldn't even use all the dumb stuff Trump has done and get a Senate majority!  I laugh when i hear the repubs complain about liberals, you guys have the president and senate and you're bitching?  they lame ducked obama's supreme court nominee (unprecedented) and you think some articles on CNN are bad?  

[Ghoat]

2 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

on the flipside, if Trump were a democrat do you think the repubs would be ok with this?  hell no, it would be the exact same treatment.  they demanded an american citizens birth certificate from Obama after all, even though its one of the basic requirements for the job and he was one.  the conservative media machine and spin machines are in fact better than the liberals.  they have successfully labeled the media evil, and have average americans believing conspiracy theories (see clintons, and every other trump tweet).  the liberal machines couldn't even use all the dumb stuff Trump has done and get a Senate majority!  I laugh when i hear the repubs complain about liberals, you guys have the president and senate and you're bitching?  they lame ducked obama's supreme court nominee (unprecedented) and you think some articles on CNN are bad?  

Different set of arguments MJB. I was simply asking you to consider that the method of opposition may be a large part of why Trump has any support at all - providing him the fuel he needs to "fight" Not if it's fair, right, or even good for the country in the least.

[markjazzbassist]

16 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Different set of arguments MJB. I was simply asking you to consider that the method of opposition may be a large part of why Trump has any support at all - providing him the fuel he needs to "fight" Not if it's fair, right, or even good for the country in the least.

i think that has more to do with the technology of today.  everything is instant due to social media and the like.  Trump himself uses these and the media (and he can be a real master at it) more so than anyone else.  the margin of error with them is very small.  when he mis-tweets or has a spelling error it's out there.  Covfefe for example.  Previous regimes didn't use these either because it was in its infancy (bush) or because they choose to use more traditional channels (ie obama with the usual press briefings).  If Trump simply stopped the twitter and used the press briefings, then he and his staff would have the same time as previous presidents did to spin something to their favor and control the narrative and the media cycle.  he doesn't and it's to his detriment.  his rants on twitter are the same thing (at all hours of the night mind you), its instant and the media goes nuts.  when obama did 1 briefing a day/week they don't have anything for the other 6 days so it's back to the kardashians/royal family/etc for the media.

[Ghoat]

1 minute ago, markjazzbassist said:

i think that has more to do with the technology of today.  everything is instant due to social media and the like.  Trump himself uses these and the media (and he can be a real master at it) more so than anyone else.  the margin of error with them is very small.  when he mis-tweets or has a spelling error it's out there.  Covfefe for example.  Previous regimes didn't use these either because it was in its infancy (bush) or because they choose to use more traditional channels (ie obama with the usual press briefings).  If Trump simply stopped the twitter and used the press briefings, then he and his staff would have the same time as previous presidents did to spin something to their favor and control the narrative and the media cycle.  he doesn't and it's to his detriment.  his rants on twitter are the same thing (at all hours of the night mind you), its instant and the media goes nuts.  when obama did 1 briefing a day/week they don't have anything for the other 6 days so it's back to the kardashians/royal family/etc for the media.

Fair points. Kinda gotta feel for some of Trump's press folks, when they are asked to clarify or expound on something the boss just said, they know nothing about.

 

Totally unrelated, we have mayor election tomorrow. Current mayor (10 years) isn't running again - field of 12. I have "my choice" narrowed to four, maybe three ugggg.

[Chach]

13 hours ago, Ghoat said:

The left has such a visceral hatred of Trump

It's not just the left though is it, look at anyone with a well thought out conservative position and they also hate Trump because of what he is doing to the GOP, which turns out isn't actually conservative but rather a bunch of evangelical reactionaries.

[Chach]

19 hours ago, Ghoat said:

And currently in the US it's the further left that is the loudest, and the moderate left is either unwilling or unable to guide the party narrative - ergo the left as a whole appears WAY left, regardless of how true that may or may not be.

And you've mentioned the authoritarian left a couple times. That's not really "a thing" over here as  a political philosophy, so I don't understand that context. Maybe you mean the people who say they are liberals but you say a not fucking liberal by any description? I didn't follow that. 

 

Notwithstanding the fact you keep making assertions without providing any examples, you've literally described the authoritarian left then in a subsequent paragraph denied its a thing over there.

For the record, what I am referring to is what is going on in the US, This is a US politics thread after all.

Can you give me an example of something the "intolerant left" are doing in your opinion which is as bad and illiberal as say, the restrictive abortion laws being passed in Alabama?

[Sibdane]

16 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

If Trump simply stopped the twitter and used the press briefings, then he and his staff would have the same time as previous presidents did to spin something to their favor and control the narrative and the media cycle.  he doesn't and it's to his detriment.  his rants on twitter are the same thing (at all hours of the night mind you), its instant and the media goes nuts.  when obama did 1 briefing a day/week they don't have anything for the other 6 days so it's back to the kardashians/royal family/etc for the media.

Exactly this. He even blocks people who disagree with him, which apparently is unconstitutional. I wonder if he's unblocked all of those who were blocked.

Can't stand the man. He's makes the presidency look like a joke.

[Ghoat]

7 hours ago, Chach said:

Notwithstanding the fact you keep making assertions without providing any examples, you've literally described the authoritarian left then in a subsequent paragraph denied its a thing over there.

For the record, what I am referring to is what is going on in the US, This is a US politics thread after all.

Can you give me an example of something the "intolerant left" are doing in your opinion which is as bad and illiberal as say, the restrictive abortion laws being passed in Alabama?

Primarily the "progressives" (using quotes because that's what the wing is basically called not in a mocking tone or such) that are advocating the New Green Deal, Medicare for all, Student Loan Forgiveness, impeachment. Pelosi is not in favor of most of that, but she is having a hard time moving the party toward the agenda she had in mind when she assumed majority leadership, and she can't keep the progressives in step so to speak.

By me saying that it's "not a thing" over here, what I'm saying is that's not a term that is really commonly used here, at least for me I don't go "oh you mean like so-and-so". I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that's not a term I'm familiar with in the context of American politics. Simply stated, I have no idea who or what the fuck you're talkin about!

I would not refer to the abortion laws in Alabama that are being passed as restrictive. Personally I'm not real comfortable with the abortion laws that NY has passed either. But I think the word you're looking for in the Alabama laws is draconian. Short answer, no I can't, not even close.