US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Sibdane]

10 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I'm surprised he didn't demand the citizenship status of those submitting responses.

I actually wanted to take the survey, because it was marketed as "How is Trump doing vs. the Democrats?"

There wasn't even an open-ended "other feedback" question to say whatever you want. I can't say I'm surprised it was created like that, but it was just so cringe.

[MikeO]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978484

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, MikeO said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978484

Dunno why it’s news when it’s so obvious

[MikeO]

No satirist could make up this crap, it'd be too unbelievable, but it's real; I'm speechless (yet again)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48982172

[Sibdane]

16 hours ago, MikeO said:

No satirist could make up this crap, it'd be too unbelievable, but it's real; I'm speechless (yet again)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48982172

Worse part is I think he'll get re-elected. There are so many Democratic candidates running against each other that the field is flooded. There is also a divide between the progressive and moderate Democrats right now. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but the Democrats need to pick a candidate and fast. The next election is almost a year away, and there is really no clear, strong front-runner.

[Matt]

At least May has finally spoken out

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

At least May has finally spoken out

Bet Boris won't.

[Matt]

43 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Bet Boris won't.

That’d require him to differentiate between right and wrong though. It’s not that he won’t, he just can’t because he’s, well, Boris...

[MikeO]

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

That’d require him to differentiate between right and wrong though. It’s not that he won’t, he just can’t because he’s, well, Boris...

True enough, I heard him described as, "Trump with a thesaurus" at the week-end which I thought was pretty accurate. 

[MikeO]

Him and Hunt have both now come out against him, but fall short of calling him racist...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48997587

How in the hell does the Scum get to host a debate along with Talkradio btw?

[Ghoat]

On 11/07/2019 at 03:41, Romey 1878 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/10/megan-rapinoe-tells-trump-your-message-is-excluding-people

How do American's view her war of words with him? Is she mostly praised or do people think she's in the wrong?

I'm disappointed. I think it's short sighted, and she has let herself become a pawn between AOC, Schumer and the White House. The team didn't represent the left, or the right, it represented the US. You win, you go the seat of the US and are honored. I didn't like it when others got on their high horse (which is their right of course) and refused to go to the Obama White House. Respect the Office - even if you don't respect the man in it. It will provide a stronger precedent moving forward, and in the end, it's more divisive. Sports, especially National teams are a time to set aside personal differences and unite around something, and I think the aftermath has done the opposite. 

As far as Rapinoe herself, I love her. She is a great player, a team leader, and is a strong powerful voice for the LGBT community, and I applaud her for all that.  Allie Long tossing the flag on the ground to take a picture has probably upset as many, if not more, people than Rapinoe v Trump. Neither of those situations play in their favor to garner public support for their lawsuit of wages etc

[MikeO]

34 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I'm disappointed. I think it's short sighted, and she has let herself become a pawn between AOC, Schumer and the White House. The team didn't represent the left, or the right, it represented the US. You win, you go the seat of the US and are honored. I didn't like it when others got on their high horse (which is their right of course) and refused to go to the Obama White House. Respect the Office - even if you don't respect the man in it. It will provide a stronger precedent moving forward, and in the end, it's more divisive. Sports, especially National teams are a time to set aside personal differences and unite around something, and I think the aftermath has done the opposite. 

As far as Rapinoe herself, I love her. She is a great player, a team leader, and is a strong powerful voice for the LGBT community, and I applaud her for all that.  Allie Long tossing the flag on the ground to take a picture has probably upset as many, if not more, people than Rapinoe v Trump. Neither of those situations play in their favor to garner public support for their lawsuit of wages etc

Disagree completely; Trump's infantile rhetoric suggests by not attending people are somehow disrespecting the country and the flag, they're not, they are just being true to themselves and not giving tacit approval to the man in charge who they fundamentally disagree with. In "the land of the free" that's their right surely? Googling for who refused to go see Obama there seem to be very few in comparison to the long list of those giving Trump a wide berth.

Had I been a member of the England cricket team (in my dreams) I wouldn't have gone to the reception with Theresa May today; well actually I might have done as she's a done deal but no way would I go if it had've been in a couple of weeks time and Johnson was in residence.

[Ghoat]

16 hours ago, MikeO said:

Disagree completely; Trump's infantile rhetoric suggests by not attending people are somehow disrespecting the country and the flag, they're not, they are just being true to themselves and not giving tacit approval to the man in charge who they fundamentally disagree with. In "the land of the free" that's their right surely? Googling for who refused to go see Obama there seem to be very few in comparison to the long list of those giving Trump a wide berth.

Had I been a member of the England cricket team (in my dreams) I wouldn't have gone to the reception with Theresa May today; well actually I might have done as she's a done deal but no way would I go if it had've been in a couple of weeks time and Johnson was in residence.

That's where we have a different opinion. For you accepting or declining is a political decision that you would determine on the party currently holding the office. For me, it should transcend that. If you are the face of the National Team, and one of the main slogans that is used is "One Nation, One Team" and you are collectively invited to be honored in your nation's capitol, by the head of the executive branch to the Oval Office, or Rose Garden (something 99.9% of Americans will never be invited to do), you go. Even if the current occupant often is an infantile douche (and he is), it's not about you, it's not about him - you are going to be recognized for all of us who supported you, it's for us too. It's not tacit approval of the current occupant or his policies, or it shouldn't be. The Trump's. AOC's and Schumer's are politicians, they will politicize a ham sandwich - don't be the ham sandwich.

To the land of the free/their right question - I say yes, of course they have that right. I'd also say that just by having a right doesn't mean it should always be exercised because it can be. That applies to every right and every individual. I would assume that you would agree with that in the macro sense, though we may disagree on the micro.  I'm saying there is a time and a place, and I don't think this is it - which is MY opinion. That was the original question, and that's my thoughts  

I am not sure if that is a cultural difference on how we view/celebrate our national teams, or simply a difference in viewpoint - or some of both.  It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa. In this case, I'm miffed at all involved. Can't I/we just enjoy celebrating the athletic accomplishments without it becoming a political shitshow like everything else seemingly does?

[Sibdane]

42 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I am not sure if that is a cultural difference on how we view/celebrate our national teams, or simply a difference in viewpoint - or some of both.  It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa. In this case, I'm miffed at all involved. Can't I/we just enjoy celebrating the athletic accomplishments without it becoming a political shitshow like everything else seemingly does?

Why do you have to go to the White House to celebrate an athletic accomplishment? That's all politics too.

[MikeO]

40 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

That's where we have a different opinion. For you accepting or declining is a political decision that you would determine on the party currently holding the office. For me, it should transcend that. If you are the face of the National Team, and one of the main slogans that is used is "One Nation, One Team" and you are collectively invited to be honored in your nation's capitol, by the head of the executive branch to the Oval Office, or Rose Garden (something 99.9% of Americans will never be invited to do), you go. Even if the current occupant often is an infantile douche (and he is), it's not about you, it's not about him - you are going to be recognized for all of us who supported you, it's for us too. It's not tacit approval of the current occupant or his policies, or it shouldn't be. The Trump's. AOC's and Schumer's are politicians, they will politicize a ham sandwich - don't be the ham sandwich.

To the land of the free/their right question - I say yes, of course they have that right. I'd also say that just by having a right doesn't mean it should always be exercised because it can be. That applies to every right and every individual. I would assume that you would agree with that in the macro sense, though we may disagree on the micro.  I'm saying there is a time and a place, and I don't think this is it - which is MY opinion. That was the original question, and that's my thoughts  

I am not sure if that is a cultural difference on how we view/celebrate our national teams, or simply a difference in viewpoint - or some of both.  It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa. In this case, I'm miffed at all involved. Can't I/we just enjoy celebrating the athletic accomplishments without it becoming a political shitshow like everything else seemingly does?

Well constructed argument but it doesn't change my mind. Probably all the German medallists from the 1936 Berlin Olympics had a drop of schnapps at the Reichstag with their populist, racist, xenophobic chancellor (and if they'd refused their fate would've been worse that suffering some Twitter rant). Nowadays people have more information on how to form their views and I think they should be free to express them in whatever (peaceful) way they see fit.

I think there are cross pond differences though, we don't do any of the, "pledge allegiance to the flag" or hand on heart during anthem stuff. Looking on streetview it seems every other house over there has a stars and stripes hanging whereas you very rarely see a union flag over here.

[Ghoat]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Well constructed argument but it doesn't change my mind. Probably all the German medallists from the 1936 Berlin Olympics had a drop of schnapps at the Reichstag with their populist, racist, xenophobic chancellor (and if they'd refused their fate would've been worse that suffering some Twitter rant). Nowadays people have more information on how to form their views and I think they should be free to express them in whatever (peaceful) way they see fit.

I think there are cross pond differences though, we don't do any of the, "pledge allegiance to the flag" or hand on heart during anthem stuff. Looking on streetview it seems every other house over there has a stars and stripes hanging whereas you very rarely see a union flag over here.

Nope, just wanted you to understand my perspective. As in "ok, I get where you're coming from - I don't agree - but I get it". And yes, I would agree on the pond differences on patriotism, they are manifested in very different ways. Not better/worse, just different. Lets not forget, we're still kinda new, you have pubs that predate our nation by 500 years! 

2 hours ago, sibdane said:

Why do you have to go to the White House to celebrate an athletic accomplishment? That's all politics too.

Tradition really. Probably somewhat ties into Mike's point about cross pond differences.

[Matt]

Ghoat, very well written posts, even if I disagree (but then, I completely disagree with any form of patriotism).

Rare to see such level and sensible posts when talking politics, kudos. 

[Sibdane]

Ran across this quote today and loved it. It's exactly right. 

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.” -Teddy Roosevelt 

[pete0]

2 hours ago, sibdane said:

Ran across this quote today and loved it. It's exactly right. 

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.” -Teddy Roosevelt 

I'm at a loss why anyone would be patriotic. Beliefs tend to be around nationality/religion/cultural and supporting Everton would probably be my biggest cultural box or though some may even say it's a religion. Everton have a family feel, tend to not only think about others, they go the extra step and help them too. If Everton in the community stopped helping people get homes and starting kicking people out the country I'd not call it unevertonian to go against it. 

[Matt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49035505

absolutely disgusting and terrifying at the same time. This will only get worse

[markjazzbassist]

12 minutes ago, Matt said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49035505

absolutely disgusting and terrifying at the same time. This will only get worse

it shows how dumb (literally) his supporters are.  3 of the 4 WERE BORN IN THE US!  send them back to where?  their home state?  

[Sibdane]

I've given up trying to understand his most loyal supporters. I never thought that the country could ever be this divided. I love this country and know I'm fortunate to have grown up here, but I'm beyond disappointed with the current political climate.

[Matt]

21 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

it shows how dumb (literally) his supporters are.  3 of the 4 WERE BORN IN THE US!  send them back to where?  their home state?  

 

[MikeO]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49025177

100% provable (as the film does) bare-faced lie in answer to the first question, how does he get away with it?

[markjazzbassist]

6 minutes ago, MikeO said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49025177

100% provable (as the film does) bare-faced lie in answer to the first question, how does he get away with it?

they don't care because they agree with the chant, so why do they care that he tries to distance himself.  the voters he is getting are motivated by race and a 1950's macho man attitude.  they are not educated.

[MikeO]

16 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

they don't care because they agree with the chant, so why do they care that he tries to distance himself.  the voters he is getting are motivated by race and a 1950's macho man attitude.  they are not educated.

But even if you agree with him and are uneducated it's plain that he's lying; not all republicans are stupid, they can surely see that the World is laughing at him (when they're not laughing at the UK of course) and them. They don't mind? Great presidents of the past must be squirming in their graves at the sheer vacuousness of it all, as must sane repubs, but I suppose they just want this dotard ahead of any Democrat.

Whatever you thought of him (and from a distance for me he underachieved) Obama was a man who commanded global respect for the way he carried himself, now you have someone who commands global derision, and we'll be joining you next week. 

[markjazzbassist]

I can’t explain it mike; they would make some excuse “oh he’s just doing that to get the media off him” or “his advisors told him to do that”.  They don’t care if he lies, as long as he says what they feel and does what they want they don’t care. As for the lies they would say all politicians lie, he’s no different.  

[Ghoat]

On 19/07/2019 at 14:09, markjazzbassist said:

they don't care because they agree with the chant, so why do they care that he tries to distance himself.  the voters he is getting are motivated by race and a 1950's macho man attitude.  they are not educated.

I'm not sure you could get that brush much broader Mark lol

I would agree with you that those who are white racists, or supremacist or of that ilk, will support Trump. They will support whoever the GOP candidate is frankly, regardless of his ideology - no different that racists of color (yes they exist) or anarchist-type groups and individuals will support whatever candidate the democrats have.

I'm not singling you out as a personal attack, at all - this has been put forth, subtly or overtly from the left since summer/fall of 2016, especially post-election.  However, to assume all, or a significant percentage, of the 60+ million people who voted for Trump last election and/or support him are simply racist, uneducated or just plain stupid is daft.

It would be no different than suggesting all, or a significant percentage, of those who will support/vote the democratic candidate are members of Antifa, supporting anarchy, violence and beating the hell out of anyone they disagree with in the name of free speech....

[markjazzbassist]

I believe you live in Alabama which votes republican rain or shine and has for a long long time.  but I live in the rust belt in a swing state. That’s the people he got to switch from being democrats to voting for him.  They are union steel workers and the like and yes I was generalizing but I interact with these people daily (my relatives among them) and I’m not far off.  20 years ago they made a decent wage and provided for their families now they are lower class and struggling to get by.  They voted for Obama because he was pro unions.  Trump is against the unions, so are repubs.  So why did they vote for him even though he opposes them and their livelihood?  

[Ghoat]

You are correct, Alabama has been red for a very long time. IMO, often way too red. Point in case, Roy Moore is running for Senate (again). The fact he even he even has people to support that effort is absurd. If he should get the GOP nomination by sheer bible-thumping lunacy, I will vote democrat (Doug Jones). I voted for Doug Jones over Moore last election, and the only thing I will do different this time is load my yard with Doug Jones signs. I digress... 

The unions have been solid base for democrats for as long as I can remember, as like you mentioned, that's a lot of jobs and industry in the rust belt that are swing states. I'm not sure before 2016 those states have gone mostly red since Reagan. To your point on the rust belt suffering, one of the biggest  hit has been to the union jobs, and the unions. So Obama appealed to the unions and got their support - much easier for a dem to do successfully than a repub. Things didn't improve a whole lot. So in 2016 along comes Trump, and he doesn't appeal to the unions, he appeals directly to the workers. Basically pointing out that the people they counted on to help them hadn't succeed. But he was going to fight cheap Chinese steel that was taking their jobs, protect their jobs (2 huge hot buttons) and bring back American manufacturing jobs..Make American Great Again. Say what you want about the slogan, but I think that resonated loudly in the rust belt, where so many jobs were either lost, or didn't provide the same standard of living it did 20 years ago.

I don't think it because they are ignorant or racist (not that it doesn't exist),  because if they are/were, why did they vote for an African-American candidate (running against a white male) the previous 2 elections? I think it was simple economics - household economics. If what you have had for 8 years hasn't changed your livelihood, and you have one candidate who is offering a similar thing but promising different results, and another candidate who is proposing an entirely different approach to help you...hell, lets give it a shot. Right message at the right time to the right people that resonated. Just as the simple brilliant "It's the economy stupid" that Bill Clinton's campaign used, and George Bush (Dad) had no counter for, and got crushed.

That being said, if those people don't see a difference come 2020- and I don't mean the stats that both parties will use to make their case - but a difference at the household level, they will leave Trump in droves and get behind the democrat and unions again in a blue landslide. IMO of course.