US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[markjazzbassist]

the difference they will see if Trump hurt more than helped. the Chevy plant in Ohio closed shop under Trump due directly to his tariffs on steel and aluminum, 14,000 jobs lost.  the Chinese trade war has also destroyed the farming economy and they are all on life support since China won't buy their corn or soybeans (our 2 biggest crops) whereas they used to be the biggest importer of them.  

 

the people that voted for him probably will again because they aren't inteligent enough to realize he's destroying their livlihood.  they would rather blame the illegal immigrants and people on welfare and food stamps than the guy running the show.  that's why i say they are uneducated.  they can't figure out that the guy that's ruining manufacturing and farming with his tariff war is ruining them too.  they hear some anti abortion rhetoric, anti immigrant rhetoric, anti welfare statements and they think yeah that's the problem, not that trump got my factory closed, it's that people allow abortions.  that's just not intelligent.

[Ghoat]

20 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

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?  

That is a fundamental difference you and I have. And we probably won't ever agree on, and that's ok really.

While I am far from red through and through, I am more conservative on the fiscal/pro-business/limited government side. Socially, I disagree with most of the GOP. Ergo, I am "anti-union"

So to me being against unions as in the above example you gave doesn't mean opposing the workers and their livelihood - the opposite in fact. (There is the fundamental difference)

In my opinion a union (as an organization, not member level) is a lot like a government agency - it's primary goal is it's own survival.  For a government agency/bureaucracy it means it's funding/budget, and for a union it means membership and dues. A decline in either means a reduction of influence, power, relevancy - not sure the best word, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. I think both types of organizations do indeed try to work for their constituency they exist for, but their own survival is paramount. Not bad people, evil people, or anything like that - it's just the nature of the organization itself. Again, that's simply my viewpoint on what I have seen, hear, know, observe etc, nothing more.

But I will also say this - while I'm not how necessary union are overall today, we owe a lot, if not almost everything to them. They absolutely built this country, protected workers from horrible working conditions by terrible business owner and robber barons. They provided a voice, protection and safety to the most vulnerable exploited workers that were helpless  otherwise. Many of the "norms" the American worker (white or blue collar) take for granted today exist because labor unions stood up protected workers from exploitation by business owners when no one else did. If anyone on the right can't see or understand that, they are totally ignorant about US history. 

Anyway, again, just my perspective, but I didn't want to throw a "union diatribe" into the previous post about swing state voters.

[markjazzbassist]

i understand where you are coming from, i don't think unions or government are perfect, but i do think they do a better job than private business of putting citizens and people first (business its money first second and third).  that's why i am a liberal.  i understand where you are coming from because my whole family are conservatives, we've had similar discussions at thanksgiving year in and out. 

[Ghoat]

20 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

the difference they will see if Trump hurt more than helped. the Chevy plant in Ohio closed shop under Trump due directly to his tariffs on steel and aluminum, 14,000 jobs lost.  the Chinese trade war has also destroyed the farming economy and they are all on life support since China won't buy their corn or soybeans (our 2 biggest crops) whereas they used to be the biggest importer of them.  

 

the people that voted for him probably will again because they aren't inteligent enough to realize he's destroying their livlihood.  they would rather blame the illegal immigrants and people on welfare and food stamps than the guy running the show.  that's why i say they are uneducated.  they can't figure out that the guy that's ruining manufacturing and farming with his tariff war is ruining them too.  they hear some anti abortion rhetoric, anti immigrant rhetoric, anti welfare statements and they think yeah that's the problem, not that trump got my factory closed, it's that people allow abortions.  that's just not intelligent.

Can't really disagree. I think there is a large segment of voters who are just unable or unwilling to look beyond the surface. They want to blame everything on a single issue, real or perceived, because that' doesn't require thinking - let alone challenging your own beliefs.  And politicians of both sides absolutely know that and count on it.

The right - "Membership of United Steel Workers is dropping and job are lost because of the unions and democrats are anti business"  

The left "Job are lost becausing the republicans are anti-union, trade tarrifs and tax breaks"

Neither side mentions there is entire world out there, where other counties have their changes in supply, demand, economies that fluctuate, volatility in other markets that have direct or indirect impact, and changes in technology. Something I read this morning, actually after reading your first post and googling a bit, is that what used to take 10.5 labor hours to produce in the steel industry now takes 1.5 labor hours due to technology changes and more efficient methods and equipment. So demand would have to increase almost 10 fold from 20 years ago to have the same amount of industry jobs and union membership.  No politician, policy, tariffs, taxes or union can "fix" that.

I'd like to think if there was a magic "perfect" answer, both parties would accept the obvious and follow it, and adjust as is needed. Until then it's theories or some combination of theories that is "fact" or "myth" depending on who is expounding it. Ditto for taxes, foreign policy etc....

[Ghoat]

11 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

i understand where you are coming from, i don't think unions or government are perfect, but i do think they do a better job than private business of putting citizens and people first (business its money first second and third).  that's why i am a liberal.  i understand where you are coming from because my whole family are conservatives, we've had similar discussions at thanksgiving year in and out. 

And I'm the opposite. The private sector isn't perfect and needs some restraints, but feel it does a much better job of providing than the public sector in most cases. Instances have proved that wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, but my overall "philosophy" remains. Which is why I am (fiscally) conservative.

If it makes you feel any better, my father was a democrat all his life. He was a disabled vet (Navy) from 1964 until he passed in 2011, and he absolutely hated Reagan *gasp*.  My Mom has spent most of her life between nursing and academia, has a Phd in American Studies, is a nurse practitioner in the VA hospital system with almost 20 years. She's been in Bentonville/Fayetteville a decade and is pissed Hillary hasn't come back as Governor. At 70 years old, yes, she owns a pussyhat!

Needless to say, I've had a lot of "wrong influences" from them....but over time I've realized some of them aren't as wrong as I originally believed. Or perhaps my thinking was only right "ish". 

[markjazzbassist]

haha sounds like we have the exact opposite family politics situations.  yeah i always appreciate hearing what my dad has to say on things, because many times it's apolitical like something is just wrong and needs to be fixed (ie infrastructure).  we have different ideas on how to do it, but the goal remains the same, fix the roads and bridges so people can be safe travelling.  this is where i'd like politics to get back to is the pre media sensationalism days.  clinton worked with a full republican senate and house and passed bills left right and center.  because at the end of the day, they all wanted the same thing, just had to work out the kinks of how to get there.  previous presidents before clinton did the same thing as well, i only say clinton because that was the last one i remember where it wasn't so volatile.  i am a great haggler, but i always have a price where i'm willing to make a deal.  what happened to that in politics?  

[Sibdane]

Boris Johnson becomes new PM? I'm sure Trump is very happy about this.

[MikeO]

31 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

Boris Johnson becomes new PM? I'm sure Trump is very happy about this.

We managed to get to nearly 6.00pm UK time without anyone mentioning it and then somebody has to go and spoil it for the rest of us.

[Matt]

Dumb and Dumber becomes reality. I knew I should’ve put a bet on that when the racist Wotsit took charge...

[Sibdane]

21 minutes ago, MikeO said:

We managed to get to nearly 6.00pm UK time without anyone mentioning it and then somebody has to go and spoil it for the rest of us.

Someone has to make you face your fears.

[Sibdane]

Somehow his hair is even worse than Trump's!

[MikeO]

Best hope at the moment is a "no confidence" vote; but ideally it'd need to happen by Thursday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49004486#comment_135532728

(Just as a matter of interest if you go to the comments below the article and look at them "highest rated" first top is one "Doc Daneeka" aka me)

[Matt]

12 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Best hope at the moment is a "no confidence" vote; but ideally it'd need to happen by Thursday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49004486#comment_135532728

(Just as a matter of interest if you go to the comments below the article and look at them "highest rated" first top is one "Doc Daneeka" aka me)

I refuse to look mate, sorry. Comments sections on the web are so depressing...

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, Matt said:

I refuse to look mate, sorry. Comments sections on the web are so depressing...

If you look at the top rated under the main "Johnson wins" story it would seem people are coming to their senses...not depressing at all for me; short term humiliation but long term hope.

[Matt]

I’m in the middle of 1984, so my immediate reaction is this is nothing more than a platform trying to polarise people. Comment sections are cesspits of humanity. 

[MikeO]

16 minutes ago, Matt said:

I’m in the middle of 1984, so my immediate reaction is this is nothing more than a platform trying to polarise people. Comment sections are cesspits of humanity. 

Comments sections of platforms blatantly pushing one agenda or another you may have a point but those under an article purely explaining the facts and without taking a side I wouldn't agree, certainly you have to wade through a bit of murk but I wouldn't call them cesspits.

[Matt]

14 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Comments sections of platforms blatantly pushing one agenda or another you may have a point but those under an article purely explaining the facts and without taking a side I wouldn't agree, certainly you have to wade through a bit of murk but I wouldn't call them cesspits.

Media explaining facts as they want them communicated. The BBC is anything but neutral and increasingly a blog site rather than an actual source of reliable information. Unfortunately, despite searching, I’ve not really found a better alternative 

[MikeO]

28 minutes ago, Matt said:

Media explaining facts as they want them communicated. The BBC is anything but neutral and increasingly a blog site rather than an actual source of reliable information. Unfortunately, despite searching, I’ve not really found a better alternative 

I disagree completely, the BBC is dismissed as right wing by the left and left wing by the right, that to me suggests neutrality. It's in their charter multiple times and if it strayed from the charter it'd be jumped on from a great height; which way are you suggesting it's biased?

Section of the charter...

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows. 

To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and
engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and
impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s
understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content
should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and
depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news
providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing
freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local,
regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the
democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens. 

[Ghoat]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Media explaining facts as they want them communicated. The BBC is anything but neutral and increasingly a blog site rather than an actual source of reliable information. Unfortunately, despite searching, I’ve not really found a better alternative 

Sadly the same in the US. There is no place on TV to just watch "the news" You could watch CNN then Fox, and assume it must have been different news days. Not on HOW it was "reported" but IF it was even mentioned. Annoying AF

[MikeO]

35 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Sadly the same in the US. There is no place on TV to just watch "the news" You could watch CNN then Fox, and assume it must have been different news days. Not on HOW it was "reported" but IF it was even mentioned. Annoying AF

But the US, and probably no other country in the World, has the equivalent of the BBC.

I take issue with Matt as I said earlier, because I really do believe it's a place where you can watch "the news" from a totally unbiased perspective. I'd love to see examples that disprove this; the mainstream parties don't have an issue with them nor do the minorities other than the odd tin foil helmet brigade. Hell they published a "flat earther" video a few days ago and didn't deride the looney presenting it, they gave him a platform despite him spouting obvious garbage.

[Ghoat]

Here is the current state of US "news" from today.

Some MSNBC chick tweets that Fox News isn't going to air the Mueller hearings. This is false, they are actively promoting it (so I hear I can't say I've been watching). Eventually she says she was just kidding and removes the tweet. Every bedwetting conspiracy nut does it bother to even consider that it might not be true and it's retweeted as further proof of a right-wing Trump conspiracy. Stephen King apparently tweeted about it, it was retweeted something like seven thousand times. it doesn't matter that it was never true now it's been repeated so many times by people, many who who allegedly have credibility and swallowed as gospel because it fits the narrative of a certain political agenda. 

And then of course all the right-wing fanatics jump on board offering this as "proof" that's the left in the traditional media are corrupt, Anti-Trump and there's no point in listening to anything that you can say. And Obama was born in Africa. Fox News is now covering it - I'm unsure if the CNN's or other outlets are saying anything.

Think about that for a second... A person who has some credibility, but no accountability, goes on Twitter and basically just flat out tells a lie. It could be someone for the left or someone for the right because God knows both have done it - it's not a monopoly. It's widely disseminated and becomes gospel because it's been repeated so many times, and now you have news channels who is reporting as news what the other news channels/ political rivals are doing and saying... Not reporting news. 

Twitter drives the news that is reported seemingly as much as world events do. political hacks from the left and from the right who have no accountability and do not even have to pretend to be objective, make up flat-out lies and their respective lap dogs eat it up and force the other side to respond. How in the fuck is anybody supposed to actually understand what is happening and then form their own opinion on it.

 

"Twitter makes you stupid" - Josef Stalin, 1937

"The Russians hacked me" - Genghis Khan, 1216

 

 

[markjazzbassist]

NPR and PBS are similar to the BBC here in the states.  When they aren’t reporting facts and have opinion they have a left and a right person.  They get the similar treatment to BBC, lefties think they are too centrist and right wingers think they are liberal.  

 

They are the only news source I trust.  They also do a great job reporting on the courts (supreme and federal circuit) which is something most major outlets don’t do.  Their congressional reporting regularly features republican and Democrat interviews as well.

[pete0]

Question time plants tories/Brexiteers and gives them longer air time with misleading edits. 

Also the Diane Abbott treatment were they completely denied any wrong doing and then excused their treatment of her as mild humour 12 says too late and a poor excuse/lack of apology. Same episode they also mislead viewers with polling figures. There's no way a news reporting business the size of BBC would genuinely believe the tories were polling ahead at that time. If they did all should be sacked as it was just the one poll, no doubt due diligence would have been done and other polls known yet they deliberately only used one and presented it as fact. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-apologises-diane-abbott-after-13885174

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/01/28/12-days-later-the-bbc-finally-admits-fiona-bruce-did-make-fun-of-diane-abbott/amp/

No doubt for me that the coverage on Corbyn has been bias. Even a former BBC trustee goes on just shy of admitting it. 

“I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that the BBC has sought to hedge its bets of late. There have been some quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour Party. I mean quite extraordinary. I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices at the BBC have lost their impartiality in this.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-bbc-trust-chairman-sir-michael-lyons-a7026006.html%3famp

[Chach]

54 minutes ago, pete0 said:

 

“I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that the BBC has sought to hedge its bets of late. There have been some quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour Party. I mean quite extraordinary. I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices at the BBC have lost their impartiality in this.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-bbc-trust-chairman-sir-michael-lyons-a7026006.html%3famp

“All I’m voicing is the anxieties that have been expressed publicly by others,” added a paid up member of the Labour Party

Giving zero specific examples.

Question time is a televised debate program, its never going to get the balance spot on. If you go to the front page of the BBC website its pretty much 100% straight reporting.

[pete0]

43 minutes ago, Chach said:

“All I’m voicing is the anxieties that have been expressed publicly by others,” added a paid up member of the Labour Party

Giving zero specific examples.

Question time is a televised debate program, its never going to get the balance spot on. If you go to the front page of the BBC website its pretty much 100% straight reporting.

I'm assuming you're not a Brit, Lyons is talking as if you will already know the stuff as over here it's pretty much known the BBC are against Corbyn and doing everything they can to sway people. Here's one example to get the jist

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-43463496

[pete0]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

“All I’m voicing is the anxieties that have been expressed publicly by others,” added a paid up member of the Labour Party

Giving zero specific examples.

Question time is a televised debate program, its never going to get the balance spot on. If you go to the front page of the BBC website its pretty much 100% straight reporting.

I'm assuming you're not a Brit, Lyons is talking as if you will already know the stuff as over here it's pretty much known the BBC are against Corbyn and doing everything they can to sway people. Here's one example to get the jist

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-43463496

Just look at the disproportionate coverage of Corbyn supposedly being antisemitic compared to Boris who called black people picaninnies with water melon smiles and Muslim women letter boxes. 

The BBC would have you believe Corbyn is a racist Russian sympathiser, yet his record shows he's an equality striving pacifist. 

Just found another article about a recent BBC documentary about Labour being antisemitic, the 'impartial' BBC had a former journalist of the scum direct it. 

As a public broadcaster the BBC has a duty to be impartial. Yet it has employed the former Sun journalist and Corbyn critic John Ware to direct tonight’s documentary. His greatest hits include:

• The widely criticised 2015 Panorama documentary that made false claims about Jeremy Corbyn.

• A documentary described by the Muslim Council of Britain as “an anti-muslim witch hunt” and in the Guardian as “McCarthyite”.
• Another documentary about British muslims that the BBC had to apologise for and pay compensation.
• A film about the ‘hard left’ running local schools which was criticised in the BBCs own magazine for abandoning “any attempt at a reasoned, detached, analytic or investigative programme”.

It’s clear John Ware has an anti-Labour agenda and he should not have been employed to direct a ‘fair and impartial’ documentary

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/is-the-bbc-impartial-on-jeremy-corbyn/

[Matt]

11 hours ago, MikeO said:

I disagree completely, the BBC is dismissed as right wing by the left and left wing by the right, that to me suggests neutrality. It's in their charter multiple times and if it strayed from the charter it'd be jumped on from a great height; which way are you suggesting it's biased?

Section of the charter...

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows. 

To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and
engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and
impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s
understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content
should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and
depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news
providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing
freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local,
regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the
democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens. 

It’s the dumbing down of pretty much everything which annoys me, playing up of buzzwords, “highest editorial standards” is a joke

[Romey 1878]

With Boris joining Trump as leader I'm going to quote Doctor Strange, "we're in the end game now".

[Chach]

3 hours ago, pete0 said:

I'm assuming you're not a Brit, Lyons is talking as if you will already know the stuff as over here it's pretty much known the BBC are against Corbyn and doing everything they can to sway people. Here's one example to get the jist

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-43463496

Just look at the disproportionate coverage of Corbyn supposedly being antisemitic compared to Boris who called black people picaninnies with water melon smiles and Muslim women letter boxes. 

The BBC would have you believe Corbyn is a racist Russian sympathiser, yet his record shows he's an equality striving pacifist. 

Just found another article about a recent BBC documentary about Labour being antisemitic, the 'impartial' BBC had a former journalist of the scum direct it. 

As a public broadcaster the BBC has a duty to be impartial. Yet it has employed the former Sun journalist and Corbyn critic John Ware to direct tonight’s documentary. His greatest hits include:

• The widely criticised 2015 Panorama documentary that made false claims about Jeremy Corbyn.

• A documentary described by the Muslim Council of Britain as “an anti-muslim witch hunt” and in the Guardian as “McCarthyite”.
• Another documentary about British muslims that the BBC had to apologise for and pay compensation.
• A film about the ‘hard left’ running local schools which was criticised in the BBCs own magazine for abandoning “any attempt at a reasoned, detached, analytic or investigative programme”.

It’s clear John Ware has an anti-Labour agenda and he should not have been employed to direct a ‘fair and impartial’ documentary

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/is-the-bbc-impartial-on-jeremy-corbyn/

I'm expat but follow UK news, you have drawn a massive bow there from a graphic used on Newsnight (about Corbyn wanting "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was involved in an assassination attempt on ex Russian spies in the UK using Russian nerve agents) and them promoting the idea he's racist. Do you have anything where the BBC originate claims that Corbyn is racist?

There are literally scores of objective articles on the BBC reporting on issues with anti semitism in the Labour party presented dispassionately, far less biased that the Jewish Voice for Labour piece you've linked there., that piece analogous to the kind of ad hominem attacks on journalists that Trump makes.

I'm a liberal and to say the BBC has a Tory bias is fanciful to say the least.

 

[Chach]