Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
shredingskin said:
Really, we hoped he was the guy that lowered taxes, started having stronger border security, make cuts to the goverment, open the economy and be tougher with police intervention.
We got none of that, we just got rid of another populist that is slightly better than the old one (and in some cases even worse).

Why do you think Trump is such a bad president ? Apart from his unprofesional sheenanigans, all the economic factors seems like gave a boost to the economy all around, and for someone that made 5 million jobs in a couple of years, the inflation is actually stupidly low (the main critique of leftists).
I do understand he's an incredible weird guy, and not a fan a populist speech (though, politics in democracy tend to that) but as policies go, I'd be quite happy to trade presidents in a whim.
Click to expand...

Actually inflation is increasing enough to offset the real wage increases and by that I mean as a stat alone real wages increased about 3 percent but with inflation wages only rose 1.3 percent. Lets not even get to how the tariffs are going to increase the inflation rate so I'm not thrilled with that.

And by the way unemployment rate actually increased to 4 percent in January, which he did not include in his State of the Union because it would've affected his statement that unemployment was at its lowest point.

I'm also not thrilled how he's been handling the border security. The measures his administration have taken have been poor to say the least. Illegal immigration also lowered under Obama and he certainly had a punitive approach but he didn't seperate families which made the US look bad internationally. And let's not even talk about this whole wall fiasco.
 
Kodama said:
The bias of the website I linked to is irrelevant, as is your link in general by your own admission. I was just trying to find a list of Trump's accomplishments, and while the bias from that site certainly adds some padding, it's not like the list is all bullshit. You can't blame me for not being able to dig up articles from left leaning sites that refuse to write positive news about trump...

Here's another one if you'd like straight from the horse's mouth, or bull's ass, whichever you prefer...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/\

Just claiming bias isn't enough to dismiss facts, they're there dude...
Click to expand...

I don't blame you but if you're attempting to give me a fair piece of evidence you don't go to a place that's obviously known to be bias.

BBC is known to actually be quite balanced about their bias in reporting US news. I can't speak on how they cover the UK, as I don't follow their day to day politics, but BBC has been in my experience quite fair in the past to Bush and Obama both in covering the pros and flaws of their policies. Its not like I provided a CNN link or the Mary Sue or anything.
 
I Got Sriracha In My DNA said:
I'm also not thrilled how he's been handling the border security. The measures his administration have taken have been poor to say the least. Illegal immigration also lowered under Obama and he certainly had a punitive approach but he didn't seperate families which made the US look bad internationally. And let's not even talk about this whole wall fiasco.
Click to expand...
Obama did indeed separate families no different than trump did, you're being influenced by biased media like the BBC. Trump is just following the same rules that were there when Obama was in charge. The pictures of kids in cages that were floating around when that story was hot were from the Obama era...

You're right, the BBC isn't complete tabloid trash like CNN, but they certainly are incredibly biased, especially against Trump and anything right wing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-is-deporting-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-did
 
DigitalDuck said:
The idea of the BBC being less biased is hilarious, especially when they have openly racist hiring practices and rarely have guests on talk shows that disagree with the modern "progressive" movement... and that's not even getting into the atrocity that is BBC Three...
Click to expand...

EVERY news site down to an author on a news article admittedly has a bias, but to say the term "hilariously" is a gross misrepresentation of the bias level of BBC in comparison to say the Washington Examiner or Breitbart or even on the left bias like CNN or Gawker when they were around.

And to be clear I'm talking about its coverage on US news. Im aware its coverage of Europe and especially in the UK is different (I think you're from the UK? Please correct me if I'm wrong) so I have no doubt you have a different experience than I do.
 
Kodama said:
Obama did indeed separate families no different than trump did, you're being influenced by biased media like the BBC. Trump is just following the same rules that were there when Obama was in charge. The pictures of kids in cages that were floating around when that story was hot were from the Obama era...

You're right, the BBC isn't complete tabloid trash like CNN, but they certainly are incredibly biased, especially against Trump and anything right wing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-is-deporting-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-did
Click to expand...

I've read this article last year and i quickly skimmed it again but where does it say he actively seperated families. I can say that I know Obama was tough and he did detain the families at points. I also don't doubt that some family separation happened under Obama or Bush's tenure in terms of how border security used their individual discretion but it legit was not in Obama's or Bush's policy that actively and resulted in mass separation like we saw last year.
 
I Got Sriracha In My DNA said:
Actually inflation is increasing enough to offset the real wage increases and by that I mean as a stat alone real wages increased about 3 percent but with inflation wages only rose 1.3 percent.
Click to expand...
And for anyone that knows what inflation is and how economy works, that's an amazing price to pay to have around 5 million more people added to the workforce. You think having more liquid money won't be inflationary ? Would you prefer a recessive economy ? Or you just say that because it's what news tell ?
 
shredingskin said:
And for anyone that knows what inflation is and how economy works, that's an amazing price to pay to have around 5 million more people added to the workforce. You think having more liquid money won't be inflationary ? Would you prefer a recessive economy ? Or you just say that because it's what news tell ?
Click to expand...

Why are you fixating on that one part of my post and ignoring when I mentioned the unemployment rate rose in January as well as the tariffs, which if they continue can negatively impact jobs and wage growth. This trade war of his already hurt our farming market further (who are also part of his voter base) which Trump now has to try and "bail" out with his $12b program.

However before I say anything further let me ask this. Legitimate question too, I'm not trying to be rhetorical. Would you have also been just as hopeful to have Obama as your leader in your country?

To be clear, I'm only using him as part of my question as our direct prior President not because he's a Democrat.
 
Yes, at this point practically anything is better than we had and currently have.
Though I'm not as clear as what was Obama's economic plan.
I was just saying we were voting for someone that had the Trump speech, but didn't go through any promises.
 
shredingskin said:
Yes, at this point practically anything is better than we had and currently have.
Though I'm not as clear as what was Obama's economic plan.
I was just saying we were voting for someone that had the Trump speech, but didn't go through any promises.
Click to expand...

Ok yes I needed context and that helped. That makes sense. Thanks.
 
Clarification that the words I used should’ve already made clear:

Left says BBC is biased towards the right.
Right says BBC is biased towards the left.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the BBC is more balanced than bias?

It is my hope that this may lead to a better understanding of how to interpret future comments.
 
I Got Sriracha In My DNA said:
Why? "Really like"? How are you benefiting from this administration?
Click to expand...

For myself, I am personally benefiting from his increased interference with the recreational poison trade. There has been a 10% decrease in overdose deaths in Boston since he started building walls and establishing martial law on the border. We've definitely seen fewer kids dying in emergency rooms throughout the city. Combined with the new tariffs against Chinese production, there is less undercutting and more jobs for poor Americans. He is also spearheading bipartisan prison reform to liberate non-violent prisoners. He should, however, also force the greedy parties to fund a massive healthcare bill to bail out the sick in this country, but he won't. And I don't support a wall. A strong border isn't a long term solution; only enough proper military action against paramilitary crime on the other side of that imaginary line will generate conditions for lasting peace and justice for all. That wall will definitely help Americans in the short term, but in the near future it will create a festering sore in the southwest, and Mexican victims of rampant organized crime will suffer a lot until there is massive chaos nobody can pretend to control.

shredingskin said:
I was just saying we were voting for someone that had the Trump speech, but didn't go through any promises.
Click to expand...

But no one official can fulfill important promises by design. Democratic government policy is reset regularly, whereas it necessarily takes generations to solve major problems organically. An accomplished leader merely sets a course. If an elected official retires, and the people keep supporting his agenda for, say, the next 20 years, only then has he done something somewhat significant. Otherwise, his 15 minutes of fame was all just forgotten miming. It's only been 2 years, but who really remembers Obama now? Those 8 years were like the snap of a finger, a mini-series of events, and not a single policy thereof remains in existence.
 
Last edited:
@Kiba it was down 10 percent? I thought it was lower than that. Either way you are correct that overdoses declined in the Boston area, which it did from 2016 to 2017. 2018 looked on pace to have an increase in deaths though when checked last fall, however until we get the final numbers I believe it will still be lower than in 2016. Unfortunately I am concerned about the rise of about 40% on overdose deaths from the very same drugs in African-Americans during that period so hopefully that goes down in the future.

I hesitate though to credit Trump specifically for the decrease in Boston and rather credit more your local government because the country overdose deaths from 2016 to 2017 actually rose about 10 percent. I do not recall or know the rate for 2018.

As for the tariffs, in the short term it can provide jobs like in the steel industry the first couple years but as the retaliations in the trade war continue and prices rise over the rest of the economy, its been estimated that there will be a net loss in jobs across the board after the first 2 or 3 years. Imposing the level of tariffs in this day and age with the global economy are not good in the long term if Trump continues to play this game. Like I said earlier it's already screwed the farming industry.

I do agree with you that the wall is not a long term solution. Thank you. I'm not sure what the right solution is but certainly the cartel needs to be dealt with.
 
Mittens2317 said:
Clarification that the words I used should’ve already made clear:

Left says BBC is biased towards the right.
Right says BBC is biased towards the left.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the BBC is more balanced than bias?

It is my hope that this may lead to a better understanding of how to interpret future comments.
Click to expand...

There are people who say that the arrests and police harrassment of people saying that those with penises are men is proof that the patriarchy only cares about women when they're men. It makes it neither true nor valid.

There are no programmes on the main two BBC channels dedicated to pushing right-wing propaganda. There's no BBC channel dedicated to pushing right-wing propaganda. Both of these exist for left-wing propaganda.

I would be inclined to say that the people who say the BBC is biased towards the right are also the same people who call left-leaning people "right-wing", and that it's more logical to look at the evidence rather than claims when determining bias. Just look at the editor's picks on BBC Three:
  • Things Not to Say to female bartenders
  • This woman's bid to marry her duvet for Valentine's Day went viral
  • Alt-Right: Age of Rage
  • Blood! Yay! Period parties are now a thing...
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drops her skincare routine on Insta, Twitter explodes
  • Why I'm taking a gap year to fight Brexit
Wait, I think I found the "balanced" part:
  • How it feels to be a Brexit Inbetweener
CLEARLY NAZIS


(also a side note: I don't know why opposing immigration is considered right-wing when immigration benefits business owners and reduces wages for the working class... surely supporting immigration is the right-wing position?)
 
Mittens2317 said:
Left says BBC is biased towards the right.
Click to expand...
I can imagine only the extreme left could come to such a silly conclusion... Probably accusing them of bias just for having right wing guests or something...
 
I personally have no opinion on BBC News. The only news I watch is Sky Sports News, I just constantly hear the complaint from both sides (people I actually know, not outrage tweets), neither of which are far-anything.

EDIT: I specified BBC News because - though it is the same company - it’s still different to BBC Three, which is of course very “liberal”, I suppose, as it’s heavily focussed on “the arts”, which arguably leans much more on the left than right in most western countries.
 
I Got Sriracha In My DNA said:
I hesitate though to credit Trump specifically for the decrease in Boston and rather credit more your local government because the country overdose deaths from 2016 to 2017 actually rose about 10 percent. I do not recall or know the rate for 2018.
Click to expand...

I wish I could credit local government, but they continue to prove they don't care about the poor, disabled, and sick very much. Whereas almost all of the drug busts I am aware of were direct runs from the southwest border to suppliers hiding in MA suburbia, then transported to Boston. But, of course, realistically, it won't take long for local growers and cooks to pick up the slack. But better to have one problem to solve than two.

I Got Sriracha In My DNA said:
As for the tariffs, in the short term it can provide jobs like in the steel industry the first couple years but as the retaliations in the trade war continue and prices rise over the rest of the economy, its been estimated that there will be a net loss in jobs across the board after the first 2 or 3 years. Imposing the level of tariffs in this day and age with the global economy are not good in the long term if Trump continues to play this game. Like I said earlier it's already screwed the farming industry.
Click to expand...

Two things: first, there was already a trade war raging, imposed on the U.S. via extremely high tariffs on American goods entering China. But this was the result of Kissinger and Nixon's deal to ally with China to decisively weaken global Communism by exacerbating the Sino-Soviet Split. It worked brilliantly, but 25 years after the goal was reached (the bankruptcy and forced re-revolution of the Soviet Union), and with China extremely wealthy as a result, it was definitely high time for a renegotiation. Even the hardcore Maoists know they have to submit to American demands on this because the Chinese people aren't going to tolerate a one-party system forever. In fact, the necessary renegotiation of the U.S. trade relationship with China is going to guarantee a steady diminishment of CPC power inversely relational to the demands of the growing Chinese middle class and the increasing dissatisfaction of poor Chinese workers. Maoism is finished, but it can fade away gracefully and with respect in 100 years. The choice belongs to the PRC military and the ability of future American administrations to play chicken bravely (well, smart and cool).

Second, American farming was already basically dead. The agricultural phase of American history is all done and will be for centuries to come. It's been time to industrialize everything since 1830. Dragging of feet in this regard has already led to one civil war and several depressions without much improving the lot of workers. IMO, the full-on fascistic and destructive unions have to go -- 'co-ownership or nothing' should be the mantra of every American worker until 2100 in order to fix the overall mess.

I Got Sriracha In My DNA said:
I do agree with you that the wall is not a long term solution. Thank you. I'm not sure what the right solution is but certainly the cartel needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

We all know what the right solution is in our hearts, but most don't want to accept it: Don't build a Wall; build a Mall. If you greatly incentivize making 100 miles on each side of the Rio Grande the richest region on the planet, the cartels will die of natural causes, smooth and efficient like. That's the best path forward, so, naturally, humans will choose the second-best path at best: a future administration with brains and 20/20 vision could conceivably collaborate with Mexico City to establish a joint-military task force in the region to clean it out, and as a bonus, by fighting and dying together for a common cause, fix all the bad blood between the American and Mexican peoples. In the end, the cartels will be eradicated for a while, but the region will still be a gigantic strategically significant vacuum to attract the next wave of warlords.

Also, totally unrelated note, I have been obsessed with sriracha sauce lately. You can literally put it on everything, and the pain is pleasure.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top