After 3 or 4 Trump threads, I must say...I now know entirely too much about conquestor3's finances for some reason.
Also, it's hilarious how people here say "the Left" and they mean the Democrats. Ahh...America. 
Trump and Russia (take 2)
14 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:Well when I say the Pandora's box has been opened, what I mean is that much of the current divisiveness and hatred is fairly recent. The discontent and changes have been around for decades, for various factors. Times are changing faster than people can keep up with them.
Never say you can't imagine a candidate more incompetent. I think many people believed that there was nobody worse than Bush. Then we got Trump.
The other thing I mean by Pandora's box is the extremism. Trump is extreme, but as far as I can see, he doesn't really believe much in anything. More extreme than that would be a zealot like Ted Cruz.
I feel most people aren't usually extremists. Problem is that partisan politics has very much become the you're with me or you're against me approach. And I, for one, have zero faith that this will go away by the next election. That's another thing that I mean by Pandora's box: this idiot train that Trump has started where he has zealot like following will only lead to the same for those who don't like him. Cycles like this are really really tough to break.
I am curious...what do you mean by "competency"? Had Trump been competent enough to gut the ACA successfully, instead of the circus he's made with it until now, would you have been happy with him then?
I mean, sure, many times partisan politics means people artificially manufacture tensions and divisions, but it's not like those divisions don't exist. People have different interests and different opinions when it comes to what policies should be implemented. Even when it comes to a single thing like healthcare; there are many ranging options, from universal to single-payer to Obamacare to complete free market-based etc etc.
Sure, so far the Republicans seem to not even know what they want to do other than destroy everything Obama built out of sheer spite, but it's not like if a "competent" Republican was on the steering wheel, that would automatically mean "unity". What is exactly the content of this "unity" when we're talking about naturally divisive issues?
Also, what do you guys mean by "extremists" in both sides? When it comes to the left, is Sanders an extremist? Because he's pretty much as "far-left" as you currently have in your mainstream politics. And he wouldn't be anything more than a run-of-the-mill social democrat in any other country in the world. Who are those "extremists"? I can see them on the right, since the Republican party under Trump/Bannon/etc has gone completely amok, to the point that old-school conservatives like McCain are worried about it, but on the other side? Who is "extreme" on the left, when we're talking about mainstream US politics? Or are we not talking about actual policies, but how vocal they are on social media?
Author
9 hours ago, mikeman said:I am curious...what do you mean by "competency"? Had Trump been competent enough to gut the ACA successfully, instead of the circus he's made with it until now, would you have been happy with him then?
When I say he's incompetent, I don't mean accomplishing something as daft as repeal and replace. I'm not in favor of repeal and replace. The only reason this is being debated is because the Republican Party wants to undo everything Obama did for no particularly good reason other than spite.
When I say competent, I mean someone who does rational things, makes rational decisions, that is president for the whole US, not just his support base. All he's done so far is pander to his supporters at best, and at worst, do completely random things through Twitter, or fire people because they didn't demonstrate loyalty. No leader of a country, representative of a country should be simply just Tweeting away insults at any and every damned thing that criticizes him. I don't even need to get into the platform, just look at his demeanor and his rhetoric...this is no leader of a state, he's just a wise ass with too much money.
9 hours ago, mikeman said:I mean, sure, many times partisan politics means people artificially manufacture tensions and divisions, but it's not like those divisions don't exist. People have different interests and different opinions when it comes to what policies should be implemented. Even when it comes to a single thing like healthcare; there are many ranging options, from universal to single-payer to Obamacare to complete free market-based etc etc.
Sure, so far the Republicans seem to not even know what they want to do other than destroy everything Obama built out of sheer spite, but it's not like if a "competent" Republican was on the steering wheel, that would automatically mean "unity". What is exactly the content of this "unity" when we're talking about naturally divisive issues?
Now let's get into the actual policy side. There's no question that divisions exist and people don't agree. But let's be honest: this entire repeal and replace stupidity is simply just to spite Obama and nothing more. There are definitely issues with ACA, but shouldn't we try to fix them rather than gut ACA and screw people over in the process? Or environmental policy. What good will repealing regulations for protecting people's health do? I can go on with lots of things in the Republican platform, but let's just start here.
9 hours ago, mikeman said:Also, what do you guys mean by "extremists" in both sides? When it comes to the left, is Sanders an extremist? Because he's pretty much as "far-left" as you currently have in your mainstream politics. And he wouldn't be anything more than a run-of-the-mill social democrat in any other country in the world. Who are those "extremists"? I can see them on the right, since the Republican party under Trump/Bannon/etc has gone completely amok, to the point that old-school conservatives like McCain are worried about it, but on the other side? Who is "extreme" on the left, when we're talking about mainstream US politics? Or are we not talking about actual policies, but how vocal they are on social media?
We've already seen the right wing extremists, sure. I wouldn't characterize Sanders as an extremist tbh. Sanders is certainly further to the left than the norm in the US, but there are things I agree with that are problems, e.g. college tuition. I didn't really agree with how he wanted to solve those problems (there were aspects of his plans that didn't really add up imo), but no, I wouldn't see he was an extremist. He was a populist, however, by definition, which isn't the worst thing in the world, since he wasn't a demagogue. The Left extremism is/was a bit different. There are/were some particularly vocal people who really adopted this 'with me or against me' holier than thou attitude on a number of issues that didn't really make much sense. The Left hasn't seen organized extremism, I will agree, at least yet.
On 7/29/2017 at 5:45 PM, conquestor3 said:What exactly are you talking about? Because the narrative for most of the things that were going to get Trump "Impeached" have fallen apart.
Or do you just mean in general? In general I think he's doing a pretty good job, and I love how he doesn't hesitate to throw senate republicans under the bus as well.
Out of curiosity, what are your standards for a successful President Trump? That is, what do you actually want him to do (or continue doing, I guess, if you think he's doing well so far)? You mentioned "[throwing] throw senate republicans under the bus," but beyond that it's hard to tell.*
Likewise, what are your standards for a failed Trump presidency, or at least a not good one? If the narratives you say have "fallen apart" hypothetically turn out to be true, would that make a difference? What about this weird new Seth Rich story? Are there any specific policy points that are "must-have," such that a failure to implement them would make you deem Trump a failure.
I'd also be curious to know exactly when you think the impeachment narratives fell apart. It's one thing to be skeptical, but I feel like typically for a story to be discredited (fallen apart), there needs to be at least some evidence that would actually contradict said story. By all means, I'm happy to admit that the most serious allegations aren't supported by any kind of overwhelming evidence, but it looks like you're making an even stronger claim than just that.
*by the way, I know what you meant, but I'm pretty sure the idiom "throw under the bus" doesn't actually mean what you think it does.
1 hour ago, cowsarenotevil said:Out of curiosity, what are your standards for a successful President Trump? That is, what do you actually want him to do (or continue doing, I guess, if you think he's doing well so far)? You mentioned "[throwing] throw senate republicans under the bus," but beyond that it's hard to tell.*
Likewise, what are your standards for a failed Trump presidency, or at least a not good one? If the narratives you say have "fallen apart" hypothetically turn out to be true, would that make a difference? What about this weird new Seth Rich story? Are there any specific policy points that are "must-have," such that a failure to implement them would make you deem Trump a failure.
I'd also be curious to know exactly when you think the impeachment narratives fell apart. It's one thing to be skeptical, but I feel like typically for a story to be discredited (fallen apart), there needs to be at least some evidence that would actually contradict said story. By all means, I'm happy to admit that the most serious allegations aren't supported by any kind of overwhelming evidence, but it looks like you're making an even stronger claim than just that.
*by the way, I know what you meant, but I'm pretty sure the idiom "throw under the bus" doesn't actually mean what you think it does.
trump supporters have been moving the goal posts since day 1. You can't seriously expect an honest answer.
On 1.8.2017 at 11:57 PM, deltaKshatriya said:When I say he's incompetent, I don't mean accomplishing something as daft as repeal and replace. I'm not in favor of repeal and replace. The only reason this is being debated is because the Republican Party wants to undo everything Obama did for no particularly good reason other than spite.
Well, I have heard very different opinions on the whole debate apparently from Indie game devs, last in the thread on gamasutra discussing the impact of the repeal on Indie game devs. I mean, "Indie game devs" commenting on the internet could be anyone... just as people writing anything on gamasutra.
Point is, I think we pretty much know by now that there are people in favour of it and people against it. And it at least looks to me like some of the people against it are not just rich peopl trying to dodge taxes, or poor people too stupid to see that they are better of with ACA.
I as a swiss citizen am appaled that apparently it is impossible for the US politicians to come to a compromise: make sure EVERYONE can get health care without paying through their nose if they want it, without forcing it on anyone and making sure taxes do not have to be increased much (how about making sure those pharma companies don't get away with their price hiking?)...
At least to me it looks like there must be a compromise somewhere in the middle as the opposing sides seem to complain about different aspects (people not able to get or afford health care vs. being forced to get healthcare & raised taxes)... but then I come from a country where politics usually means months and years spent in discussion to come to a boring old compromise, not exciting battles between good and evil.
I think US citizens stuck in the middle should stop taking sides when it comes to polarizing topics like this, and start looking at it from both sides. Usually, if enough people or for or against something, there is some truth to their claims. There might be shills with only self interests on both sides, but not everyone leaning to the right is a nazi and not everyone leaning to the left a communist.
Maybe, just maybe, people not getting drawn into heated conflicts over such topics and instead asking for facts and an actual debate could cool down the matter enough to find the actual middle ground?
On 8/2/2017 at 4:47 AM, cowsarenotevil said:Out of curiosity, what are your standards for a successful President Trump? That is, what do you actually want him to do (or continue doing, I guess, if you think he's doing well so far)? You mentioned "[throwing] throw senate republicans under the bus," but beyond that it's hard to tell.*
The main I really care about are economic ones, if he has good long-term job creation, and manages to accomplish protecting American workers by creating long-term middle class jobs (H1B limitations excluded. Those make America stronger by bringing the brightest from the world here. Bad move closing them).
Addressing the national debt might be good at this point to.
Since his presidency started I'd add another to that list though, which is finally dealing with North Korea.
On 8/2/2017 at 4:47 AM, cowsarenotevil said:Likewise, what are your standards for a failed Trump presidency, or at least a not good one?
If he goes socially conservative and we see any challenge to things like abortion/gay marriage, I'd consider it a failed presidency... Then again there's a lot of ways to fail, like if the markets are upended by something he tweets to the point where they don't recover after a correction, or if he concedes something geopolitically crucial like the South China Sea.
On 8/2/2017 at 5:51 AM, RivieraKid said:If the narratives you say have "fallen apart" hypothetically turn out to be true, would that make a difference?
It depends which one, since there's been so many attacks. If it's something as simply as manafort spoke with the Russians about Clinton's info, I wouldn't really care since there's not even a law against gathering opposition data from any source. If it's something along the lines of Trump asked Russia to hack the DNC, that would absolutely make a difference.
On 8/2/2017 at 4:47 AM, cowsarenotevil said:I'd also be curious to know exactly when you think the impeachment narratives fell apart. It's one thing to be skeptical, but I feel like typically for a story to be discredited (fallen apart), there needs to be at least some evidence that would actually contradict said story.
Simply because all the testimony that would supposedly going to get him impeached ended without anything bad being uncovered. I consider that fallen apart, since the narrative is "Once this testimony is heard, Trump will be gone!". Now it's "Trump's campaign manager might have spoken to a Russian diplomat for 30 minutes while staying at a hotel"
On 8/2/2017 at 5:51 AM, RivieraKid said:trump supporters have been moving the goal posts since day 1. You can't seriously expect an honest answer.
In the way older Trump threads I should have a similar statement, albeit without North Korea as a goal. It's obvious that North Korea thinks Trump's too weak to act, and is using his presidency as an opportunity to test as much as they can.
On that side though, The decision to create a massive new military base outside of NK's striking range in SK has proven to be a great idea, although it's taking ages to move there. It's likely any direct action in North Korea will need to be after that's done.
10 hours ago, conquestor3 said:Since his presidency started I'd add another to that list though, which is finally dealing with North Korea.
Out of curiosity: what do you want Trump to do with North Korea?
Surely you don't want to go to war with the lunatic. Not as long as China is still backing them to some extent. That would be the catalyst for WW3, given how near a ton of (super-)powers not that fond of the US are to north korea.
Sure, there is the chance that russia keeps out of it just to troll china. There is no way china will let the US act so freely next to their borders.
So what exactly do you want? more economic pressure on them (if there is even room for more given trade with NK is pretty much non existent)? More pressure on China to keep them in check (which I guess would be a good idea, but then the chinese have to grow tired of NK games themselves, which I think they slowly will)? Up-arming the "Friendly powers" in the region (which brings up bad memories of other times the US did that.... Japan and South Korea are not Iraq, but their governments as of late are not tree huggers either)?
Or are you saying "I don't care what you do, just make them disappear"? Consequences be damned?
4 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:Out of curiosity: what do you want Trump to do with North Korea?
Surely you don't want to go to war with the lunatic. Not as long as China is still backing them to some extent. That would be the catalyst for WW3, given how near a ton of (super-)powers not that fond of the US are to north korea.
Sure, there is the chance that russia keeps out of it just to troll china. There is no way china will let the US act so freely next to their borders.
Installing mass anti-missile batteries, funding a massive South Korean underground bunker, moving important assets away from the North Korean border (Already happening), and a decapitation attack with China being allowed to install a new puppet dictator.
If we were to approach China and say "Kim Jong Un and staff will die within the next 72 hours, unless you help you won't be allowed to interfere with the transition of goverment, and if you help them militarily we'll do an embargo on all food/water exports to your country", and give no margin for debate, they will try to maintain as much power as they can by helping/installing their own government.
South Korea's military alone can beat North Korea, so any show of force by arming Japan/South Korea is just a symbolic act, the only real threat they have is Seoul being in artillery range, nukes, and now possibly ICBM's.
Author
17 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:Well, I have heard very different opinions on the whole debate apparently from Indie game devs, last in the thread on gamasutra discussing the impact of the repeal on Indie game devs. I mean, "Indie game devs" commenting on the internet could be anyone... just as people writing anything on gamasutra.
Point is, I think we pretty much know by now that there are people in favour of it and people against it. And it at least looks to me like some of the people against it are not just rich peopl trying to dodge taxes, or poor people too stupid to see that they are better of with ACA.
I understand that many people find issues with ACA. I'm not going to say that there is only ONE right way of doing this. I will back a solution that is feasible. I will concede that there are many debates surrounding this and it's a topic that has no right answer. The reason I am against repeal and replace is because partially it's born in spite and partially it won't actually benefit people much. There are certainly issues, but the Republican solutions so far have been unworkable. There is indeed a need for compromise, but if the solution is just "let's throw it all out the window and more", then it's a bit tough to work with.
Let's leave health care aside, since it's probably more appropriate for a): another thread and b): isn't really the point I'm trying to make about Trump. What has Trump done in the past 6 months? Other than endlessly scream on Twitter about various idiotic things? Other than lie time and time again? Other than claim that he is absolute and above criticism? Has he actually done anything for the people?
All I've seen him do is constantly attack the "mainstream media" which is somehow "biased" because they don't praise him on everything he does. (And no conquestor3 I'm not defending any particular media outlet before you go off on that). He's constantly pushed conspiracy theories. He has fired anybody who doesn't show loyalty to him. He literally just attacks anything and anyone he doesn't like. This is no president.
18 hours ago, conquestor3 said:Simply because all the testimony that would supposedly going to get him impeached ended without anything bad being uncovered. I consider that fallen apart, since the narrative is "Once this testimony is heard, Trump will be gone!". Now it's "Trump's campaign manager might have spoken to a Russian diplomat for 30 minutes while staying at a hotel"
Testimonies are a part of investigations? Investigations take time perhaps? But then again, when have you ever seen Trump do any wrong? From the start of the campaign till now? The only thing you've done is twist events to fit a narrative, namely that the media is all conspiring to bring Trump down.
We don't know what'll come out of the Trump Russia probe, and it may very well not be much, but for someone who's innocent, he's sure doing a lot of cover up.
2 hours ago, conquestor3 said:and a decapitation attack with China being allowed to install a new puppet dictator.
If we were to approach China and say "Kim Jong Un and staff will die within the next 72 hours, unless you help you won't be allowed to interfere with the transition of goverment, and if you help them militarily we'll do an embargo on all food/water exports to your country", and give no margin for debate, they will try to maintain as much power as they can by helping/installing their own government.
Right, so basically let's start World War 3. Brilliant.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
