|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 22 2017 11:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default. and trump doesn't understand it properly. and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president. I'll agree that some might not have. but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point. and on generals, it'd depend which general. there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those. Yeah but most people don't know when new government debt can be free money and when its just a number. The petrodollar means that the debt realistically won't default (and if it does there are bigger problems) I don't think most presidents have been remotely qualified. George Washington didn't have any qualifications outside of "he can unite the country" Lincoln had less qualifications then Obama if nothing else. Lets not get into whatever the hell Reagan was. If anything Trump has shown he can bullshit enough people in order to get to the next day better and brighter. If you don't think he passes a basic human being test then you should far more then ignore a lot of our presidents in the past for their culpability in mass slavery and holocaust. Truth is that we don't want a guy whos honest or ethical we want a guy who'll fight for and represent us, thats at least what the election showed. Blisse and I quote Show nested quote + I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
I was watching fox when eating lunch at an applebees and they had fox on there was protest coverage the whole time. I don't know if its just me but I don't get where people get off expecting great things from society and their fellow man. There has never been a point where things have been better yet people complain even more. There was what 20k or so protesting Bush in 2000 when he won the election almost by the decision of the supreme court but after a series of clear recounts people in other countries feel the need to protest the decision in our country?
that trump can con people into voting ofr him doesn't make a better future, it means he can con people. and he doesn't show signs of using that for the benefit of america more than benefit to himself. even if he intends to, he lacks the ability to recognize the potential for corruption and bias sufficiently to do so well.
and that you think someone doesn't have enough qualification doesn't mean much when you cite some of the examples you do, which shows a very poor understanding of history (some of them you have a point on). do others need me to go over that? not that interested in going over it for sermo, since he's clearly arguing from a place of not understanding, but if someone else wants the info i'd do it.
also, petrodollar doesn't mean the us can't/won't default. i don't think you understand how default even works. what prevents the us from defaulting is that it's int eh constitution and that sensible know the risks of doing so.
|
I think all this democracy bashing is occuring because HRC was never a legitimate nominee to begin with, she never had to compete with 15 others aiming for the presidency. It was simply given to her, and she could barely handle the already sparse competition. The conservative portion of the population was well represented with Trump, you could say he was a terrible candidate for x,y,z reasons, but he did represent the views of the people on the right very well and thus formed a movement. The left didnt have a movement, because there was no champion of leftist values, simply a person who was using her career reputation and connections and wealth to try to walk into the oval office by saying she wasn't trump.
It wasn't a democratic process on the liberal side, given what we know about the DNC and CNN and the lack of competition. Who knows what would have happened if there was an open playing field and we had two champions of two different visions face off in this election?
|
On January 22 2017 11:33 biology]major wrote:
I think all this democracy bashing is occuring because HRC was never a legitimate candidate to begin with, she never had to compete with 15 others aiming for the presidency. It was simply given to her, and she could barely handle the already sparse competition. The conservative portion of the population was well represented with Trump, you could say he was a terrible candidate for x,y,z reasons, but he did represent the views of the people on the right very well and thus formed a movement. The left didnt have a movement, because there was no champion of leftist values, simply a person who was using her career reputation and connections and wealth to try to walk into the oval office by saying she wasn't trump.
It wasn't a democratic process on the liberal side, given what we know about the DNC and CNN and the lack of competition. Who knows what would have happened if there was an open playing field and we had two champions of two different visions face off in this election?
you think that because you're highly biased.
and you seem unable to tell the difference between people calling trump a demagogue populist because he's on the other side so they disparage him, from the people calling trump that because they understand history, politics, sociology, economics, and such, and have a solid evidentiary basis for the conclusion.
and it was a democratic process on the liberal side (not that democratic is even necessarily a good thing, that's a whole other debate).
that's jsut you continuing to believe in a false narrative that makes you feel better about your choices/results.
only your own hatred, adn that of likeminded people, causes you to see it the way you do.
objective analysts (admittedly hard to find) would not reach the conclusion you do.
the democracy bashing is because people from all sides (including the right), who have sense adn decency can recognize a real problem, tha'ts bigger than the usual squabbles. it's also well documented historically that such things do happen occasionally in democracies.
that said, there are ways the system could've been better and done better. but in order to implement them, it helps a lot if more people actually understand the problems properly, rather than their own misrepresentations of them.
|
Norway28700 Posts
On January 22 2017 11:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 09:27 biology]major wrote:
btw, this obsession with crowd size via the press secretary and comments at CIA talk reveal a deep insecurity inside trump's head. Pretty laughable, but I do hate how petty he can be. That sean spicer briefing was a joke. Agreed. The global anti-Trump protests were a success in the sense that Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, spent his first news conference lying about how popular Trump's inauguration was, pretending that everyone loves Trump, and shaming news organizations for covering the worldwide anti-Trump phenomenon. It looks like Sean Spicer is going to be the human version of Trump's Twitter, reifying our president's extremely thin skin. But knowing how delusional our president is, he should find a way to take credit for the worldwide phenomenon that happened today. Only a man like Donald Trump could draw crowds of millions of people! Not yesterday during his inauguration to support him, mind you, but today all across the country and the world, in protests and marches against our rapist-in-chief. It would be the ultimate irony if Trump actually does manage to unify the nation and the world... over a mutual hatred of him. Millions and millions of people united today in support of America and humans rights. Let it be known that despite our giant leap backwards, the world has not turned its back on the United States. This is awesome: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/21/world/womens-march-pictures.html?_r=0 I heard Fox provided very minimal coverage of the protesting, which wouldn't surprise me at all since it's Fox, but I haven't really followed up on that claim.
Wow, that is legitimately awesome. Prolly the first time the glorious nation of Antarctica protested anything? :D
And yeah, there's a real silver lining in that Trump is actually so terrible that he mobilizes all the millions of people who have been politically indifferent because it has largely seemed like it just didn't matter all that much - if this had been the clinton vs bush election people were expecting 2 years ago, I think 90% of the people in these pictures would've gone 'meh' instead. I myself today joined a political party - not really planning on doing anything beyond paying membership fee, but 'just voting' no longer felt sufficient.
|
On January 22 2017 11:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:33 biology]major wrote:
I think all this democracy bashing is occuring because HRC was never a legitimate candidate to begin with, she never had to compete with 15 others aiming for the presidency. It was simply given to her, and she could barely handle the already sparse competition. The conservative portion of the population was well represented with Trump, you could say he was a terrible candidate for x,y,z reasons, but he did represent the views of the people on the right very well and thus formed a movement. The left didnt have a movement, because there was no champion of leftist values, simply a person who was using her career reputation and connections and wealth to try to walk into the oval office by saying she wasn't trump.
It wasn't a democratic process on the liberal side, given what we know about the DNC and CNN and the lack of competition. Who knows what would have happened if there was an open playing field and we had two champions of two different visions face off in this election? you think that because you're highly biased. and you seem unable to tell the difference between people calling trump a demagogue populist because he's on the other side so they disparage him, from the people calling trump that because they understand history, politics, sociology, economics, and such, and have a solid evidentiary basis for the conclusion. and it was a democratic process on the liberal side (not that democratic is even necessarily a good thing, that's a whole other debate). that's jsut you continuing to believe in a false narrative that makes you feel better about your choices/results. only your own hatred, adn that of likeminded people, causes you to see it the way you do. objective analysts (admittedly hard to find) would not reach the conclusion you do. the democracy bashing is because people from all sides (including the right), who have sense adn decency can recognize a real problem, tha'ts bigger than the usual squabbles. it's also well documented historically that such things do happen occasionally in democracies. that said, there are ways the system could've been better and done better. but in order to implement them, it helps a lot if more people actually understand the problems properly, rather than their own misrepresentations of them.
So you think the process on the left was entirely democratic? You see no room for improvement? Either by increasing the number of available candidates, or having an impartial DNC? How can you argue about the pro's and con's of a democracy based on this election when the fundamental nomination process was illegitimate?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
drug importation isn't going to solve anything. it's not a pro-pharma vs anti-pharma thing.
if you just outright reimport pharma from a place where price is set lower due to price differentiation, then that place would see much higher prices. the source of reimportation would have either a choice of banning export, or getting rid of IP. in the latter case safety concerns become very serious.
if you manage to get a world where reimportation is safe and common, leading to proliferation of cheaply made generics, then pharma r&d would be shot. however, you've also not differentiated between different kinds of research and basically circumvented all ip laws with a nuclear bomb. there is a lot of space for alternatives that manage to lower cost/cut excessive activity while also preserving vibrant r&d activity.
the end problem is still the lack of effective price mechanism on u.s. pharmaceuticals. you'd need to standardize care and price control.
one potential solution is having a risk tiering when it comes to fda scrutiny. drugs meant for exotic diseases could get less costly screening, while those intended for mass market but marginal improvements can go through hell and back.
|
Norway28700 Posts
On January 22 2017 11:33 biology]major wrote:
I think all this democracy bashing is occuring because HRC was never a legitimate nominee to begin with, she never had to compete with 15 others aiming for the presidency. It was simply given to her, and she could barely handle the already sparse competition. The conservative portion of the population was well represented with Trump, you could say he was a terrible candidate for x,y,z reasons, but he did represent the views of the people on the right very well and thus formed a movement. The left didnt have a movement, because there was no champion of leftist values, simply a person who was using her career reputation and connections and wealth to try to walk into the oval office by saying she wasn't trump.
It wasn't a democratic process on the liberal side, given what we know about the DNC and CNN and the lack of competition. Who knows what would have happened if there was an open playing field and we had two champions of two different visions face off in this election?
I disagree. I think Sanders was a champion of leftist values who had a movement. I agree that he was severely disadvantaged by it being a foregone conclusion that Hillary was gonna be the nominee, but this wasn't just something that happened because of nepotism or whatever- it's because Hillary was almost uniquely qualified (I here use qualified in the same sense people designate Trump as uniquely unqualified). Meanwhile I don't think Trump would ever have gotten the necessary momentum unless he had been leading the polls from the beginning, and the primary reason why he was leading the polls from the beginning was that he was up against 15 other candidates who split the initial 80% of non-Trump between them. If Trump was up against say, Rubio with 20 years of government experience and nobody else, experienced Rubio would've won the primary.
Also, when people are protesting, it's not about 'bashing democracy'. It's about cherishing democracy. Your vote is only one way of getting heard and influencing the process. Europeans protesting Trump are doing it for three reasons; 1) telling our government that Trump is someone they should distance themselves from, 2) telling our american friends that despite all our previous complains, we've actually valued our close historical ties 3) catharsis from showing our strong disdain for someone we basically hate, although the third aspect prolly won't be something all that many admit to influencing them.
The Europeans I know who are not really upset about Trump pretty much all belong to the far right (and among this group he enjoys considerable actual support) or the far left - because the European far left never believed in american exceptionalism, has favored american isolationism, and has considered the clintonesque neo-liberalism almost just as dangerous, policy wise, as Trump's nationalism. As well as some degree of 'fuck the democrats for not electing Sanders' wrapped into it all.
|
On January 22 2017 11:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:37 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 11:33 biology]major wrote:
I think all this democracy bashing is occuring because HRC was never a legitimate candidate to begin with, she never had to compete with 15 others aiming for the presidency. It was simply given to her, and she could barely handle the already sparse competition. The conservative portion of the population was well represented with Trump, you could say he was a terrible candidate for x,y,z reasons, but he did represent the views of the people on the right very well and thus formed a movement. The left didnt have a movement, because there was no champion of leftist values, simply a person who was using her career reputation and connections and wealth to try to walk into the oval office by saying she wasn't trump.
It wasn't a democratic process on the liberal side, given what we know about the DNC and CNN and the lack of competition. Who knows what would have happened if there was an open playing field and we had two champions of two different visions face off in this election? you think that because you're highly biased. and you seem unable to tell the difference between people calling trump a demagogue populist because he's on the other side so they disparage him, from the people calling trump that because they understand history, politics, sociology, economics, and such, and have a solid evidentiary basis for the conclusion. and it was a democratic process on the liberal side (not that democratic is even necessarily a good thing, that's a whole other debate). that's jsut you continuing to believe in a false narrative that makes you feel better about your choices/results. only your own hatred, adn that of likeminded people, causes you to see it the way you do. objective analysts (admittedly hard to find) would not reach the conclusion you do. the democracy bashing is because people from all sides (including the right), who have sense adn decency can recognize a real problem, tha'ts bigger than the usual squabbles. it's also well documented historically that such things do happen occasionally in democracies. that said, there are ways the system could've been better and done better. but in order to implement them, it helps a lot if more people actually understand the problems properly, rather than their own misrepresentations of them. So you think the process on the left was entirely democratic? You see no room for improvement? Either by increasing the number of available candidates, or having an impartial DNC? How can you argue about the pro's and con's of a democracy based on this election when the fundamental nomination process was illegitimate?
ok, first, reading comprehension, sry to insult man, but I Literally said: "that said, there are ways the system could've been better and done better" so when you ask if I see no room for improvement, I literally already said there is room for improvement in the post oyu responded to; also I've been advocating for such improvements long before this election occurred.
second, it doesn't have to be entirely democratic; you were claiming it was not at all democratic, so I can counter that by it being somewhat democratic. You never claimed it was imperfectly democratic. and iirc Sanders did better in the more undemocratic parts of it anyways (the caucuses, rather than general voting). I think it was mostly democratic.
DNC wasn't perfectly impartial, but they were not in fact highly partial in actions; also, there really is an issue of Sanders not being committed to the democratic party, yet seeking their support anyways, which has problems of its own. nor has the few emails you'd cite actually provided sufficient evidence to prove a case that they seriously shifted anything, rather than them simply having opinions, and a few immoral ideas.
There were 5 candidates, more might be nice, but it's not like the 17 republican candidates actually yielded a superior result. the end result was trump. nor is it generally clear that more candidates helps, given the odd nature of how primaries work. it's not just about how many candidates oyu get, but about how good they are. Look at a typical job application process, you might get 100 applications, some of which very quickly go in the trash because they're just poorly done, or obvious inferior to some of the other choices.
I can argue about the pros and cons of democracy based on this election because both the nominating process itself was legitimate, and you dont' have an actual solid basis for it not being. and because regardless of the nominating process, the main election result was a populist demagogue, which is one of the known problems that occur in democracy from time to time. Or by using some other general fitness standards which trump doesn't meet.
some cycles make better exemplars than others of certain phenomena.
also, read the book in my sig on the issues in democratic elections.
|
On January 22 2017 11:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:23 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default. and trump doesn't understand it properly. and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president. I'll agree that some might not have. but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point. and on generals, it'd depend which general. there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those. Yeah but most people don't know when new government debt can be free money and when its just a number. The petrodollar means that the debt realistically won't default (and if it does there are bigger problems) I don't think most presidents have been remotely qualified. George Washington didn't have any qualifications outside of "he can unite the country" Lincoln had less qualifications then Obama if nothing else. Lets not get into whatever the hell Reagan was. If anything Trump has shown he can bullshit enough people in order to get to the next day better and brighter. If you don't think he passes a basic human being test then you should far more then ignore a lot of our presidents in the past for their culpability in mass slavery and holocaust. Truth is that we don't want a guy whos honest or ethical we want a guy who'll fight for and represent us, thats at least what the election showed. Blisse and I quote I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
I was watching fox when eating lunch at an applebees and they had fox on there was protest coverage the whole time. I don't know if its just me but I don't get where people get off expecting great things from society and their fellow man. There has never been a point where things have been better yet people complain even more. There was what 20k or so protesting Bush in 2000 when he won the election almost by the decision of the supreme court but after a series of clear recounts people in other countries feel the need to protest the decision in our country? that trump can con people into voting ofr him doesn't make a better future, it means he can con people. and he doesn't show signs of using that for the benefit of america more than benefit to himself. even if he intends to, he lacks the ability to recognize the potential for corruption and bias sufficiently to do so well. and that you think someone doesn't have enough qualification doesn't mean much when you cite some of the examples you do, which shows a very poor understanding of history (some of them you have a point on). do others need me to go over that? not that interested in going over it for sermo, since he's clearly arguing from a place of not understanding, but if someone else wants the info i'd do it. also, petrodollar doesn't mean the us can't/won't default. i don't think you understand how default even works. what prevents the us from defaulting is that it's int eh constitution and that sensible know the risks of doing so.
Lets break this one down.
Just because a person can do a thing doesn't make a better future. Utter gibberish. No idea what this ones suppose to mean please clarify.
It means he can do thing and doesn't show signs of using his ability to do a thing for the benefit of america more then benefit to himself. I'm going to assume this means you don't think he shows any ability to use his ability to con people for the benefit of America. You have no way of knowing that and really all you're speaking is on your emotions about him. I say this beacuse you're entire rest of post follows this pattern.
You go on to assume that you know that he doesn't recognize the potential for corruption and bias to do it either. Ignoring now that hes president hes got to focus on how he'll be remembered in history and how he'll be perceived when hes out of politics again. If he wants to benefit himself with his abilities hes going to want to benefit the nation as a whole. Whats the point of going through all the work to become president and then blow that on small potatoes? Nothing you say has any logic or reasoning in it continuing that you're just emotionally projecting onto your opinions about him.
You say I have a very poor understanding of history (again not showing any reasoning on this) then contradict yourself on your own point by saying I do have an correct understating of history on a few points. Clearly this means your emotions have nothing to do with me but instead of trump. You take your opportunity here to ask for group approval fake asking for people to go over your contradictory statement. You don't even have an excuse for bad English at this it just makes no sense and just expresses your bad faith. You go on in the same paragraph saying your not interesting in arguing with me in the middle of your response to me saying I have no understanding when just a line above you give me credit for having understanding of it.
I didn't say the petrodollar means the US can't/won't default I said it won't realisticaly default and that if it were to happen there would be bigger problems. I don't know where if the 1800's era constitution there was a section on 2000's era finance but I'm pretty sure there isn't one. And hey if anyone knows bankruptcy you have to at least admit that Trump will be qualified to help the country out of it if he gets us into it.
|
|
|
On January 22 2017 11:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
please make the US Economy better so Canada can go back to do what it does best which is sell everything it can to the US of By God "A".
i hope the US pulls out of NAFTA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
you might want to read this so you can understand how the two statements quoted above dont make sense.
If you want Canada to export more goods down south, restoring trade barriers is probably not the way to go.
e:Just so you know, I will not get baited further in this discussion since it seems obvious you are trolling.
|
On January 22 2017 12:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:32 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 11:23 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default. and trump doesn't understand it properly. and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president. I'll agree that some might not have. but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point. and on generals, it'd depend which general. there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those. Yeah but most people don't know when new government debt can be free money and when its just a number. The petrodollar means that the debt realistically won't default (and if it does there are bigger problems) I don't think most presidents have been remotely qualified. George Washington didn't have any qualifications outside of "he can unite the country" Lincoln had less qualifications then Obama if nothing else. Lets not get into whatever the hell Reagan was. If anything Trump has shown he can bullshit enough people in order to get to the next day better and brighter. If you don't think he passes a basic human being test then you should far more then ignore a lot of our presidents in the past for their culpability in mass slavery and holocaust. Truth is that we don't want a guy whos honest or ethical we want a guy who'll fight for and represent us, thats at least what the election showed. Blisse and I quote I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
I was watching fox when eating lunch at an applebees and they had fox on there was protest coverage the whole time. I don't know if its just me but I don't get where people get off expecting great things from society and their fellow man. There has never been a point where things have been better yet people complain even more. There was what 20k or so protesting Bush in 2000 when he won the election almost by the decision of the supreme court but after a series of clear recounts people in other countries feel the need to protest the decision in our country? that trump can con people into voting ofr him doesn't make a better future, it means he can con people. and he doesn't show signs of using that for the benefit of america more than benefit to himself. even if he intends to, he lacks the ability to recognize the potential for corruption and bias sufficiently to do so well. and that you think someone doesn't have enough qualification doesn't mean much when you cite some of the examples you do, which shows a very poor understanding of history (some of them you have a point on). do others need me to go over that? not that interested in going over it for sermo, since he's clearly arguing from a place of not understanding, but if someone else wants the info i'd do it. also, petrodollar doesn't mean the us can't/won't default. i don't think you understand how default even works. what prevents the us from defaulting is that it's int eh constitution and that sensible know the risks of doing so. Lets break this one down. Just because a person can do a thing doesn't make a better future. Utter gibberish. No idea what this ones suppose to mean please clarify. It means he can do thing and doesn't show signs of using his ability to do a thing for the benefit of america more then benefit to himself. I'm going to assume this means you don't think he shows any ability to use his ability to con people for the benefit of America. You have no way of knowing that and really all you're speaking is on your emotions about him. I say this beacuse you're entire rest of post follows this pattern. You go on to assume that you know that he doesn't recognize the potential for corruption and bias to do it either. Ignoring now that hes president hes got to focus on how he'll be remembered in history and how he'll be perceived when hes out of politics again. If he wants to benefit himself with his abilities hes going to want to benefit the nation as a whole. Whats the point of going through all the work to become president and then blow that on small potatoes? Nothing you say has any logic or reasoning in it continuing that you're just emotionally projecting onto your opinions about him. You say I have a very poor understanding of history (again not showing any reasoning on this) then contradict yourself on your own point by saying I do have an correct understating of history on a few points. Clearly this means your emotions have nothing to do with me but instead of trump. You take your opportunity here to ask for group approval fake asking for people to go over your contradictory statement. You don't even have an excuse for bad English at this it just makes no sense and just expresses your bad faith. You go on in the same paragraph saying your not interesting in arguing with me in the middle of your response to me saying I have no understanding when just a line above you give me credit for having understanding of it. I didn't say the petrodollar means the US can't/won't default I said it won't realisticaly default and that if it were to happen there would be bigger problems. I don't know where if the 1800's era constitution there was a section on 2000's era finance but I'm pretty sure there isn't one. And hey if anyone knows bankruptcy you have to at least admit that Trump will be qualified to help the country out of it if he gets us into it.
ok, now you're doing lies, strawmanning, and spouting nonsense enough of the time that shows you can't even understand what i'm saying, and continue to make unfounded and improper accusations.
you're not arguing in good faith, so I shan't argue with you, or rather, you are not arguing, so I see no reason to talk to you.
if you learn and engage in proper argumentation, then I shall reconsider.
|
A question for the European folk: do you feel that your countries warmed up a bit too strongly to Obama's US? I remember how unhappy Europeans were about the US back when Bush was in charge, and in the past 3-4 years or so, as the populists gained traction, I could see a remarkably strong loyalty to the US as "the leader of the free world" in Europe. While I don't think that's justified with Obama (he was a good president, certainly not exceptional), I would hope that you all realize that we have a roughly even chance of electing someone you dislike at least as much as Bush. Not keeping that in mind when thinking about the US role in Europe seems quite optimistic, if not downright foolish.
|
There are innumerable ways to benefit yourself without benefiting the country when you live in an alternate universe where your inauguration had way more people than it actually did, it was followed by a downpour, your opponent only won the popular vote because of 2 million illegal votes, and you never met Vladimir Putin despite going on record saying you did so.
No matter what, Trump will finish his term thinking he's the best President in the history of the union. He truly believes that anything bad that happens will be some combination of fake, a conspiracy, and the fault of congressional Republicans (maaaaybe Democrats, but I think he hates Republicans more).
That's what really makes Trump dangerous, he resides in an alternate reality that I'm not sure anyone in this thread besides RealityIsKing really understands.
|
On January 22 2017 12:11 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
please make the US Economy better so Canada can go back to do what it does best which is sell everything it can to the US of By God "A".
i hope the US pulls out of NAFTA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreementyou might want to read this so you can understand how the two statements quoted above dont make sense. If you want Canada to export more goods down south, restoring trade barriers is probably not the way to go. e:Just so you know, I will not get baited further in this discussion since it seems obvious you are trolling.
it makes total sense. what we can do is renegotiate another FTA like Mulroney did. The FTA was teh #1 election issue in the 1988 Canadian Federal Election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1988
for many decades prior to this 1988 FTA Canada was the USA's #1 trading partner without any kind of "official" FTA in place.
|
On January 22 2017 12:12 LegalLord wrote:
A question for the European folk: do you feel that your countries warmed up a bit too strongly to Obama's US? I remember how unhappy Europeans were about the US back when Bush was in charge, and in the past 3-4 years or so, as the populists gained traction, I could see a remarkably strong loyalty to the US as "the leader of the free world" in Europe. While I don't think that's justified with Obama (he was a good president, certainly not exceptional), I would hope that you all realize that we have a roughly even chance of electing someone you dislike at least as much as Bush. Not keeping that in mind when thinking about the US role in Europe seems quite optimistic, if not downright foolish.
'Leader of the free world' is mostly self flattery, I haven't encountered that view of the US anywhere in Europe, certainly not in the last decade. Pretty much 100% of the times I've seen someone say that this is how Europeans view the US, it was in online comments made by Americans.
|
On January 22 2017 12:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:32 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 11:23 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default. and trump doesn't understand it properly. and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president. I'll agree that some might not have. but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point. and on generals, it'd depend which general. there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those. Yeah but most people don't know when new government debt can be free money and when its just a number. The petrodollar means that the debt realistically won't default (and if it does there are bigger problems) I don't think most presidents have been remotely qualified. George Washington didn't have any qualifications outside of "he can unite the country" Lincoln had less qualifications then Obama if nothing else. Lets not get into whatever the hell Reagan was. If anything Trump has shown he can bullshit enough people in order to get to the next day better and brighter. If you don't think he passes a basic human being test then you should far more then ignore a lot of our presidents in the past for their culpability in mass slavery and holocaust. Truth is that we don't want a guy whos honest or ethical we want a guy who'll fight for and represent us, thats at least what the election showed. Blisse and I quote I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
I was watching fox when eating lunch at an applebees and they had fox on there was protest coverage the whole time. I don't know if its just me but I don't get where people get off expecting great things from society and their fellow man. There has never been a point where things have been better yet people complain even more. There was what 20k or so protesting Bush in 2000 when he won the election almost by the decision of the supreme court but after a series of clear recounts people in other countries feel the need to protest the decision in our country? that trump can con people into voting ofr him doesn't make a better future, it means he can con people. and he doesn't show signs of using that for the benefit of america more than benefit to himself. even if he intends to, he lacks the ability to recognize the potential for corruption and bias sufficiently to do so well. and that you think someone doesn't have enough qualification doesn't mean much when you cite some of the examples you do, which shows a very poor understanding of history (some of them you have a point on). do others need me to go over that? not that interested in going over it for sermo, since he's clearly arguing from a place of not understanding, but if someone else wants the info i'd do it. also, petrodollar doesn't mean the us can't/won't default. i don't think you understand how default even works. what prevents the us from defaulting is that it's int eh constitution and that sensible know the risks of doing so. Lets break this one down. Just because a person can do a thing doesn't make a better future. Utter gibberish. No idea what this ones suppose to mean please clarify. It means he can do thing and doesn't show signs of using his ability to do a thing for the benefit of america more then benefit to himself. I'm going to assume this means you don't think he shows any ability to use his ability to con people for the benefit of America. You have no way of knowing that and really all you're speaking is on your emotions about him. I say this beacuse you're entire rest of post follows this pattern. You go on to assume that you know that he doesn't recognize the potential for corruption and bias to do it either. Ignoring now that hes president hes got to focus on how he'll be remembered in history and how he'll be perceived when hes out of politics again. If he wants to benefit himself with his abilities hes going to want to benefit the nation as a whole. Whats the point of going through all the work to become president and then blow that on small potatoes? Nothing you say has any logic or reasoning in it continuing that you're just emotionally projecting onto your opinions about him. You say I have a very poor understanding of history (again not showing any reasoning on this) then contradict yourself on your own point by saying I do have an correct understating of history on a few points. Clearly this means your emotions have nothing to do with me but instead of trump. You take your opportunity here to ask for group approval fake asking for people to go over your contradictory statement. You don't even have an excuse for bad English at this it just makes no sense and just expresses your bad faith. You go on in the same paragraph saying your not interesting in arguing with me in the middle of your response to me saying I have no understanding when just a line above you give me credit for having understanding of it. I didn't say the petrodollar means the US can't/won't default I said it won't realisticaly default and that if it were to happen there would be bigger problems. I don't know where if the 1800's era constitution there was a section on 2000's era finance but I'm pretty sure there isn't one. And hey if anyone knows bankruptcy you have to at least admit that Trump will be qualified to help the country out of it if he gets us into it.
This is all basically correct, and it is quite illustrative of how so many of Trump's detractors are unable to give Trump anything resembling a fair shake at his presidency before concluding that he is doomed to be a failure. He may very well be a historically bad president, but let's at least wait and see what he does and how it turns out before jumping to that conclusion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's all about anti-american hegemony for leftists. nothing about liberalism or freedom. when your political universe is all about domestic opposition there is no perspective for the bigger picture.
a little more awareness of what goes on internationally would bring more substantive understanding of what 'the free world' means. america and western liberal society is not perfect by any means, but lack of understanding of how bad things could truly be makes people lose perspective.
|
Chris Stirewalt was on Fox’s Special Report on Saturday night, and he did not seem particularly impressed that Sean Spicer decided to use his first conference as White House Press Secretary in order to attack the press.
Spicer did not take questions from the press today, but he did go on an all-out assault against reporters who he accused of minimizing President Trump and the size of his inauguration crowd. When Bret Baier asked Sitrewalt to respond to this, he critiqued Spicer for devoting the conference to his “ego” and “swinging haymakers” instead of talking about policy matters.
Charles Krauthammer followed up with similar commentary, saying it was “surreal” to see the Trump Administration maintaining it’s “obsession” with ratings. While Mollie Hemingway warned that the press can’t overreact to every single development from the Trump team, Stirewalt argued that summoning the press for the purpose of dressing them down is “not how you start.”
“A president who says we’re going to work day one. We are starting with the business of the people on day one, does not go to Langley and then, standing in front of those stars, complaining about the coverage of his crowd size. that’s thinking about yourself, that’s thinking about your inauguration, that’s thinking about your ratings.”
Stirewalt’s last point was in reference to how Trump attacked the media on his own today while he was meeting with CIA operatives.
Watch above, via Fox.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-is-not-how-you-start-foxs-stirewalt-slams-spicer-over-crowd-size-tear-against-press/
|
Norway28700 Posts
On January 22 2017 12:12 LegalLord wrote:
A question for the European folk: do you feel that your countries warmed up a bit too strongly to Obama's US? I remember how unhappy Europeans were about the US back when Bush was in charge, and in the past 3-4 years or so, as the populists gained traction, I could see a remarkably strong loyalty to the US as "the leader of the free world" in Europe. While I don't think that's justified with Obama (he was a good president, certainly not exceptional), I would hope that you all realize that we have a roughly even chance of electing someone you dislike at least as much as Bush. Not keeping that in mind when thinking about the US role in Europe seems quite optimistic, if not downright foolish.
I've only really been politically interested since the latter half of Clinton's presidency, but I've observed several changes of attitude since then. Mostly from a leftist pov though as those have been my circles. But like in Norway, nobody was excited about Clinton during his years. He only became popular after we had GWB as a comparison. And Bush was certainly despised. Hated because of the invasion of Iraq, ridiculed because he'd say stuff like I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully. The second biggest newspaper in Norway had a daily column, running for a couple years, with 'Bush of the day', where some stupid statement of his was taken out of context so we could all laugh at how stupid he was and how dumb you murcans were for electing him.
Thing is, for the generations before that, there were similar sentiments. The Vietnam war was to my dad what the Iraq war was to me - the first major political event that massively pissed me off. And while Reagan was regarded positively in some circles, overall opinion of him was terrible was well. The whole american exceptionalism, the leader of the free world role, that was something leftists generally ridiculed, and definitely did not agree with. (And I think that is fair. American foreign policy between Kennedy and 1990 is full of terrible atrocities, and with very few positive involvements - I struggle with finding a single involvement that was actually positive for the region in question.)
Obama's US was the first time an american president really seemed to relate to how pissed off we were with the american world police role. And he's the first president to give me the impression that american interests were not necessarily the primary motivator for whatever FP action he preferred. Not so strangely, this is just the type of attitude we actually want from a world police. Obviously not everything Obama did turned out great - but I never doubted his intentions.
And in an increasingly chaotic world where European power has certainly deteriorated, and where we don't want to be involved in anything militarily ever again, this brand of positive american leadership has gotten traction within groups of Europeans who have historically been very positive towards the idea of American isolationism - because during the cold war era, and the Iraq war, american involvement spelled disaster for the region in question. But now we actually feel like we need you, but we need the good you, the you that showcased itself through Obama.
I guess the US is kind of like a dr jekyll/mr hyde creature, and we forget how much we hated mr hyde because he only comes out every 4-8 years..
I feel eastern europeans will have a very different point of view, but this is fairly mainstream for most of western&northern europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
