CLOSED

16566687071164

Comments

  • edited December 2017 Posts: 7,502
    barryt007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    @Jobo first, you were referring to European media beeing unbiased, but I can give you an example of our own national (state) television telling us that Putin wouldn't want to talk about violation of human rights in Ukraine and Russian involvment (nicely cut video) whilst in fact he'd been talking to that journalist for the best of five minutes. Now tell me that isn't biased against Putin? And now you're claiming @bondjames supports Trump, which he's never stated above. He's only stated what will happen if Trump manages to deliver (on his promises).

    I think both Trump's election and Brexit show the failure of a two-party system with biased media out for ratings. Neither of the Brexit-sides were actually telling the truth or came up with valid arguments. It was all emotions.

    Trump took it to an even higher level, and playing off of those media like none had done before, discrediting them at any corner and thus making sure he was in the news all the time. His idiotic outbursts on Twitter are clickbait for every newsoutlet out there. He's a money making machine for them, the more outrageous the better. The fact that real people are affected (the'muslim ban' i.e.) isn't their problem, they're just pointing towards Trump.

    The good thing about a multi-party system is that it naturally keeps all parties within the realm of realistic promises, it can't end up in 'us against them'. Above that the US system has it's electoral votes has proven not to do what it should do: keep those who are not suited for the job out of office. Why not? because people are sheep and most would prefer to follow the group rather than make their own decision. Imagine what the political careers would look like of thse electoral voters going against the grain and keep Trump out?

    Oh and just for fun, some greetings from the evilist country in the world ;-)




    Was that really shot in America?? ;)

    That @bondjames was a Trump supporter during the election is quite well documented. He went to great lengths in defending his tax evations, sexual misconduct, outrageous claims and lies as 'unfortunate use of rhetoric' that are however irrelevant etc. He hasn't really made clear if his position has changed by now... However he apparently claims Trump cannot be held accuntable for the unfortunate policies I described earlier as he is powerless to the will of the corrupt party he is representing, a claim I am challenging.

    As for the inconvinence of a two party system, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you. Most civilized countries, both progressive and non progressive, have moved to a multi party system long ago. That again is another example of the absolutely crazy reactionary and conservative American political climate. Of course this just 'has to be this way' because of 'cultural differences'... It doesn't make it less insane or troublesome however.

    Unfortunately right wing populism is on the rise all over the world. Being 'politically correct' and part of the 'intellectual elite' is apparently the greatest misdeed of today, as it complicates the world view of those who want to believe in simple solutions. I somewhat agree the media are partly responsible for this with their tabloid coverage. However we cannot combat this with electing more populists into powerfull positions, or shamelessly trying to legitimate Fox News as a credible, serius news agency...

    :O

    I hope that's a typo !


    He made a joke (I think...?), I am replying in jest. ;)

    The whole thing of labelling a country as "the evilist" is a childish rhetoric which give associations to W Bush and which I don't believe in.

    I'm referring to the word I have highlighted matey he he ;)

    Haha. That escaped me ;) Yes, it's a typo... in case that was unclear? ;))

    In my defence it's a challenge writing these posts with Norwegian autocorrect...
  • Posts: 19,339
    jobo wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    @Jobo first, you were referring to European media beeing unbiased, but I can give you an example of our own national (state) television telling us that Putin wouldn't want to talk about violation of human rights in Ukraine and Russian involvment (nicely cut video) whilst in fact he'd been talking to that journalist for the best of five minutes. Now tell me that isn't biased against Putin? And now you're claiming @bondjames supports Trump, which he's never stated above. He's only stated what will happen if Trump manages to deliver (on his promises).

    I think both Trump's election and Brexit show the failure of a two-party system with biased media out for ratings. Neither of the Brexit-sides were actually telling the truth or came up with valid arguments. It was all emotions.

    Trump took it to an even higher level, and playing off of those media like none had done before, discrediting them at any corner and thus making sure he was in the news all the time. His idiotic outbursts on Twitter are clickbait for every newsoutlet out there. He's a money making machine for them, the more outrageous the better. The fact that real people are affected (the'muslim ban' i.e.) isn't their problem, they're just pointing towards Trump.

    The good thing about a multi-party system is that it naturally keeps all parties within the realm of realistic promises, it can't end up in 'us against them'. Above that the US system has it's electoral votes has proven not to do what it should do: keep those who are not suited for the job out of office. Why not? because people are sheep and most would prefer to follow the group rather than make their own decision. Imagine what the political careers would look like of thse electoral voters going against the grain and keep Trump out?

    Oh and just for fun, some greetings from the evilist country in the world ;-)




    Was that really shot in America?? ;)

    That @bondjames was a Trump supporter during the election is quite well documented. He went to great lengths in defending his tax evations, sexual misconduct, outrageous claims and lies as 'unfortunate use of rhetoric' that are however irrelevant etc. He hasn't really made clear if his position has changed by now... However he apparently claims Trump cannot be held accuntable for the unfortunate policies I described earlier as he is powerless to the will of the corrupt party he is representing, a claim I am challenging.

    As for the inconvinence of a two party system, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you. Most civilized countries, both progressive and non progressive, have moved to a multi party system long ago. That again is another example of the absolutely crazy reactionary and conservative American political climate. Of course this just 'has to be this way' because of 'cultural differences'... It doesn't make it less insane or troublesome however.

    Unfortunately right wing populism is on the rise all over the world. Being 'politically correct' and part of the 'intellectual elite' is apparently the greatest misdeed of today, as it complicates the world view of those who want to believe in simple solutions. I somewhat agree the media are partly responsible for this with their tabloid coverage. However we cannot combat this with electing more populists into powerfull positions, or shamelessly trying to legitimate Fox News as a credible, serius news agency...

    :O

    I hope that's a typo !


    He made a joke (I think...?), I am replying in jest. ;)

    The whole thing of labelling a country as "the evilist" is a childish rhetoric which give associations to W Bush and which I don't believe in.

    I'm referring to the word I have highlighted matey he he ;)

    Haha. That escaped me ;) Yes, it's a typo... om case that was nuclear? ;))

    In my defence it's a challenge writing these posts with Norwegian autocorrect...

    Hahaha I couldn't resist it ;)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    If you live in the U.S., today's vote on net neutrality will be a terrifying one to watch.
  • Posts: 12,281
    @TripAces I'm very scared about it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Correction: the vote is tomorrow. So we have 24 hours until the internet, as we know it, will disappear.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    More control, more cash. That s what it is about.
  • Posts: 12,281
    TripAces wrote: »
    Correction: the vote is tomorrow. So we have 24 hours until the internet, as we know it, will disappear.

    Should the neutrality end, it shouldn’t go into effect immediately?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @CommanderRoss, thanks. We had some interesting discussions on the old thread before it was closed down. Substantive ones. I've always enjoyed that, even though we've disagreed on occasion.

    --
    Now, regarding my position. Of the candidates who ran in 2016, I was in favour of either Bernie or Donald. I said that on the 2nd post of the old thread. I've explained why several times in the past. My reasons aren't how they are described here. I have never looked at anyone as perfect or a messiah. Such remarks or allusions are entirely incorrect. Trump is facing major resistance designed to discredit him from within the system. It has been happening since before he became president. Bernie would have faced the same thing, and for different reasons. This is not about who is a better person (do you really believe the US govt is run - as opposed to elected - on personalities)? This is about institutional deadlock and corruption. Vested interests only committed to maintaining the current positions. What I see happening now is exactly what I expected. It's predictable. It happened under Obama, under Clinton, under Bush. It just gets a little worse each time.

    Regarding 'tax evasion' - I have not defended any evasion whatsoever. I have tried to explain what the one or two pages of the tax return that were leaked were about. I am a CPA (although non practicing) so I know what I'm talking about. The word 'evasion' for that particular matter is entirely inaccurate. It is legitimate tax deductions as used by nearly every business, and most notably by real estate developers. It's well within the law. Don't like it? Change the law. Stop calling that evasion. It's just ignorant.

    Regarding alleged 'sexual misconduct' - I have not defended that ever. I have said that it should be litigated in a court of law. Not in the court of public opinion. Everyone should have their turn. Present evidence and make a conclusion. That applies to absolutely every allegation that has been leveled against anyone (politician and others) recently.

    Regarding 'grab em by the p###y' - I was with a few friends a few months back for drinks. One made what some may consider lewd remarks (although he was being affectionate as we all thought she was quite attractive) about a waitress who was serving us (after she left the table of course), and I reminded him that this was similar to the Trump comments. He laughed and said he could never run for office, particularly if it was being taped. Boys being boys. He's been happily married for 15 years by the way.

    Regarding lies - sorry, they all do it. It's the nature of running for the top job in the US. Nobody would get there without sb/s. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just being naive.

    Trump ran as a Republican. It's the only way he could have won. Those hoping for a third party win (which he almost attempted some years back by the way, and which would have better suited his approach) are dreaming if they think it can happen with the institutions and process the US has now. He has a coalition to manage. Some entirely religious, some small govt who hate tax hikes (and cherish tax reductions), some who can't stand ACA (which never received bipartisan Congressional and state support by the way), some who want wars (that's both sides) etc. etc.

    So again, he ran as a Republican and now he needs to work with the Republican run House and Senate (people who were elected at state levels). Politics is all about horse trading. You give some and get some. Trump is personally more Democrat than Republican, and people should realize that. He is a New York Republican (sometime Democrat) which is more liberal than many Democrats in other states (but with a national security mindset). He's malleable and not an idealogue (Obama stated that himself). Want the changes you want? Get the congress and senate turned next year. He will work with them. His mindset and demeanour is that of a brash cocky 1980's style Iaccoca CEO (that's his generation) and not politician. He just wants to get things done. The things I know he has genuine passion for are the American worker, trade, infrastructure & national security. He has been talking about that since the 1980s. If he can get something done on those fronts in the next 3 years, and jump start the economy (which is doing much better these days at 3% growth), he will have at least achieved something worthwhile in his time in office. Then someone else can come in and get all the social programs they want. I don't care.

    The alternative is to continue with the hate filled divisive personality destruction which occurred from the right under Obama, and from the left under Trump. It actually predated Obama (he came to fame with a big speech denouncing that at the 2004 Democratic Convention). So predictable, and quite boorish.

    I will say this one more time. Elections are won on margins. Trump won because certain states switched from Obama to Trump in 2016. Many were the same states where Bernie had strength and support. The reasons were the same. Making comments here that those people (who won him the election) were influenced by Russians, or religion, or guns, or sexism, or stupidity is just plain wrong. I won't stoop to the level of insults as some do, but it's really inaccurate how those voters are being portrayed here.

    I've said all I'm going to say on this particular topic, which has hijacked @barryt007's thread, for now. I'm off to focus on movies and Bond. Cheerio.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 7,502
    @'

    For crying out loud! I have no idea what kind of friends you have, but if they brag about sexual assault, I would seriously reconsider my frienship with them. The sexism is not what is causing this outrage.The point is that he is admitting to have been practicing sexual assault, in fact he even brags about it! I assume you are able to understand the difference? But this is only one of numerous cases against him...

    I agree that it is no point in continuing this discussion. I don't know for which cynical reason you find it worth defending his numerous misdeeds... and I won't bother with it. You can try to push the lie that this is just another normal president, not any worse or more outrageous than the previous ones. History will judge otherwise though...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    On the conduct matter, just to be clear for those who may take offense or come to the wrong conclusion, I understand the difference.

    History will indeed be the judge. On that we agree.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,692
    bondjames wrote: »
    Making comments here that those people (who won him the election) were influenced by Russians, or religion, or guns, or sexism, or stupidity is just plain wrong.
    I was liking (if not agreeing 100% with) you post until this. I believe MANY were. Even the idiotic 'Bernie or Bust' fools who helped Trump in (under 'stupidity', and 'Russians' to a lesser degree).
  • Posts: 12,281
    And the vote to repeal net neutrality passes. A great representation of where the US is at right now and how sad it is. People like Trump and Pai doing everything they can to make a utopian society for just the top 1% to enjoy themselves.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    FoxRox wrote: »
    And the vote to repeal net neutrality passes. A great representation of where the US is at right now and how sad it is. People like Trump and Pai doing everything they can to make a utopian society for just the top 1% to enjoy themselves.

    Yep. This is a mess.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)

    This assumes the entire country wants the same thing (this FCC ruling, a Trump presidency, etc.), which is false.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)

    This assumes the entire country wants the same thing (this FCC ruling, a Trump presidency, etc.), which is false.

    This assumes that a country voted with their eyes open for somebody like Trump and his opinions, I am still not sure why he was a better option than another Clinton. The result of that vote for an egotistical misogynist businessman who only had his own interest at heart. Anything that follows from that vote for something else is the result and cannot be denied as that they did not want that particular bit. A choice for the current republican party is a choice for less freedom of speech unless you agree with them. So no moaning and do not expect this to be altered by any US president in the future, it will not happen.
    The majority voted for this president and his cronies and so they rule.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)

    This assumes the entire country wants the same thing (this FCC ruling, a Trump presidency, etc.), which is false.

    This assumes that a country voted with their eyes open for somebody like Trump and his opinions, I am still not sure why he was a better option than another Clinton. The result of that vote for an egotistical misogynist businessman who only had his own interest at heart. Anything that follows from that vote for something else is the result and cannot be denied as that they did not want that particular bit. A choice for the current republican party is a choice for less freedom of speech unless you agree with them. So no moaning and do not expect this to be altered by any US president in the future, it will not happen.
    The majority voted for this president and his cronies and so they rule.

    Still isn't the same as assuming 100% of Americans agreed. It's like saying 100% of voters wanted Brexit.
  • Posts: 12,281
    I voted against Trump so I refuse to take any blame in this. I can only hope Congress knocks the FCC down on this one.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)

    This assumes the entire country wants the same thing (this FCC ruling, a Trump presidency, etc.), which is false.

    This assumes that a country voted with their eyes open for somebody like Trump and his opinions, I am still not sure why he was a better option than another Clinton. The result of that vote for an egotistical misogynist businessman who only had his own interest at heart. Anything that follows from that vote for something else is the result and cannot be denied as that they did not want that particular bit. A choice for the current republican party is a choice for less freedom of speech unless you agree with them. So no moaning and do not expect this to be altered by any US president in the future, it will not happen.
    The majority voted for this president and his cronies and so they rule.

    Still isn't the same as assuming 100% of Americans agreed. It's like saying 100% of voters wanted Brexit.

    Tough for the ones who did not vote for Trump, too many did hence the voice and the vote of the majority rules. I am sure not 100% voted or agreed but way too many did so the result is the US of Trump who only rules in his own intrest. And his word and his cronies goes. Who had ever expected that a business man obsessed with fake news would keep net neutrality?- That must have come as a big surprise.
  • Posts: 7,653
    As for BREXIT it is the choice of the majority, like those in the US lack common sense but that is their democratic right.

    Somebody said something far scary this week on the telly. If Trump gets voted out in three years time what if he does not allow that too happen.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2017 Posts: 17,692
    SaintMark wrote: »
    As for BREXIT it is the choice of the majority, like those in the US lack common sense but that is their democratic right.

    Somebody said something far scary this week on the telly. If Trump gets voted out in three years time what if he does not allow that too happen.

    If they know what they are doing will eventually be seen for what it is and that they'd be voted out for it, it's only logical to assume full dictatorship of some kind may be on their agenda as well.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 12,281
    I’m embarrassed to be an American.
  • Posts: 7,653
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’m embarrassed to be an American.

    Don't be.
  • Posts: 12,281
    SaintMark wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’m embarrassed to be an American.

    Don't be.

    K
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)

    This assumes the entire country wants the same thing (this FCC ruling, a Trump presidency, etc.), which is false.

    This assumes that a country voted with their eyes open for somebody like Trump and his opinions, I am still not sure why he was a better option than another Clinton. The result of that vote for an egotistical misogynist businessman who only had his own interest at heart. Anything that follows from that vote for something else is the result and cannot be denied as that they did not want that particular bit. A choice for the current republican party is a choice for less freedom of speech unless you agree with them. So no moaning and do not expect this to be altered by any US president in the future, it will not happen.
    The majority voted for this president and his cronies and so they rule.

    Still isn't the same as assuming 100% of Americans agreed. It's like saying 100% of voters wanted Brexit.

    Tough for the ones who did not vote for Trump, too many did hence the voice and the vote of the majority rules. I am sure not 100% voted or agreed but way too many did so the result is the US of Trump who only rules in his own intrest. And his word and his cronies goes. Who had ever expected that a business man obsessed with fake news would keep net neutrality?- That must have come as a big surprise.

    The majority of Americans did not vote for Trump. That has been the issue since Day One.
  • Posts: 12,281
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Don't complain, this is the democratic choice of the American citizen, they wanted something else and now get the enjoy the fruits. ;)

    This assumes the entire country wants the same thing (this FCC ruling, a Trump presidency, etc.), which is false.

    This assumes that a country voted with their eyes open for somebody like Trump and his opinions, I am still not sure why he was a better option than another Clinton. The result of that vote for an egotistical misogynist businessman who only had his own interest at heart. Anything that follows from that vote for something else is the result and cannot be denied as that they did not want that particular bit. A choice for the current republican party is a choice for less freedom of speech unless you agree with them. So no moaning and do not expect this to be altered by any US president in the future, it will not happen.
    The majority voted for this president and his cronies and so they rule.

    Still isn't the same as assuming 100% of Americans agreed. It's like saying 100% of voters wanted Brexit.

    Tough for the ones who did not vote for Trump, too many did hence the voice and the vote of the majority rules. I am sure not 100% voted or agreed but way too many did so the result is the US of Trump who only rules in his own intrest. And his word and his cronies goes. Who had ever expected that a business man obsessed with fake news would keep net neutrality?- That must have come as a big surprise.

    The majority of Americans did not vote for Trump. That has been the issue since Day One.

    Yeah. We don’t enjoy true democracy.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Why the heck did you try to bring democracy to the middle east when you yourselves do not have that in your homelands. ;)
  • Posts: 12,281
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Why the heck did you try to bring democracy to the middle east when you yourselves do not have that in your homelands. ;)

    Pffft and you said I shouldn’t be embarrassed.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,988
    @bondjames same here.

    @SaintMark it's easy to laugh at the US, but seeing the corruption in the EU and the way our own politics work (or don't) I think a little humility is in order.

    @FoxRox and @TripAces it isn't about who you voted for. It's about the system itself. I think you guys agree with @bondjames on one important thing: the current US system is corrupt and facilitating corruption even further. You may disagree on Trump's sanity, sufficiency or intelligence (or in short, if he's up for the job) but you seem to do agree on the position that the current system with two parties and electoral representatives is not only polarising, but by now it's even allowed to disregard facts. That in itself is the biggest thread.

    So if you want to change this you have to look past the political devision, go to the next Dem. or Rep. (depending on your own preferences) and go and sit at the table to devise a system where everybody has a say. The noly problem is, you'll have to get rid of that one underlying American cultural problem: 'the winner takes all' mentality. You HAVE to let everyone have a place under the sun.

    If you can't do that you will end in corruption and, worst case, civil war.

    @Jobo you are aware The Guardian is a strongly left leaning paper right? ;-)
This discussion has been closed.