›

CLOSED

1…6465676970…164

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    CNN America, which is just as bad as Fox News or MSNBC.
    LOL, that's like the difference between a two day old tuna sandwich, rotting fruit and a granola bar. None particularly good for you, but one will make you sick.
    Really? They both make me sick. Much of the debate here follows that approach as well. As I said, Western civilization has had a decent time on top (against the odds). It's imploding from within.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    CNN America, which is just as bad as Fox News or MSNBC.
    LOL, that's like the difference between a two day old tuna sandwich, rotting fruit and a granola bar. None particularly good for you, but one will make you sick.
    Really? They both make me sick. Much of the debate here follows that approach as well. As I said, Western civilization has had a decent time on top (against the odds). It's imploding from within.

    They 'both' make you sick? Which two of the three?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,291
    The bottom line is that both Republicans and Democrats will often be biased in how they see things, and both are capable of being hypocrites about certain issues. I refuse to classify myself as one or the other because I disagree with both sides on several things. Of the last several presidents, Obama has easily been my least hated. If I had to pick a side I probably lean a little more Democrat, but they're so far from perfect angels. They're just as capable of being liars and hateful like many Republicans are.

    Oh and of every news source, I will say Fox News is definitely the worst.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Of the last several presidents, Obama has easily been my least hated.
    That's a perfect way to put it. There were so many times I wanted to grab him violently by the lapels and yell "WHAT THE EFF ARE YOU DOING????"
    But not nearly as many as most... ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The bottom line is that both Republicans and Democrats will often be biased in how they see things, and both are capable of being hypocrites about certain issues. I refuse to classify myself as one or the other because I disagree with both sides on several things. Of the last several presidents, Obama has easily been my least hated. If I had to pick a side I probably lean a little more Democrat, but they're so far from perfect angels. They're just as capable of being liars and hateful like many Republicans are.
    Good post. I'm the same. Obama was a decent man but he didn't have what it takes to control what he took charge of. Somewhere along the way he just gave up.

    As I said, the real power is not with the elected officials. They all come in with the best of intentions and then realize that they are beholden to the banking/military/oil special interests and a congress/senate that is completely in the tank. The whole system is in a mess.

    It's amusing that everything becomes one man's (or woman's) fault. Easy for folks to focus their attentions that way. The rot is systemic and insititutional. Moreover, it's not just in the US (although they get a lot of blame). It's even in the UK and in the EU. Westerners trying desperately to hold onto their power by any means as it declines on a relative basis and the 'old world powers' re-establish themselves.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    Fake news, Major B. I have it from trustworthy sources that Faux News is just as bad as CNN. So Trump is not a gollum and Judge Moore is not a pedophile (American spelling, please forgive me.)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    CNN America, which is just as bad as Fox News or MSNBC.
    LOL, that's like the difference between a two day old tuna sandwich, rotting fruit and a granola bar. None particularly good for you, but one will make you sick.
    Really? They both make me sick. Much of the debate here follows that approach as well. As I said, Western civilization has had a decent time on top (against the odds). It's imploding from within.

    They 'both' make you sick? Which two of the three?
    Sorry, I was focused on CNN & Fox, but you can add MSNBC into that mix. Salacious gossip and partisan nonsense masquerading as factual news. Repeated day in, day out, to try and engage passions. It seems to work. Add social media to that now too. We're in for a world of misunderstanding and hurt as a result.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,506
    I might not be taken seriously as a 'European outsider' but I cannot understand how the GOP and the Dems can be described as 'equaly bad'. They are both too conservative, but one of them at least supports a minimum of progressive reforms.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    I might not be taken seriously as a 'European outsider' but I cannot understand how the GOP and the Dems can be described as 'equaly bad'. They are both too conservative, but one of them at least supports a minimum of progressive reforms.
    You are looking at it from your lens. Where are you from? A Scandinavian country? You cannot expect policies which work in a relative homogenous country of that size to be readily scalable in a vast country like the US. There are significant cultural differences and opinions within the nation, depending on where one resides and what one's experience is. Economic fortunes and motivators also vary significantly. Moreover, there is a different form of Govt, with extensive state control in many matters. The same applies to Canada actually, where the west (oil patch) is more conservative, the east (financial centre) more liberal, and Quebec even more so. The EU is a more comparable entity to the US due to the differences within.

    The solutions must fit the country as a whole and it's very difficult to govern from the extremes. One must move to the centre, but the system (including the media) is taking everyone to extremes. So what happens? Gridlock, anger, and mistrust. Failure from within.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,506
    As for the claim that 'both sides are as confused as each other', the statistics on how graduates and non graduates voted during the election, perhaps indicates otherwise:

    http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/

    https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/18/educational-rift-in-2016-election/amp/


    I remember we had someone her complaiming how 'incredibly uneducated' Trump's opposition is...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2017 Posts: 17,696
    jobo wrote: »
    I might not be taken seriously as a 'European outsider' but I cannot understand how the GOP and the Dems can be described as 'equaly bad'. They are both too conservative, but one of them at least supports a minimum of progressive reforms.
    The lesser of two evils necessary to the continuing profit margin of the Corporations & The Military Industrial Complex, of which the NRA is a part. But yeah, disgusting Dems are less disgusting than the Repubs, basically.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,634
    It would appear, if those numbers are indeed correct, that the higher educated are always the least impulsively "anti", which is why they were much less into Trump in America, and, in fact, much less into "Brexit" too in Britain, though I must admit that I haven't thoroughly researched the latter, so take that for what it's worth.

    Still, I think the numbers are at least plausible, given how the "let's not go for a radical change immediately" attitude is typical for the higher educated, for better or worse. Trump (and Farage) basically went bully on certain people and certain establishments and by making their words sweet like honey and by keeping their logic "simple" (which almost never makes it correct in matters of politics), they seduced the masses who still believe that quick change with nothing but positive results can easily be imposed on our complicated world, overnight as it were, like how Summer can start with a peak after the coldest Winter day and forget about the many turbulent weeks of late Winter, Spring and early Summer.

    I'm not sure the intellectual elite would do a good job, though, if they were the only ones who got to make decisions. Sometimes something slightly more radical may be needed to pull us out of an eternal standstill and endless debate. Also, Trump is one thing but would the alternative have been better? Too often we forget to mention that the Democrats may have lost rather than that the Republicans have won, and that the complicated election system in America allowed for two candidates very few people were happy with.

    Ether way, bringing my personal, and therefore perfectly questionable, opinion into this, and speaking strictly as a European outsider, I am convinced that only the cynic and the comedian will one day look back upon Trump's election with a smile. I was recently criticised for drawing certain comparisons which, guilty as charged, may have upset some of our more sensitive members, but I stand by my conviction that many Americans saw their country as a bleeding nation and wanted the bleeding to stop first and foremost. And so they elected Trump, who brought the promise that the bleeding could be stopped practically overnight and in the simplest of ways. No complicated laws and rules; just quick action. But one way to stop an arm from bleeding is to amputate it and throw it away. That, in my opinion, is what Trump is doing to America.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Given the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US and the increasing importance of privileged backgrounds for success (statistically shown although I have to dig it up), one can reasonably infer that the more educated have better prospects. Those who are less so and those in the manufacturing hubs do not have as good prospects. They are the ones who were more drawn to both Sanders's and Trump's trade messages (not anti-trade as is made out, but managed trade). That doesn't apply to big coastal states like New York and California which have other industries which they focus on (banking, tech, military, other).

    Ultimately elections are won on margins. In various rust belt states, there was quite a large swing from Obama to Trump in the last election. Those who preferred Obama's messages also preferred Trump's. Not Hillary's. There were also 'light' Bernie supporters who either didn't show up for Hillary or voted for Trump. That was the margin of victory in the electoral college.

    The same thing applied to Brexit. London voted remain. The outskirts voted leave. The places that were decimated by loss of manufacturing jobs.

    Ultimately this is about the impact of China's entry into the WTO, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the declining power of the worker vs , the corporation and loss of hope. I repeat again: that was the margin of victory in the election both in Brexit and in the US electoral college.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    @DarthDimi you seem unable to see things as simplistically black or white. Shades and colours suit you, my friend.
  • jobojobo
    edited December 2017 Posts: 7,506
    bondjames wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I might not be taken seriously as a 'European outsider' but I cannot understand how the GOP and the Dems can be described as 'equaly bad'. They are both too conservative, but one of them at least supports a minimum of progressive reforms.
    You are looking at it from your lens. Where are you from? A Scandinavian country? You cannot expect policies which work in a relative homogenous country of that size to be readily scalable in a vast country like the US. There are significant cultural differences and opinions within the nation, depending on where one resides and what one's experience is. Economic fortunes and motivators also vary significantly. Moreover, there is a different form of Govt, with extensive state control in many matters. The same applies to Canada actually, where the west (oil patch) is more conservative, the east (financial centre) more liberal, and Quebec even more so. The EU is a more comparable entity to the US due to the differences within.

    The solutions must fit the country as a whole and it's very difficult to govern from the extremes. One must move to the centre, but the system (including the media) is taking everyone to extremes. So what happens? Gridlock, anger, and mistrust. Failure from within.

    There are countries of similar size to United States that have things like publiclu funded health care for everyone, gun control and habe managed to educate the majority of its population that Earth was not created in seven days. The problems in the US cannot be dismissed to be a result of the country's size. I am not saying America has to be like Norway, but some obvious 21st century policies should be expected from an industrialized country.

    Yet again: American opinion is not being pushed to the extreme in both directions. For that to be the case, extreme leftist opinions would have to exist to a noticeable degree. They don't. In America it is considered extreme to want universal health care and gun control. Most civilized countries have.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,506
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US and the increasing importance of privileged backgrounds for success (statistically shown although I have to dig it up), one can reasonably infer that the more educated have better prospects. Those who are less so and those in the manufacturing hubs do not have as good prospects. They are the ones who were more drawn to both Sanders's and Trump's trade messages (not anti-trade as is made out, but managed trade). That doesn't apply to big coastal states like New York and California which have other industries which they focus on (banking, tech, military, other).

    Ultimately elections are won on margins. In various rust belt states, there was quite a large swing from Obama to Trump in the last election. Those who preferred Obama's messages also preferred Trump's. Not Hillary's. There were also 'light' Bernie supporters who either didn't show up for Hillary or voted for Trump. That was the margin of victory in the electoral college.

    The same thing applied to Brexit. London voted remain. The outskirts voted leave. The places that were decimated by loss of manufacturing jobs.

    Ultimately this is about the impact of China's entry into the WTO, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the declining power of the worker vs , the corporation and loss of hope. I repeat again: that was the margin of victory in the election both in Brexit and in the US electoral college.

    What you are saying obviously makes sense and is after all common knowledge. However, there is nothing in Trumps or the republican policy, that suggests their som is to take care of the 'little man' or the working class. What they have done so far is to strip people if health care, provide tax cuts for the wealthiest that will have to be covered elsewhere. They saves the coal industry... which is dying anyway! Nothing was to suggest Trump and the Republicans were the solution to the social and income divide in America, yet white non graduates voted for him. That suggests to me it was more a result of confusion than necessity.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I might not be taken seriously as a 'European outsider' but I cannot understand how the GOP and the Dems can be described as 'equaly bad'. They are both too conservative, but one of them at least supports a minimum of progressive reforms.
    You are looking at it from your lens. Where are you from? A Scandinavian country? You cannot expect policies which work in a relative homogenous country of that size to be readily scalable in a vast country like the US. There are significant cultural differences and opinions within the nation, depending on where one resides and what one's experience is. Economic fortunes and motivators also vary significantly. Moreover, there is a different form of Govt, with extensive state control in many matters. The same applies to Canada actually, where the west (oil patch) is more conservative, the east (financial centre) more liberal, and Quebec even more so. The EU is a more comparable entity to the US due to the differences within.

    The solutions must fit the country as a whole and it's very difficult to govern from the extremes. One must move to the centre, but the system (including the media) is taking everyone to extremes. So what happens? Gridlock, anger, and mistrust. Failure from within.

    There are countries of similar size to United States that have things like state state funded health care for everyone (all European countries have), gun control and habe managed to educate the majority of its population that Earth was not created in seven days. The problems in the US cannot be dismissed be because a result of the country's size. I am not saying America has to be like Norway, but some obvious 21st century policies should be expected from an industrialized country.

    Yet again: American opinion is not being pushed to the extreme in both directions. For that to be the case, extreme leftist opinions would have to exist to a noticeable degree. They don't. In America it is considered extreme to want universal health care. Most civilized countries have.
    You're missing the cultural differences within the US. You cannot force a solution (including healthcare) on states that don't want it. That's just the way it's always been. There is an independent streak of sorts which is enshrined in the governance model.

    I understand the gun situation too although I'm personally not in favour of guns. Travelling through some states and rural towns, one can appreciate the culture and why they have them. Think Hell or High Water.

    Keep in mind that the US is the only Western nation without a national value added tax. So it's not just healthcare.

    It's quite an advanced and forward thinking nation on certain matters, and quite backward in other ways. An emotional and collectively young nation that behaves as such. Like a spoiled bratty child. Military might, individual inventiveness, raw entrepreneurial spirit & geographical luck has allowed it to thrive, many times at the expense of others. It will be interesting to see how it adjusts to the relative decline it is facing, especially in the face of technological advances (which ironically it created) which will further eliminate jobs. That is a problem that all Western nations are going to have to deal with however. 10 years from now will be very different for all of us given the exponential rate of technological innovation and change.

    If I was going to guess, I would think at some point down the road we will have a currency crisis globally (fiat currencies are becoming worthless anyway, which is why asset prices are going through the roof). Then there will have to be massive debt write downs and a new system created. Hopefully they come up with something more equitable than what we have now.
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US and the increasing importance of privileged backgrounds for success (statistically shown although I have to dig it up), one can reasonably infer that the more educated have better prospects. Those who are less so and those in the manufacturing hubs do not have as good prospects. They are the ones who were more drawn to both Sanders's and Trump's trade messages (not anti-trade as is made out, but managed trade). That doesn't apply to big coastal states like New York and California which have other industries which they focus on (banking, tech, military, other).

    Ultimately elections are won on margins. In various rust belt states, there was quite a large swing from Obama to Trump in the last election. Those who preferred Obama's messages also preferred Trump's. Not Hillary's. There were also 'light' Bernie supporters who either didn't show up for Hillary or voted for Trump. That was the margin of victory in the electoral college.

    The same thing applied to Brexit. London voted remain. The outskirts voted leave. The places that were decimated by loss of manufacturing jobs.

    Ultimately this is about the impact of China's entry into the WTO, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the declining power of the worker vs , the corporation and loss of hope. I repeat again: that was the margin of victory in the election both in Brexit and in the US electoral college.

    What you are saying obviously makes sense and is after all common knowledge. However, there is nothing in Trumps or the republican policy, that suggests their som is to take care of the 'little man' or the working class. What they have done so far is to strip people if health care, provide tax cuts for the wealthiest that will have to be covered elsewhere. They saves the coal industry... which is dying anyway! Nothing was to suggest Trump and the Republicans were the solution to the social and income divide in America, yet white non graduates voted for him. That suggests to me it was more a result of confusion than necessity.
    Nothing is as simple as it appears. He has a coalition which he has to manage. People who are extremely religious. Some who can't stand tax increases. Some who want bigger military. Etc. etc. The same applies to the Dems (they have their issues too).

    The value of Trump is in the trade policy. That is where he will have to make some positive changes. If he fails, he will be gone in 3 years. He will lose the electoral college.

    PS: it's best to understand that the election was won on the margin. Certain states swung, and that's why Trump won. One must understand the issues of those states. It's not what people keep saying here. People in those states aren't the rednecks.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    @chrisisall

    Thank you.

    And I guess that's where the real problems can be found. Anyone who thinks that simple solutions are readily available for the many problems of a world as complicated as ours, is a tad naive. Germany tried the "simple" route once, and that went sour fast.

    In essence, I think the ultimate solutions can be fairly simple though:
    1) Stop overpopulation;
    2) Educate everyone, free from religious or political dogma;
    3) Live and let live;

    but these are only simple in concept, and impossibly difficult in execution, sadly. And even with those three "solutions", we wouldn't be able to eliminate all world problems, I'm sure. So I for one could never qualify as a good politician, because I would like to think that I see the big picture, but I have no idea how to practically achieve something with it.

    Besides, I'm not really saying anything new here. Most members of this forum, I'm sure, agree with items 1 and 2 in my list. Item 3, however, ... well... that's the more challenging part I'm afraid. There's a lot of "we are number 1" talk going on in certain threads. The Trump and Brexit ones have left me quite upset to be frank with how much nationalism still exists in the 21st Century. When a flag and cultural pride can still be such powerful motivators in a world where they are becoming increasingly more meaningless, I know I'm trying to swim upstream.

    The harsh truth, the painful and sad truth, and by no means one that makes me happy, is that we're all going to make sacrifices, we're all going to have to give things up. You may not like it, I know I don't like it, it may sound "unfair", it may scare us, but it will happen. You cannot expect a handful of nations to prosper while others struggle with conflicts, disasters, draughts, water shortages, ... while also confronted with a rapid population increase. Quickly closing the borders with fear as the prime motivator, is a temporary solution at best. It will not alleviate the pressure, its long-term results will not be as positive as some will have you think, and it will not help the rest of us to deal with things in the best way possible.

    I'm sure that most if not all Trump and Brexit fans here have considered their choice thoroughly and rationally, but I'm also convinced that a vast majority of like-minded voters outside of this forum have voted only out of fear, motivated by purely selfish toughts, not fully aware of the long-term impact of it all, and so on. If we are to believe certain media--and I'm the eternal sceptic when it comes to the news media in particular--then both Trump and Brexit have, in hindsight, already lost their majority support. You can look for reasons anywhere you like, but I still cannot shake the uncomfortable feeling that a lot of frightened people out there were tricked by some loud-mouths into thinking that five minutes of courage and some simple actions here and there would suffice to bring an entire nation back on track.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @DarthDimi, as I said earlier, nearly every politician comes into the job thinking they can change the world (everywhere). Then they hit reality. They go through a difficult learning process. Some give up. Some find a way to work within the system. If they're lucky, circumstances will allow them a few victories at best. Then before you know it, they're gone and the cycle begins again.

    It's never about one person, especially when one is talking about the US Govt. It's about institutions and the people who run them. It's about managing coalitions and trying to pass legislation in an incredibly partisan point scoring environment. The checks and balances have created a sort of willful partisan inertia and paralysis, no matter what the agenda financed by big money on both sides.

    While your hope of a utopian future is one I share, it's not something that will arrive without a catastrophic challenge or failure somewhere. The financial crisis was one such failure. Unfortunately, instead of taking the hard medicine, the politicians kicked the can down the road and lied to their population, and have set the stage for the next failure, which will probably be the one which finally gets everyone on the same page out of necessity.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    bondjames wrote: »
    instead of taking the hard medicine, the politicians kicked the can down the road and lied to their population, and have set the stage for the next failure, which will probably be the one which finally gets everyone on the same page out of necessity.
    Nicely put, sir.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,399
    looks like decency and sanity are still alive and well in this country - even in the depths of Mordor - i mean - Alabama... lol...

    https://nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones

    Doug Jones (D) defeats Roy Moore (R) - this marks the 3rd major upset for the Republican party in the past 2 months, along with losing a Senate seat to the Democrats in Alabama, they also lost key seats to Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia in November as well..
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,291
    Best news I saw today.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    HASEROT wrote: »
    looks like decency and sanity are still alive and well in this country - even in the depths of Mordor - i mean - Alabama... lol...

    https://nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones

    Doug Jones (D) defeats Roy Moore (R) - this marks the 3rd major upset for the Republican party in the past 2 months, along with losing a Senate seat to the Democrats in Alabama, they also lost key seats to Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia in November as well..

    He has a winning nature
    Twin-Peaks-Part-6-620x360.jpg
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    bondjames wrote: »
    @DarthDimi, as I said earlier, nearly every politician comes into the job thinking they can change the world (everywhere). Then they hit reality. They go through a difficult learning process. Some give up. Some find a way to work within the system. If they're lucky, circumstances will allow them a few victories at best. Then before you know it, they're gone and the cycle begins again.

    It's never about one person, especially when one is talking about the US Govt. It's about institutions and the people who run them. It's about managing coalitions and trying to pass legislation in an incredibly partisan point scoring environment. The checks and balances have created a sort of willful partisan inertia and paralysis, no matter what the agenda financed by big money on both sides.

    While your hope of a utopian future is one I share, it's not something that will arrive without a catastrophic challenge or failure somewhere. The financial crisis was one such failure. Unfortunately, instead of taking the hard medicine, the politicians kicked the can down the road and lied to their population, and have set the stage for the next failure, which will probably be the one which finally gets everyone on the same page out of necessity.

    I agree, @bondjames !
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,506
    @bondjames

    Would ACA have been abolished without a Trump victory and Republican majority? Would the new tax budget be instigated? The proposed military spending? I understand there is corruption and political stalemate, but that Trump is powerless and not accountable for anything except trade deals? And how is putting private business men with obvious agendas and family members in his cabinet supposed to drain the swump and deal with corruption?

    I don't know where you get all the confidence and belief in Trump's ideas and competence from. We can exclude the fact that he has demonstrated to be a spoiled, lying, woufull human being in his rhetoric as it apparantly doesn't matter. But even then, where is the evidence to suggest he has noble ideas for the little man? That he has descent knowledge of the world? That he understands political procedures? Diplomacy? I could easily believe he is an ignorent narcissist only caring about his own personal gains and reputation based on his campaign and first year in office.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited December 2017 Posts: 8,029
    @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 ;-)

  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,506
    CommanderRoss 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...
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited December 2017 Posts: 19,339
    jobo wrote: »
    CommanderRoss 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 !
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,506
    barryt007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    CommanderRoss 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.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    jobo wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    CommanderRoss 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 ;)

This discussion has been closed.