American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Illuminaughty]

New Era

I think there is more middle ground and agreement between us then differences. I think we have opposing views on how to solve these issues.

I thank you for engaging and keeping the defamation to a minimum.

Okay, so I win the Regan [sic] debate. Thank you for falling on your sword early.

I didn't realize there was a debate to be had...... I agree with you but chalk that up as a win if you like.

You treat every issue separately, just with tropes torn from the pages of Fox, Breitbart, and Infowars. If you're not getting your information from those sources, you're getting them from secondary sources which have lifted their information from those primary sources.

You don't know where I get my information, you can make assumptions that suit your narrative and lump it in with those sites, that doesn't mean it's true. I do look at Fox and Breitbart from time to time, but that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything or anything really. I loathe Alex Jones and infowars in all honesty, I think they do a huge disservice to anybody with an alternative viewpoint. I could elaborate on that in more depth if you like, but I think you get the gist. I try to look at multiple sources and perspectives then draw my own conclusions, there isn't one source I base all my perspectives around. I try to maintain a certain level of skepticism of all of it. It's all biased on both sides and framed to push an ideological agenda.

If you really did look at issues separately you would discuss an issue and cite it appropriately. There's the problem. You come in with a shotgun approach, throw out a whole bunch of unrelated stuff, and provide zero support from any credible sources. This is well known obfuscation strategy. Inject as many in related subjects and hope your opponent will attempt to chase them all down and not effectively crush you on any one point, giving you some level of a moral victory.

What issue should we discuss? For the most part I'm just playing the role devils advocate for the vast majority of left-wing bias in this thread. Otherwise it's just an echo chamber of anti-Trump supporters. I think the biggest problem for you and many that seem to share your political perspective, is the need to define the narrative of those who oppose you as blank, that way you can frame your argument against them. Case and point the whole "Reagan debate" that you apparently won.

I could cite things but what's the point? If it's not something that tows the establishment narrative, it will be dismissed as "fake news" (I'm really getting sick of that phrase).

And everything big business touches ends up becoming corrupted and focused on nothing more than earning a dollar off the backs of the workers. See how easy it is to rely on vague useless narratives? See how ineffective they are?

This is the root of the problems, big business is in bed with the government. These giant corporations lobby and use the government to regulate against their competition and use the tax payers as an atm to fund their various agendas.

The reality is that there are certain things that each should do, and then things they should not do. Business should focus on the things they are really good at. Stick to the areas where they have a core competency and focus on providing that product or service.

I agree, in some ways there needs to be fewer regulations and then at the same time, there also needs to better regulations as well.

[B][Government is actually pretty good at what they do, when the do what they are charged to do. When government focuses on big ideas beyond those of the private sector, and implementing those programs, they do so in a very effective way. Government health care is vastly superior to that handled by the private sector. /B]

The problem is the government is always pushing to have more control over more sectors. Healthcare is debatable, the real problem is all the big money interests tied up in the system. I think it would be better to make it easier for the free market to operate to keep the costs down, then hand it over to the government to control.

The military manages to do a pretty good at executing a massive responsibility. Social services and education are also massive programs that the government is pretty good at. And let's not forget Public Safety. Our good men and women in police and fire do a fantastic job. All of these are much better than anything that is provided by private interests.

The American military is a huge problem. It's gone way past protecting the citizens of the US from an external threat, to interventionist imperialism that serves the interests of an industry that the tax payers foot the bill for.

I don't think it should be the role of government to provide social services for the citizens. If they are so good at education, why is it public school system getting worse and not better?

We can see how Trump is dealing with the constraints of government. It isn't easy doing things where you have to represent the issues of everyone, and this is another weakness of business. They are only good at operating within their bubble and their focus.

Thankfully the founders of America put in those government constraints, especially for politicians like Trump. I agree let let the free market operate with as minimal government interference as possible. There shouldn't be these giant corporate monopolies that government plays favourites with. I think the fundamental role of government is to protect the rights and liberties of it's citizens, anything more then that is doomed to be corrupt and oppressive. Government should handle certain public safety services such as police, fire and especially the prison system. The Privatized prison system is evil.

Really? It's not a partisan thing? Who keeps coming in and making all of these massive tax cuts with no way of paying for them? You can argue that Kennedy started the cutting, but his plan was responsible and didn't incur much debt as a result. It really started with Saint Reagan, and he added trillions at double digit interest, continued on with W. and is now falling to Trump to make things even worse.


The tax cuts aren't the problem, it's the spending that is the issue. If you are broke and in debt, the best thing you can do is curtail the spending, this is especially true for governments. Kennedy's plan was great and very effective. Reagan's plan wasn't nearly as responsible for reasons that we've already gone over.

Obama, having to deal with the crashing economy that W. left him still only added 67% to the debt, and almost half of that came in the first two and half years of his eight in office as he cleaned up the Bush debacle.

Yeah Bush obviously royally screwed things, no debate there, but Obama didn't make them any better. You can't just blame all of Obama's failures on the GOP and Bush, they were factors but that doesn't excuse his failures as President.

This is not a bipartisan effort. Facts do not support your claim.


So where is all the money going to come from for ACA?

I define being rich when someone earns more than 20 times the poverty line (FPL) and is able to maintain that standard. That's the big thing about being rich to me, being able to maintain your standard of living, even when things go sideways for you. Since the vast majority of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck they aren't rich.

I’m not certain what you point was here?

I was just looking for clarity on who the "rich" were.

Reagan’s tax cuts did not spurn economic growth. Reagan’s massive spending programs fostered economic growth. When people have money, they will spend it. Reagan gave the economy a massive shot in the arm by engaging the Soviets in an arms race. When the defense industry in the United States is making money, everyone is going to see some money.

When people have more money from not having to pay as much tax, they have more money to circulate in the economy which leads to growth. Spending ridiculous amounts of money and taking on massive debt, is a pretty short sighted way to grow the economy clearly. Cut the spending and taxes so that you can grow the economy and quit accumulating so much debt seems like the most viable way forward. Again not a Reagan fan.

Only under Clinton, and some responsible budgeting by Congress, did the economy start clicking again.

Well the emergence of the tech sector certainly helped, I'm not sure how much credit Clinton deserves other then it happened under his watch. It was more dumb luck timing for Bill then any sort of shrewd policy.

When facts and science are things you laugh at, you’re past the point of no return. How tight is your tinfoil hat?

What facts and science have I laughed at? The 30 plus genders and counting isn't grounded in science, especially biology. But I'm open to any science you have proves that wrong. The gender pay gap is so easily debunked and just a disingenuous political talking point. Again, I'm open to any facts you have proving that wrong. Your earlier attempts were fruitless.

My sources include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, CBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CSPAN, Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Foreign Policy, The Independent, The Boston Globe, and so on. I also tend to use government websites and a lot of journals where possible. It is nice having access to multiple reference libraries.

Yeah there's no Ideological bias and agenda in any of those outlets. Come on dude, be honest now. You do realize that the CBC is funded by tax payers and pretty far from anything that would be considered center at this point. You use the main stream establishments media, to argue the main stream political narrative and call everything else fake news and dismiss it as tinfoil hat conspiracy. Yeah were not going to agree.

Where the #### did you did up that bull####? I did an actual search on that claim, and low and behold your post comes up as the #4. The other links were all specious at best. One was linked through Graham Hancock, an English version of Alex Jones, and the other two referenced a speaker from American Enterprise Institute who made the claim that 18% of academics harbor that bias. That number just happens to be the same as Hancock, which took 30 seconds to debunk. Here’s the actual study.

Admittedly it's a hard thing to quantify because you have to assume that everyone you are polling is being honest with you. But if you look at the current climate in academia
and post secondary, it's a very clear left-wing bias. Trigger warnings, safe spaces and political correctness rule to such an extent that you can't even have conservative speakers give lectures at universities without some sort of protest or the administration shutting it down.

How is Graham Hancock the "English version of Alex Jones"? Wouldn't that be David Icke? Have you actually read anything that he has published or listened to any of his talks? That's a strange statement.

Yeah that's a great speech by Eisenhower. Too bad the public didn't seem to heed the warning.

You sure about that? You might want to talk to people who lost their shirts in the housing bubble and the resulting market crash. That money is gone, forever. People had to re-enter the workforce because of that gross mismanagement by the bankers.

Yeah it's a terrible thing that happened, but that was gross mismanagement by the banks and the government made the tax payers bail them out for it. They should have been allowed to fail like every other business. The financial system is probably the biggest issue in the world right now.

But for those of us with government managed retirement programs we weren’t affected. On healthcare, give it to the government.

I guess we will see how that plays out. We're at the beginning of a very precarious situation where the boomers are starting to retire, and their likely isn't enough tax revenue to pay for all the services they are going use.

Again, government does big things like this much better.


I think the real problem has to do with the ridiculously high costs. These companies have a monopoly and screw over the people. There shouldn't be monopolies on healthcare, but leaving it to the government to handle won't be better.

Our system is so gone, its beyond saving.

I disagree, scale the government back and let the free market operate again without interference. That would certainly help the situation.

Now we’re stuck with wedge issues that really don’t matter.

I couldn't agree more. I think there needs to be an introduction of a new political system or at least a retooling of some sort. We have the technology and I'm sure that some clever people could come up with a system that serves the people better.

When I look at the next generation I’m not terrified. They have very different values than the Boomers, but they also have very different ways of looking at issues – a more inclusive and responsible way of dealing with issues. The only thing that terrifies me is knowing that the system is still in the hands of people with some twisted understanding of the world around us, and they may screw it up so bad that the next generation may not be able to repair the damage done by the former.

I think the system is in the hands of people that clearly don't have the best intentions of the citizens that they are suppose to represent at heart. I guess we shall see what happens, it's not looking so great at the moment.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

If Clinton had won, the country would have been likely just as divided. The outcome of the election was never in doubt, a divided populace.
.

And why is that? Benghazi investigations? Fox News pandering to the gullible? "Lock her up" lol, Flynn. Etc etc.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Have you been to the Canadian Federal Politics thread? It's literally the exact opposite. I always find it amusing on how different the two threads string along.

No I haven't actually. This thread offers so much entertainment. The whole triggered by Trump community is comedy gold.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

And why is that? Benghazi investigations? Fox News pandering to the gullible? "Lock her up" lol, Flynn. Etc etc.

Because her track record in government has been pretty terrible. She's a horrible person and shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power. Same with Trump for what it's worth.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Because her track record in government has been pretty terrible. She's a horrible person and shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power. Same with Trump for what it's worth.

Fox News appreciates your patronage.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Fox News appreciates your patronage.

You are getting lazy.

Got some Trump tweets to feign outrage about?

[DuffMan]

Why dont you back some of this up? You just sound like any other Fox viewer out there.

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Because her track record in government has been pretty terrible. She's a horrible person and shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power. Same with Trump for what it's worth.

[DuffMan]

Donny skips whitehouse correspondents dinner, to obsess over the media at a rally in front of some real winners /s in Pennsylvania.

[photon]

Dang constitution got in the way. Could you imagine if Obama had said that? People would be losing their minds.

In an interview with Fox News to mark the 100-day mark, he declared himself “disappointed” with congressional Republicans, despite his many “great relationships” with them.

He blamed the constitutional checks and balances built in to US governance. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aos-presidency

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Donny skips whitehouse correspondents dinner, to obsess over the media at a rally in front of some real winners /s in Pennsylvania.

To be fair, it was announced months ago he was skipping the correspondents dinner.

The rally however is absurd. I still have no idea how stood up in front of the cameras and said this is the most successful first hundred in the history of the US with a straight face. It's actually mind-boggling at this point.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

To be fair, it was announced months ago he was skipping the correspondents dinner.
.

Had to mention it because he badmouthed it.

[photon]

“The Daily Show’s” Hasan Minhaj, who is hosting the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in DC, was asked by organizers not to make fun of President Donald Trump, who will not be in attendance, says a source who saw the comic at the Village Underground on Thursday.

“It was a polite request because Trump is so thin-skinned,” the source said.

Reuters’ Jeff Mason, who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, insists he never said Trump was “thin-skinned,” but added that he wanted a balanced event.

http://pagesix.com/2017/04/28/corres...-fun-of-trump/

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump at his rally tonight: "There are people waiting outside to get in"
Me: "Appears you have room for them so....let em in?"

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Trump at his rally tonight: "There are people waiting outside to get in"
Me: "Appears you have room for them so....let em in?"

He said they set a record for attendance in that building, must be fake news, sad.

[photon]

Lots of protesters it seems, Trump doing his "get him out of here".

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1

[direwolf]

Funniest thing at that rally are the signs that say "promises made, promises kept", lol.

[direwolf]

More hilarity from President Assclown.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

Mainstream (FAKE) media refuses to state our long list of achievements, including 28 legislative signings, strong borders & great optimism!

10:39 AM - 29 Apr 2017

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Have you been to the Canadian Federal Politics thread? It's literally the exact opposite. I always find it amusing on how different the two threads string along.

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

No I haven't actually. This thread offers so much entertainment. The whole triggered by Trump community is comedy gold.

Soooo... the Forum isn't left leaning after all? This thread skews left solely because of the crazy stuff that Trump does... its bizarre how Trump made hay with his base with catchy phrases like "Lying Ted" and "Crooked Hillary" and yet he is the biggest Liar and is clearly going to line his pockets via conflict of interest and major tax cuts that he's going to enact....

I sort of had some sympathy for Trump supporters for getting duped... but they're like a dog with a bone: they can't admit that he's screwed them over... so i am hoping that Trump does enact everything that he promised as I feel that's the only way to reset the system...Maybe a Trump Kleptocracy will finally slap the GOP base in the face...

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Because her track record in government has been pretty terrible. She's a horrible person and shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power. Same with Trump for what it's worth.

I'd like to know specifics on why Hillary is a horrible person? What exactly has she done to make you feel this way? Same for Bill Clinton... as far as I can tell one of the country's most prosperous periods occurred under his watch...but boy, do the GOP base hiss and wail at him? Its like he's their political anti-christ


Now as far as media bias goes, here's a article from WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7ab1dde2baee

and before you dismiss it because its WaPo, Forbes (who i don't think one can label as "left wing media" also reviewed the study... https://www.forbes.com/sites/bretted.../#25a27c6d3202

Finally here's the study from Harvard that the article was based on: https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-pr...inton-sanders/

this was pre-primary... the full, post election study is here:

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-c...uding_Thoughts

cole's notes version:



In fact, the study argues, “[t]he real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative…. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right.... Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlined.”

This negative bias inadvertently benefits Republicans. “[T]he media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces the right wing’s anti-government message.” By highlighting what goes wrong in government, journalists “create[] a seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety” which savvy politicians like Donald Trump can exploit. For 30 years, stories criticizing politicians have soured the public’s view of government. “It’s gotten to the point,” says Joe Klein, “where the toughest story for a … reporter to write about a politician is a positive story.”

I'd certainly welcome any scholarly studies that provide a basis for the "left wing media bias" that the Right always cite... Unless of course you write this off as a "left wing academic bias"...
.
.

[photon]

I found this interesting.

A hidden assumption underlies the debate over North Korea. The assumption is that preventive war—war against a country that poses no imminent threat but could pose a threat in the future—is morally legitimate. To be sure, many politicians oppose an attack on practical grounds: They say the costs would be too high. But barely anyone in the foreign policy mainstream calls the idea itself abhorrent.

By historical standards, that’s astounding. Over the past two decades, American foreign policy has undergone a conceptual shift so complete that its current practitioners don’t even acknowledge how revolutionary their current views are. During the Cold War, the dominant figures in American foreign policy considered preventive war to be fundamentally un-American. A member of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Reagan administration, transported to 2017, would wonder how their successors embraced a principle that they associated with the regimes America fought in World War II.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ive-war/523833

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

I found this interesting.

A hidden assumption underlies the debate over North Korea. The assumption is that preventive war—war against a country that poses no imminent threat but could pose a threat in the future—is morally legitimate. To be sure, many politicians oppose an attack on practical grounds: They say the costs would be too high. But barely anyone in the foreign policy mainstream calls the idea itself abhorrent.

By historical standards, that’s astounding. Over the past two decades, American foreign policy has undergone a conceptual shift so complete that its current practitioners don’t even acknowledge how revolutionary their current views are. During the Cold War, the dominant figures in American foreign policy considered preventive war to be fundamentally un-American. A member of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Reagan administration, transported to 2017, would wonder how their successors embraced a principle that they associated with the regimes America fought in World War II.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ive-war/523833

So true. I remember when Bush Sr. declared war on Iraq and it was a HUGE deal at the time. And to his credit, he did manage to build a real international coalition. But even then, it seemed like such a massive failure of diplomacy and a potentially dangerous thing to start.

Fast forward 30 years, and these little mini-wars seem like no big deal any more. Do they even "declare" war officially any more for that matter?