Trumpmageddon

Started by Stupot, Wed 09/11/2016 08:21:56

Previous topic - Next topic

Radiant

This article looks relevant to the discussion here, particularly the fifth point.

dactylopus

Quote from: Stupot+ on Fri 18/08/2017 08:06:52
I'm not sure. He seems (perhaps not deliberately) to be encouraging division. What does he have to do or say to make even his own supporters say "oh, yeah, that was a shitty thing to say." The opposite is happenning. Everyone, on the left and right, is stubbornly sticking to their guns and hurling abuse at anyone on the other 'side'.

It's ridicluous. Who said there even has to be a side? Can't people make their own opinions without feeling like they have to be part of a gang? Left and right is bullshit. I hate even using those terms. I make my opinions on a case by case basis. Most of them happen to align with more left-wing opinions but I'm not joining hands with everybody else on the left... some of them are bullies and arseholes too. Still others are needy hug seekers. (Also the recent Corbyn-mania in the UK has been utterly embarrassing - I cautiously voted for the guy, but why are people so willing to throw their entire logical process into one temporary political movement? It makes me cringe.)

People say 'but but humans need to be part of a group'. Not me. I love being alone with my own free-will and decision-making capabilities (well I did... then I got married, but yeah...)
I agree.  There should be more than 2 sides.  I don't necessarily agree with everything that any one party says, but I strongly disagree with just about everything that a couple of them say.  I think a lot of people are like that.  You end up aligning with and voting for either the party that you have the most in common with, or the party that will prevent the opposite from coming to power.  It'd be great if it worked differently, especially in the US, but that's kind of the reality of the situation.

When this is not the case, it tends to be down to one or two strong issues that you support and you will base your entire vote around those regardless of the party's position on any other issue.  I feel that this is part of the reason that Trump is in the White House (when he in fact belongs in the "Big House").  The other part is the deliberate and obvious misinformation regarding certain positions that people walked blindly into.

Gurok

Quote from: dactylopus on Fri 18/08/2017 06:56:13
Quote from: Ali on Fri 18/08/2017 01:00:15
He's saying that your assertion that America is no worse off isn't supported by the evidence. This thread is full of examples of things that are worse as a consequence of Trump taking office. I'd be interested to know how those bad things are balanced out by the good things you think the President has achieved.
Yes, this.  Exactly this.

I understand what you're saying, just not why you feel the need to say it.
I mean, OK, great, we've established that you disagree. The question wasn't "please list facts about Trump's presidency".

Ali, there are certainly examples of things people think are worse as a result of Trump taking office in this thread. It's a question of how much importance you place on these things versus other metrics.
I'm a non-American -- an outsider. What matters most to me is the US economy and international relations.
Most recently, Trump dealt with the North Korea situation very well. His threats to North Korea have resulted in a deescalation of the situation. He's also successfully pressured China to make good on their commitment to further sanction North Korea.
As for the economy, unemployment numbers are down, US trade is looking more sustainable, and as Trump keeps mentioning, the Dow Jones is up significantly.
Also, a bit of a stretch to say it was an assertion. I said "I don't think..." not "it is this way". I know that people have different perspectives on this, and I think that's what Stupot was trying to gauge.
[img]http://7d4iqnx.gif;rWRLUuw.gi

Radiant

Quote from: Gurok on Fri 18/08/2017 18:45:15His threats to North Korea have resulted in a deescalation of the situation.
Nope.

QuoteUS trade is looking more sustainable
Nope.

Quoteand as Trump keeps mentioning, the Dow Jones is up significantly.
Aaand nope.

Maybe you should try that again :grin:

Gurok

Quote from: Radiant on Fri 18/08/2017 22:08:43
Quote from: Gurok on Fri 18/08/2017 18:45:15His threats to North Korea have resulted in a deescalation of the situation.
Nope.

I'm struggling to compete with that opinion piece.

Note the date of the article you posted about North Korea. I said "resulted in". Here is something more recent:

http://in.reuters.com/article/northkorea-missiles-nuclear-idINKCN1AX0KJ

"Pyongyang has since said Kim has delayed his decision on Guam."

Reason? Trump got China to enforce the latest round of sanctions on North Korea.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/14/china-enforce-un-sanctions-against-north-korea-wil/

Quote from: Radiant on Fri 18/08/2017 22:08:43

QuoteUS trade is looking more sustainable
Nope.

The trade deficit is down under Trump:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

I think an outdated free trade agreement is better than none, but we will see what comes of Trump's plan. You might want to re-read that article. It appears to be saying that renegotiating NAFTA will be hard and not that trade is worse.

Quote from: Radiant on Fri 18/08/2017 22:08:43

Quoteand as Trump keeps mentioning, the Dow Jones is up significantly.
Aaand nope.

The slant is real. I don't know if Politico's "Agenda" was the best of sources for verifying that fact. All you really needed was a graph:

http://www.tr4der.com/info/%5EDJI/6-months/

Also, the Agenda article's (heavily slanted) points are that a rising Dow Jones isn't a strong economy per se, a rising index isn't strongly correlated with economic growth nor is it an absolutely certain predictor.
If all that is true, then what do we use the Dow Jones and other stock price indices for?
When the trend is up, it generally indicates that a recession is unlikely. It can also indicate other things, like a falling dollar, for instance. When the trend continues up and reaches record highs, that has a positive effect on investor confidence and generally bodes well for the next few months.
[img]http://7d4iqnx.gif;rWRLUuw.gi

Radiant

Ok thank you, let me also draw up a more elaborate response. Note that I am also very much an outsider to the US (as I live in Europe).

Regarding Korea, the fact that North Korea makes a wild threat (e.g. to attack Guam) and then doesn't follow through is not a deescalation; this is how NK has consistently behaved for decades. Indeed, the situation around NK is more tense than it has been in a long time, and shows no signs of calming down. There is clearly no deescalation here. You have an interesting point about China though; China so far seems happy to do favors for the president. Of course, he has also done a lot of good for China, which leads us to...

...trade. Now obviously, stepping out of long-standing trade agreements (and starting trade wars with traditional partners like Canada) is the exact opposite of "sustainable trade". Effectively, this paralyzes US trade while they take time to re-negotiate, and in the meantime the obvious effects are (1) unemployment in the US will go up sharply, and (2) other countries will have more trade opportunities. Notably, this includes China. It is very good for the rest of the world that the US becomes a less competitive trading partner; it's just not good for the US.

And the whole Dow Jones thing is just a red herring. Yes, the index is up, but as the article I've linked explains (1) it is not a measure of how well the economy is doing, but of how much rich people benefit from stock options; and (2) politics has a very limited influence over these indices, particularly in times where congress is gridlocked. After all, fixing the economy is slightly harder than tweeting about it...

Ali

It's also fairly sunny today, so all due credit to Trump for that.

Mandle

Quote from: Ali on Sat 19/08/2017 11:11:10
It's also fairly sunny today, so all due credit to Trump for that.

(laugh)(laugh)(laugh)

Ali

Update: it is now raining.

Thanks, Killary!

Scavenger

I think more than any kind of nebulous stock market number, the fact that white supremacists felt safe enough to form a torch wielding mob chanting "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil" under Trump just shows that America isn't in a very good place with him at the helm.

And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.

Blondbraid

I remember an acquaintance of mine mentioning last summer that if Hillary were elected, it would be good for USA but bad for the rest of the world,
but if Trump wins, while it would be bad for USA it could be an improvement for the rest of the world as he has been consistently had a policy of
isolating USA, barring people from entry, attempting to build a wall, promoting nationalism etcetera. Their argument was that, judging from America's
track record in nearly every global conflict post WWII, USA limiting their global influence be a good thing.

But I agree with Scavenger in that Trump should have openly taken a clear stand against the white supremacists rather than just making some weak statement that both sides are equally bad.


Mandle

Quote from: Scavenger on Sat 19/08/2017 13:58:42
And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.

Actually, I believe he said exactly that, while using a teleprompter (which he rarely does, so you know it was not his words coming outa his mouth), a few days ago.

I got the feeling those good-ole-boys down south are not all that pleased right about now concerning the president they feel their votes put into power.

And they got a shit-load of guns and hate.

If Trump gets assassinated sometime soon the feds know where to start their investigation at least...

Scavenger

Quote from: Mandle on Sat 19/08/2017 16:33:04
Quote from: Scavenger on Sat 19/08/2017 13:58:42
And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.

Actually, I believe he said exactly that, while using a teleprompter (which he rarely does, so you know it was not his words coming outa his mouth), a few days ago.

He immediately backtracked on it.

He may have said it, but he couldn't help but continue to talk about "violent leftists" in order to defend the nazi rally.

Ali

#353
The thing that I find most infuriating about this is that it wasn't a Nazi rally. It was a "Unite the Right" rally bringing together neo-Nazis and other flavours of right wing nutbar. How galling it must be for American Muslims to see the president cry "bad apple" after a Nazi murdered an innocent woman

The comparison of Confederate monuments with Washington or Lincoln (Edit: Fake News) would be intellectually dishonest, except that nothing Trump does is intellectual. Lincoln and Washington are admired (rightly or wrongly) in spite of their racism. Confederate heroes are revered specifically because of their racism.

In other news I'm starting a petition to reinstate Jimmy Savile's statue. After all, we don't want to erase history, do we?

Snarky

ITYM Washington and Jefferson rather than Lincoln, Ali. At least those were the presidents Trump originally compared Lee to.

And Confederate "heroes" may or may not have been personally racist (or more racist than the average person of the day), but they fought for a racist cause. A statue honoring Robert E. Lee is problematic just as a statue honoring Erwing Rommel would be: both had admirable qualities, both are highly respected as military geniuses, but both fought on the side of an evil regime and seem to have been in sympathy with many of the basic aims of that regime.

Mandle

Quote from: Scavenger on Sat 19/08/2017 18:03:14
He immediately backtracked on it.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that.

He probably sensed effigies of himself being made all over the south for burning at the next rallies...

Gurok

Quote from: Radiant on Sat 19/08/2017 11:06:00
And the whole Dow Jones thing is just a red herring.

I don't want to argue about these things. I don't think you're refuting what I'm saying, I think we just disagree about what's important.
[img]http://7d4iqnx.gif;rWRLUuw.gi

Blondbraid


Quote from: Snarky on Sat 19/08/2017 21:05:48
ITYM Washington and Jefferson rather than Lincoln, Ali. At least those were the presidents Trump originally compared Lee to.

And Confederate "heroes" may or may not have been personally racist (or more racist than the average person of the day), but they fought for a racist cause. A statue honoring Robert E. Lee is problematic just as a statue honoring Erwing Rommel would be: both had admirable qualities, both are highly respected as military geniuses, but both fought on the side of an evil regime and seem to have been in sympathy with many of the basic aims of that regime.
So what about this statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest? (laugh)


Scavenger

That statue should be the only confederate monument remaining, it's just too much of a work of art to lose.

Mandle

OMFG! That picture! My eyes! My sides!

Also: I believe, in the book at least, that's the dude Forrest Gump's mama named him after, so the statue must stay!

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk