add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube
  1. Forums
  2. General
  3. Off Topic

Politics

ZFGeek

8 months ago

We all know that the campaigns for the 2020 presidential election is already starting. How do you think Donald Trump has done during his term? Do you think he did well? Maybe he did some things you disagree with? How do you feel about some of the new candidates? Discuss your opinions in the comments. Don't put people down for their opinions, however. Discuss them, don't argue with ill intentions. If things become too out of hand, I will delete this topic myself.

Comments

  • 8 months ago
  • 8 points

Really hoping for a TragicTimes V gorkti coming up

  • 8 months ago
  • 5 points

I find it funny (but slightly disappointing!) that everyone writes the Ti as part of my name instead of as the model that it is derived from. The Ti200 was a model of the GeForce 3 video card lineup. My actual name is just Gork.

It is mostly my own fault for leaving my entire name lowercase for some reason when I created my account. I don't know what I was thinking! It should be read Gork Ti200. And you youths can't be expected to know every old *** GPU.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

I always thought it was GorkTi.

Like, this isn’t just Gork, this is GorkTi!

You know, because a 1080Ti is better than a 1080.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

That is basically it =)

Just specifically based off the Ti200 due to that being the first gpu I ever bought myself. There was also a Ti500 model back then.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

And here I based my username off some random video game character and a random number generator. The thought never crossed my mind to make it related to PCs or myself in any way.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Ah yes. The ultimate show down. Honestly if either of then were to run I would consider voting for them. But I don't think either are old enough.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Gimme 10 years. lol

I say Gork goes president for a term and I serve as his VP and then we switch. We'll either both do great and it will have a stacking effect or we'll cancel out eachother entirely.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

I think it would be like when matter and anti matter meet. You would both be destroyed.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

You may both do great, it may turn out that you both have the same objectives but just different ideas about how to achieve them. I think the biggest issue isn't that people going into politics don't want what's best for their country, quite the reverse I think most of them do, but it's all the other stuff that gets in the way. The wanting to get ahead, the constantly giving in to the wishes of special interests against the interests of actually doing what is right.

Politics just appears to be all about money and the actual people politicians as supposed to be elected to serve, well their interests come way down the list.

If you guys genuinely have the public good as your top priority and aren't willing to give into corruption or willing to compromise on doing the right thing, then either one of you would make an excellent President.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Honestly if either of then were to run I would consider voting for them.

I very much appreciated reading that!

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Right though?

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

What if both of them ran at the same time under different political parties? Who would you vote for?

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Don't know. It would depend on what they intend on doing in office.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Mandatory Taco Tuesdays.

  • 8 months ago
  • 5 points

Shut up and take my vote amigo

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Why stop there? How about mandatory breathing?

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh, dang. A reasonable response!

  • 8 months ago
  • 8 points

Quick summary of the President's highlights:

Created thousands more jobs during his time in office.

He put Neil Gorsuch and Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

Passed a multi-trillion dollar tax cut bill.

Increased Military spending to over $700 billion.

Pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal which prevented the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons.

Pulled out of the Paris Agreement on defending the planet against climate change.

Directed Jeff Sessions to enforce powers previously unused, to allow refugee parents & children to be separated at the Southern border under a policy designated "zero-tolerance policy". (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry)

Got into a public Argument with the leader of North Korea, resulting in the President threatening fire & fury, then adopting a more conciliatory approach and attending peace talks, before finally declaring he was in love with the North Korean Leader.

In 2018 he gave the military a 2.4% pay rise, 0.3% higher than the final pay rise under President Obama's administration.

Wants to keep the Federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour and is opposed to the Democrats plans for a $15 per hour minimum wage.

The President has proposals which would effectively cut Medicare by $595 billion and Medicaid by $240 billion.

Has confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.

Has proposed changes that would cut funding for legal aid for refugee children being held in detainment facilities and for any leisure activities for said children.

The President's 2020 budget proposals would see the education budget cut by 12%, whilst agriculture is cut by 15%, transportation by 19% and the Environmental Protection Agency by 31%.

The President's 2020 budget proposals for increased spending would see a 5% increase for defense and 7% for Homeland Security.

He shut down the government to get funding for a border wall or fence.

The President claims that the investigation, led by Robert Mueller acting as Special Counsel, into alleged interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, clears the President of any and all wrong doing.

The financial position of the President's companies has improved dramatically during his time in office.

The President is currently the subject of numerous ongoing investigations into potential criminal wrong doing, including over such subjects as:

The 2016 election attack

Wikileaks

Middle Eastern influence

Paul Manafort’s activities

The Trump Tower Moscow project

Russia-Trump Campaign contacts

Presidential obstruction of justice

Campaign finance violations and Trump Organization finances

Inauguration funding

SuperPAC funding

Foreign lobbying violations

Defrauding a charity

Russian spy Maria Butina

Russian Internet Research Agency accountant Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova

Turkish influence

Trump Organization tax fraud

Trump Foundation fraud

Violations of the emoluments clause

He is also responsible for economic growth reaching a quarterly figure annualized at 4.2%.

He has imposed sanctions on Chinese imports, making such products more expensive.

Has encouraged other NATO members to increase defense spending by $69 billion more since 2016.

Has replaced the NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico with a new agreement and is in discussions to do the same with Canada.

Has completed a state visit to the United Kingdom where he was well received by the Royal family and the ruling Conservative Party, though far less well received by the British public with protests held around the country.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Wow, that is a really good sum up of his first term. Now, I wonder what he could accomplish in his second term(assuming he gets voted in again)...

  • 8 months ago
  • 4 points

It's not all bad, but it's hardly great either. If he gets a good opponent, someone actually willing to help ordinary Americans, then I think he'll have a tough time defending his record. If he gets a corporate Democrat opponent who doesn't want to actually change anything to help people, then I think he's a shoo-in for re-election because I can't see voters turning out for anyone they see as the same as Donald Trump economically, even if they are better on social issues.

I think the next election will be all about who really will help ordinary people economically, the Democrats need someone who is going to put a lot of money back into the pockets of ordinary people otherwise they will have to watch just how far this President is willing to change what is considered normal in America, for years to come.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

^This. Most people I know seem to endlessly praise him for only the good or deride him for being Donald Trump, and it's nice to see a balanced, legitimate summary of his presidency.

If I had to decide today if he would stay until '24 or get voted out, I'd say the latter, though. He's by no means done atrociously, but after seeing him in a political office may influence the voters next fall (as they really had nothing go go off of other than his campaign promises in 2016).

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

The problem with that is democrats don't want to do that. Yes, on the front, it seems that way. But all they end up doing is taking money away, and putting it into things like illegal immigration. All it does is hurt the economy, which in turn effects the bank accounts of every American citizen. I'd be surprised if we have a Dem running that actually wants to make a difference. Especially with the candidates showing themselves thus far...

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

The problem with that is democrats don't want to do that. Yes, on the front, it seems that way. But all they end up doing is taking money away, and putting it into things like illegal immigration.

Nobody is putting money into illegal immigration. You could argue that Democrats want to take money away from "combating" illegal immigration (they don't, they just want to spend it differently than Trump), but nobody is making a budget that includes "let's spend money to make more illegal immigration happen."

I'd be surprised if we have a Dem running that actually wants to make a difference. Especially with the candidates showing themselves thus far...

You should look into the voting records and policies of Warren and Sanders. Also check out Gabbard and Yang.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Nobody is putting money into illegal immigration.

I am going to run on the platform of putting more money into illegal immigration. I haven't quite figured out how to do it. But it's going to be great.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

That's why you need a progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, not a Joe Biden, John Hickenlooper or Howard Schultz type etc..

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

True, true... I guess we'll have to wait to hear more about candidates to know what we're in for.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

That's why you need a progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders

Those progressives will bankrupt our economy. The amount of money in someone's hand and the spending power of that money are not necessarily related. Increasing wages at the cost of business investment will likely lead to substantial inflation.

That money has to come from somewhere and businesses have an entirely new middle class to sell their products to in China and other recently quickly deceloping nations. If the US tries to chokehold business, many will leave.

Continue this thread
  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

the Democrats need someone who is going to put a lot of money back into the pockets of ordinary people 

Lol, don't see that happening.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

The progressives have a significant advantage on their side being that their policies are popular. Quite understandable given that they are essentially designed to benefit the ordinary people who constitute the vast majority of the population.

By contrast, both the Corporate Democrats advocating for the status quo and the Republicans pushing for ever more benefits & advantages for the wealthy, have the significant disadvantage in that, even if people believed their propaganda that progressive policies would somehow hurt the economy, the actual people know they themselves would still be better off. Because even in a booming economy virtually all the benefits go to the wealthy and most people don't really feel any better off, they haven't benefited from it.

Now just consider what somebody like Bernie Sanders is actually proposing to do. Just how much money is he going to put back into the pockets of young & low paid workers even with just 2 of his policies, a $15 per hour minimum wage and government funded healthcare program, we are talking thousands of dollars here. Seriously, what possible message by opponents could counter such a potent incentive for said young & low paid workers, what could possibly persuade them to willingly lose thousands of dollars! Ordinary people struggling to get by and one Presidential candidate is fighting to make them thousands of dollars a year better off!

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

A $15 minimum wage would also makea lot of small, and even some decent sized businesses loose a lot of money, or go out of business really fast. Yes, low class people may have more money, but jobs would also start disappearing, leaving more people unemployed. The direct advantages are good, but long term th economy and low class would end up suffering.

Anyways, the point of mininum wage was to give people a starting point. People are supposed to use these jobs to allow themselves to climb corporate ladders and be successful. They weren't meant for people to live off of, especially not families.People want to be able to do minimum work, and do well, but life doesn't work that way.

Continue this thread
  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

That kind of thing happens from tax cuts, not tax hikes, and I don't see a dem doing that either.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Cutting taxes adds to national debt, don't cut taxes, raise incomes instead so people have more money to pay taxes from!

Tax cuts help the wealthy not ordinary people, the President is set to be around $15 million better off from his own tax cut, whilst families earning under $25,000 a year get back around $60 and even those earning between $48,600 and $86,100 just get an extra $930 on average. Remind me, how much does even quite mediocre health insurance now cost?

Now what's the maximum a person earning that $7.25 an hour Federal minimum wage is possibly going to get back from a tax cut? Compare this figure with how much they'll be better off if their hourly wage goes up to $15 an hour and they no longer have to pay for health insurance!

Continue this thread
  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

That would be the worst case scenario. Lol

  • 8 months ago
  • 5 points

Oh no, I'm not brave enough for politics.

  • 8 months ago
  • 4 points

Hold on. This whole operation was your idea.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic, you're under arrest Chancellor.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Are you threatening me Master Jedi?

  • 8 months ago
  • 4 points

For a moment there I thought you posted a topic that was literally just the word "Politics" and nothing else and got 32 replies.

I feel like that could potentially happen.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Too bad I don't like popcorn.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

I dont either, so i use small pieces of chocolate as a alternative for "popcorn threads"

yes, Dave (floridaboz) posted in a political thread for like the first time ever.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

How about chocolate covered pretzels? I'm particularly fond of those.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

i like them, but rarely ever eat them, idk why.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Dave's not here man...

Oh wait....he is...

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Trump is an idiot. Just hope the democrats can field someone who can challenge him/unite them enough. Tbh at the minute brexit is the bigger issue. America can start to smoulder. Once the UK sorts itself out, and gets back into the EU, we'll pass the fire extinguisher across the Atlantic so you can use it.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Would you mind expanding on why Trump is an idiot?

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Here's some of my observations:

  • Denying climate change whilst a whole lot of scientists keep proving it to be influenced by the industry and other human activities.
  • The whole 'wind turbines cause cancer' fiasco, he's against wind energy in general, for some reason.
  • Banning transgender people from the military, stating one reason that they 'need to be on a bunch of expensive drugs', but admitting in the same interview he did not know that the military spent 10x more on Viagra than on HRT. (The other reason was that they'd be out for a couple years if they get some surgery done, but even if that was a big issue, there should be a rule in place that that comes after you've served, no? The ban altogether seems a bit odd to me.)
  • Shutting down the government for a wall after not getting what he wants. He still did not get what he wants.
  • He failed to complete one of his biggest campaign promises; reforming/scrapping Obamacare. There have not been any decent plans rolling out.
  • Thinking that Mexico was ever going to pay for the wall.
  • Taking credit for job growth and economic growth. Obama's last two years in office saw the same level, if not more, growth in jobs.

Don't read too much into what my politics are. I think that if you'd look at these things, regardless of what side you're on, you'd think 'huh, that doesn't sound right.'

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

“the military spent 10x more on Viagra”

Would anyone with military experience please explain to me why the military is spending money on Viagra?

  • 8 months ago
  • 4 points

The mind jumps to the idea of 'military spending' being tanks, guns, planes, boats, etc etc. But in truth a big percentage of the military spending is just regular old salary and healthcare for the soldiers, who are mostly men. The majority of those soldiers aren't in combat on any given day, and in fact a huge number are working very standard white collar jobs before they drive home for the day to their family. Only difference is they are wearing their ACU's while they do it.

A lot of those soldiers are old dudes, and apparently Viagra is popular with that crowd. MilitaryTimes has an article about it.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Thanks, my mind definitely made some of those jumps today. I’m not entirely proud of it, but it is what it is.

So, um, do the soldiers just send a letter over to military offices or is it more like an insurance company?

Continue this thread
  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

I don’t have experience, but I read it’s for erectile dysfunction. I suppose that’s to keep morale high.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Nice... that is one way to boost morale, isn’t it?

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

The med was originally for something else, I think blood pressure, but then had a side effect which is now what it is using for marketing.

But I can't explain the need in the military other than something like you said: morale - vs. depression and suicide - or worse.

Also, it is possible, not saying it is, that their reasoning will never be told to the public. Also possible that most enlisted may be given "vitamins" in their daily routine - one being the blue pill but in a different form. It is interesting that it is public knowledge the military has a high budget for it.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Sadly I cannot see us (say us assuming your from UK also by the way you posted your answer) going back into the EU anytime soon. Maby down the line when demographics shift enough and people feel the bite of brexit (though even then, a fair number who voted leave are approaching pension / retired so already on it, so unlikely to ever feel the ramifications). When we do go back in (we will one day) it will amusingly be without a lot of the opt-outs we get now.

It really is an exercise of shooting yourself in the foot but then not admitting to the pain as it would be a sign of weakness. This whole activity is down to the ego's and megalomaniac personalities of few people in government and holding the referendum on the tail end of years of austerity. Combined with a press (the most vocal part) which is heavily Anti-EU for decades and a government has never shot down all these incorrect facts as they could agree with the press everything is the EU's fault and suffice to say I think we are going to be heavily divided for next decade or so at least.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Agreed. It is going to suck that most of the idiots who voted for brexit won't care/be there to see what happens. The people who like the EU etc are mainly a younger generation, some of whom aren't even old enough to vote. Wish they'd lower the voting age, especially as there was such a tight margin

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

The legal voting age for referendums was actually lowered to 16, this was because the precedent was set during the Scottish independence referendum. They got around this however, by mandating that the status of the EU referendum should only be advisory and carry no legal status in law. This was how they also managed to preserve the referendum result even when the Election Commission exposed evidence of election fraud and handed the matter over to the police to investigate further. If the referendum was deemed legally binding the Election Commission would have been able to void the result.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

I would like to know the reasoning behind placing the UK higher on the agenda than the US. In addition, I am very curious as to what the EU is going to provide afterwards that will fix America’s issues.

  • 8 months ago
  • 4 points

I suppose as someone from UK and EU I imagine, brexit plays a bigger role the Trump. Difference here is a very fundamental relationship which has been built on 40-50 years of integration is suddenly being shifted overnight.

Decades for example setting ports and infrastructure (and associated staff) as a single example to allow easy and largely free movements of goods between the UK and EU is changing. There is no infrastructure in place to cope with this change. Then filter that out to things like factories and companies which move items back and forth over the boarders to complete products now incurring tariff's etc

While trump may not be ideal for your guy's, there are still check's and balances in play the tie his hands in area's so he cannot go full whack and implement everything he want's even with his own personal opinions. Similarly if your dissatisfied with his record, can show it at next election and his term will be up and can move to a different president. With the UK and EU in general, we largely have the same issues and problems you guys have in varying levels depending on the country but brexit added on top

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

See, I think it’s obvious that I don’t follow European politics at all.

I understand what Brexit is, but could you explain why people want to leave? The EU seems perfectly fine and I think it’s what helped prevent war across Europe since WWII.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

I understand what Brexit is, but could you explain why people want to leave? The EU seems perfectly fine and I think it’s what helped prevent war across Europe since WWII.

It is amusingly quiet a complex issue and a large element is nothing to do with the EU really when it boils down to it. This is actually why the way the vote was set up with a single stay or leave was monumentally stupid.

In general the trend was younger people, more educated and those living in area's with higher immigration tended to vote Remain (in the EU). Older voters, generally less educated and those in area's with less immigration tended to vote Leave, this is a simplistic backdrop, but goes on to reasons below and some of the key factors that meant we left:

  • Age - I say age as generally the older population voted leave, and this increased as you went up in brackets. I suspect part of the reason for this is down to them having a partially rosy eyed view of how the UK was (empire and all that) and feel we can get back to that point. Alas the world has moved on significantly since then. They similarly have seen there communities change, I suppose for them, they feel for the worse.

  • Location - Generally speaking those area's who voted leave were usually in area's with slightly lower GDP. (not absolute but a general pattern). Can mean lack of opportunities and combine that with Austerity (government cutting local services heavily to balance the books) can mean those people have nothing to really lose (stupid as plenty of those areas get funding via EU projects which the government will not replace).

  • Papers - You will find the most widely circulated papers in the UK are generally for leaving the EU. They get away with such nonsense its criminal, but they are popular and appeal to the mass's. If you pump out over years and years people are coming here and taking your jobs it will build up this picture in the mind of readers.

  • immigration - this is a big one. There is an freedom of movement, but laws are allowed to be in place on EU citizen's who do not find a job. However our government is largely inept in this regards. The other aspect is the papers as mentioned above built up this picture of people coming and taking jobs. People feel there towns are chaining. What I actually suspect is they generally dislike people from nations outside the EU coming here, there is no EU nation without a majority white populace and this links in with the newspapers and fact area's with lowest level of immigration voting leave. They are getting this picture painted to them, similar to the mexico border of millions of people pouring in to steal your jobs. What they fail to realise is EU citizens actually put more into the tax system then they take out via benefits (unlike people born here).

  • Laws - We are obviously involved in making EU wide law's via our MEP's (Member of European Parliament). Now it partly sucks as a number of our MEP's actually are against the EU. Nigel farage a popular leave campaigner is a MEP, yet he showed up to 1 out of 42 meeting held to discuss laws around fishing. Similarly people are generally thick and say we can make our own laws when we leave the EU. We already do, but they don't seem to know that.

and so on and so forth, there is so much factors really.

What I think it boils down to is the Leave campaign (team that swayed people to leave the EU) had clear messages that resonated with people. Leave the EU and give our health service £350 million a week for example, even though that's a lie stat, it is easy, resonates with people and say the same lie over and over and people forget it was a lie. In other instances people used it as a protest vote, stick it to the man so to speak. In other's people have this idea of it may be a bit painful but eventually we will be able to trade with the world (we already do with the large majority) and so on. It was unfortunate that my generation, those who tended to vote remain did not come out in numbers. Generally speaking as you went up the age bracket, they came out in a higher % and generally voted leave as you also went up the same brackets.

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

I think I have a better understanding now, much appreciated.

Sort of off-topic: do you think this might cascade in a way so that more countries leave the EU? Possible international conflict in the future?

Continue this thread
  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

I’ll be of voting age next election. I’m voting for Bernie if he makes it.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

The main problem to me is the Budget Deficit that is out of control. It's also a big problem for some European countries like my own (Belgium). To me any nation cannot have a good long term view if your budget is not in order.

As long as the economy is doing well and the US has a strong currency that is in demand everywhere there is no problem. Ofcourse these are the times to solve those problems otherwise when things are starting to turn it could get ugly very fast.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Donald Trump is literally a criminal, and a terrible president. That is not to say that he's done everything wrong. Broken clocks twice a day and all that.

He recommitted to an executive order against lobbying by executive branch employees (although he weakened the order when compared to the one Obama issued). Pressuring China is a good thing (in the abstract). Getting out of the Middle East is a good thing (in the abstract). Increasing NASA funding is good (even if you think the Moon is part of Mars lol). Encouraging increased NATO spending is good (in the abstract). I'm sure there are some more that I am forgetting.

I keep saying "in the abstract" because they're good things, that Trump has gone about in a terrible way.

As for candidates, I'm not committed to anyone yet. I've been a fan of Andrew Yang since long before the #YangGang trend, since before he even launched his campaign officially. It's not just automation, though that is his focus, that IMO necessitates a radical change like UBI. The rise of ******** work, or work for the sake of work as opposed to being for a productive reason or one that actually benefits humanity, is documented and has been on the rise for years. Wage stagnation is an ignored problem for decades. Everything is sacrificed at the altar of GDP, but GDP is not an accurate measure of really anything except an approximation of how wealthy your country is. We have to stop using this ******** metric as our raison d'etre. Income inequality is a runaway train with greater and greater dividends paying out to the top. Employment is good (re: ******** work, impending automation), but underemployment is a problem. Entire communities getting wiped out by the whims of industry with a piss-poor to nonexistent safety net. Etc, etc. Scott Santens has written extensively and excellently documented a host of research about UBI. Before you say "but everyone will just raise prices", or, "but that's socialism", etc, read some of his stuff.

I think Warren has been an excellent advocate for working people in her public career. I would be happy with her. I feel similarly about Sanders.

Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and so on, they all seem pretty boilerplate Democrat to me. Cozy with corporate interests, willing to take a pulse on the electorate and adopt popular policies, but not actually interested in much beyond status quo incrementalism. That being said, virtually anyone with a pulse and a D next to their name would be a better president than Trump. Heck most R's probably would be too, although they've all been huffing the MAGA for so long now that idk if any of them are salvageable.

RobertL90 is making some good points in this thread. It was tempting to jump into those chains myself with my own 2 cents, but I hate making a mess of debates. So I wanted to give my kudos here instead and let him handle it undisturbed.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

I think Donald Trump showed a good side both in foreign policy and in the state. Yes, there are sins...but we did not live worse.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

President Trump, while certainly not perfect, has done a lot that people don't seem to point out. Prison reform, appointing the first openly gay ambassador, lobbying for the introduxtion of restrictions placed on nations which criminalize homosexuality, etc.

I never seem to hear any of this mentioned by his most ardent detractors.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Why would you expect his most ardent detractors to be interested in talking about anything good he's done? You're describing the people with the least interest in talking about anything good he does; that's not insightful that is just obvious.

Anyways, nobody is really anxious to give him credit for appointing a longterm political operator who is openly gay and Republican as ambassador, when he's responsible for the rolling back numerous LGBT health policies at HHS. And of course the whole trans military ban fiasco. One step forward, two steps back at best here. He's got Pence in his cabinet ffs.

Prison reform could have been a big celebratory moment had he not spent the same period sabotaging the government and attempting to legislate from the executive. The longest shutdown in US history, over a dictatorial move that threatened the very core of our governments separation of powers, kind of overshadowed it. Not to mention it actively hurt the prisoners and the prison employees that this legislation should have been helping. Cancelled visitation, furloughed guards leading to understaffing, inmates going past release date, etc. Still, he did a good thing and does deserve the credit. Thanks, Kim Kardashian!

As for the push to decriminalize homosexuality in nations abroad, we'll see what comes of it. That's still very fresh. Sorry (I'm not sorry) that he's kind of poisoned the well on good faith, but that happens when you launch your campaign on "ban Muslims because they're terrorists!", and, "Mexico is sending their rapists!", make anti-vaxx arguments during the primaries, insult veterans, etc, and then you just double-down on being an ******* for the next 3 years. Some believe he is just using it as a political shield (much like he tried to hide his desire to ban Muslims by tying it to the suspension of visa waiving that happened previously under the Obama admin) to protect his goals of hurting Iran. Again, we'll see what happens. It might go nowhere. It might actually result in the tearing down of terrible laws in certain countries, which would be amazing. Or it might just be a trojan horse for added pressure on Iran. Thankfully Trump doesn't seem to be interested in war in the Middle East (his one redeeming foreign policy attribute), at least not with Americans on the line. His cabinet on the other hand, is anxious to invade Iran.

  • 8 months ago
  • 0 points

Typical Political OT

Expectations : Internet Keyboard Warriors trying to justify why they are objectively correct whilst eating mountain dew flavored diritos in their mothers basement.

Reality :

OT : Where the destruction? The teenage angst? The political extremism? The "wrong thinkers? ", The " Our side? "

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

sbeve

(I think this is where I drop one of these.)

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

0 0

0 0