Donald trump. what is your take on him?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I found this story really helpful in trying to make sense of Trump voters in particular and conservatives more broadly:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/donald-trump-2016-election-oklahoma-working-class
 
Anthon said:
My 2 cents about Trump.

I think he gets more hatred than he deserves.

When Obama was running the election, he said it was unacceptable US was bombing 2 countries - he made it 7 (lucky number, I guess).
Obama administration has destroyed countless innocent lives, by supporting coups in foreign countries and basically destroying countries like Lybia, Syria etc.

Yes, Trump is a filthy rich business man with questionable morals and motivations - but Obama and Clinton are warmongers and war criminals to me. Yet Trump gets crucified for wanting to build a Mexican wall or saying a bad word a decade ago.

You probably don't understand the distinction because you're not looking at what the underlying reason for the respective actions are. In the case of Obama he was put in an impossible situation. Two of the actual large-scale wars had been started by his predecessor, and so the three options he had was pull out completely, change the character and level of involvement, or maintain the status quo. No alternatives there are great. So to lay that at Obama's feet is just ignoring even recent history.

As for the rest of his fighting, you yourself make the argument that people fight back, which I don't disagree with. But since the "war on terror" had been started he faced the exact same issue: just what does he do?

So, while one clearly can't absolve the Obama administration for what is has done, some of it was inevitable and some of it was by far less bad than what the predecessor was responsible for.

You then need to juxtapose the above with what Trump is criticized for. He's actually NOT criticized for using harsh language, he's criticized for a) what that language says about his character and his views, and b) what that language does to the population.

I think that's bee explored well in this thread and if you don't see just why it's a problem then I'm not sure anyone could convince you. Sufficed to say that hundreds of thousands of women marched and they did that because they understand what it all means.

Anthon said:
I'm not an American, so I don't care what Americans do in their country (and neither should they intervene in other countries uninvited) - but Trumps foreign policy looks more attractive to me. I welcome his intentions of being friends with Russians, I know a lot about Russian culture and people - believe me, you can reason with them and they don't want war, but if you try to 'show them their place' (like Clinton advocated) they will react.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

I too think Russia and Russians have been needlessly vilified in the west, so that's not a problem. What is a problem is not taking a stance against a foreign nation's meddling in an election, regardless of which nation that is. In addition, if you think he's promising when it comes to foreign policy, my prediction is that he'll cause damage lasting for decades at the very heart of that region; Israel and Palestine.

And those consequences will travel all over the west. Just wait and see.
 
Dude's right, don't try to pretend Obama out of responsibility for his bombings.  How about the coup in Ukraine? That's going so well, shit, they should give him a Nobel prize for bombings and coup attempts too. Then he'll have a set.

"Lizza referred to President George W. Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, in a tweet that said: "Countries bombed: Obama 7, Bush 4." At the time, the U.S. on Obama's watch had bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria."
 
:eek:

They aren't lies, they're "alternative facts":

There she was, saying Spicer wasn't lying but rather was simply offering us "alternative facts." But even before Trump's CIA speech, Spicer's first press conference, or Kellyanne Conway's attempts to run interference, Trump's team has had problems with telling the truth.

For those that haven't seen it, Frontline's 4-hour special Divided States of America lays out the history of Obama's 2 terms and his interactions with Republicans pretty clearly.  You have to hand it to Cantor and Ryan:  their campaign of disinformation was masterfully done.
 
tands said:
Dude's right, don't try to pretend Obama out of responsibility for his bombings. 

I'm not trying to do that. The point here is that if he does bomb those countries because terrorist targets are in them, then people will complain about that violence. If he doesn't do it, then people will complain that he's not taking action. See what I'm saying here?

In addition to that, there's the argument that the two wars exacerbated the issue with terrorism and made that far worse. So again, what do you think Obama should have done once it spread, given that Al Qaeda and similar groups had been defined as enemies of the US?

Let's hear a suggestion for what he should have done.
 
I hear what you're saying all right, Obama is in the office of the most powerful person in the world, but he's just completely helpless to do ANYTHING decent. I've heard the same angle a hundred times. Two hundred, maybe. Here's a suggestion, don't knock Qaddafi off, stay out of Ukraine, quit doing the saudis dirtywork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjOr2YzrZDY

Do you know who we're bombing in Yemen???

Why not??


 
tands said:
I hear what you're saying all right, Obama is in the office of the most powerful person in the world, but he's just completely helpless to do ANYTHING decent.

At least we're not devolving to hyperbole.

tands said:
Here's a suggestion, don't knock Qaddafi off,

Obama/US killed Qaddafi?

tands said:
stay out of Ukraine,

The US was in the Ukraine?

I must have missed something...
 
No problem. You accept then that Obama is entirely responsible for the situation in Syria.

"Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs “Toria” Nuland was the “mastermind” behind the Feb. 22, 2014 “regime change” in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych while convincing the ever-gullible U.S. mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.”"

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

Wikileaks tick tock on Libya

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=tick+tock+on+libya&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=not+filtered+by+license
 
DaveP said:
All the countries around the world that produce economic migrants, be it Asia, Africa or Central America.

The West is the "we".

Populations are no different from other resources, they have to be sustainable in their country of origin.  Most of us have realized that we need to be less of a burden on the world's resources, climate change etc, etc.  Exactly the same logic applies to populations.  Governments in these countries need to provide pensions so that parents need not produce so many children to look after them in their old age.  Simply exporting surplus populations passes the burden to others and its not sustainable.

DaveP

Producing and exporting, it's as if you're describing cattle... Every country in the world 'produces' economic migrants; the UK 'exports' over 100'000 migrant workers, every year. There are millions of Brits living and working abroad.

For the birth control theory, compare the fertility rates of Argentina to Bangladesh, Denmark to Iran, Ireland to Lebanon, New-Zealand to Libya, or Norway to Vietnam. You'll hopefully see there's no basis in your claim (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html). Only the Africans are above the world average, but that isn't why for eg. the UK voted Brexit, it was mainly as a backlash to intra-EU migrants. Incidentally, Polands rate is 1.34 vs. 1.89 for the UK, a country with a disproportionally high teenage pregnancy rate.

All this aside, with 18% of the world's population (the West) consuming 80% of the world's resources, it's simply irresponsible to claim that 'we' are sustainable, and it's 'them' who's the problem. It shows a disconnect from reality.
 
DaveP said:
All the countries around the world that produce economic migrants, be it Asia, Africa or Central America.

The West is the "we".

Populations are no different from other resources, they have to be sustainable in their country of origin.  Most of us have realized that we need to be less of a burden on the world's resources, climate change etc, etc.  Exactly the same logic applies to populations.  Governments in these countries need to provide pensions so that parents need not produce so many children to look after them in their old age.  Simply exporting surplus populations passes the burden to others and its not sustainable.

DaveP

I think you should possibly consider something here:

- Take what Banzai was saying into consideration first of all; that the west is or has been consuming a huge amount of resources and polluted tremendously over the years, all in the process of accumulating wealth...

- add to that that the people advocating and perpetuating capitalism, especially global neo-liberal policies, are actually not  only the ones exploiting other nations to transfer their wealth, but are also the ones extending loans with the caveat that the recipient nations have to take austerity measures.....

So in other words; We'll go to where you are to work abroad, we'll take your resources, we'll take your money when we extend loans to you, but we'll do so only if you cut down on government expenditure, and it's your problem to deal with your population size (through the government expenditure we oppose) because we don't allow you to go where the resources are to work for a living....

(on that latter point: in other words we have made capital and goods (wealth) able to move but not humans, and then we blame humans who try to follow resources so they can make a living after we've extracted said wealth from their nations)

...broadly speaking...
 
I think it's very disturbing what can happen with that fool in office !  :mad:

He makes enemies with everyone but most frightening with the "rotten core" and all the hidden powers in the US - I wouldn't wonder if they could get him killed in some way.  ;D

OR

Maybe "cultivate" the stories about his connections to Russia and make it a threat to the office and then force him to step down like Nixon was forced to do.  ;D

He CAN'T in no way fullfill what he had promised - no way !  ::) ::) ::) ::)

In all it's a very UN-curtain future for the ordinairy american and I wonder how they in the first place even beleaved what he said - he's NOT the kind of man for most americans !  :( :( :( :(
 
- Take what Banzai was saying into consideration first of all; that the west is or has been consuming a huge amount of resources and polluted tremendously over the years, all in the process of accumulating wealth...
Most of what he said was fair comment, but there is no point in arguing how we got to where we are now, our ancestors operated under different rules and morality.  It is our job to deal with the mess we've inherited, much like climate change.

These former colonies have been self governing for 50+ years, so at some stage they have to take responsibility.  Apparently the last president in the Gambia has relieved his treasury of $11 million dollars, a scenario we are all too familiar with.

This is a fictitious story to illustrate the problem.  Aliens arrive in human form from a civilization several hundred years in advance of our own.  They show us how to cure all known diseases, then they go away again.  Now we are faced with a population problem because the world is finite and it's food production capacity has limits.  Like the Chinese we are forced to institute population control or face mass starvation.

With the best of intentions, governments, aid agencies and NGO's are doing their best to bring health care to developing nations.  More children are surviving due to clean water provision as well.  The result is that a society that was largely self sustaining and agriculture based can no longer provide land for it's extra surviving young men so they migrate to the cities looking for work.  As work is not easy to find, they migrate hoping to find it elsewhere.

No-one wants to deny them health care or clean water, but my point is that our interventions have unbalanced a previously stable and sustainable lifestyle.  The developed world has tackled this same problem by birth control and our countries are largely full now, but still with some unemployment.  As an example: my great grandfather was one of 12, my grandfather one of 5 and my father one of 3, I was an only child.

My point is that we must have joined up aid that is tied to birth control or else we will be simply manufacturing an exponential problem for our children to deal with.  If this is added to future climate change, the problems will soon become insurmountable and there will be death and starvation on a Biblical scale until an equilibrium is reached.  Malthus did all the work on this 200 years ago, but we are very slow learners.  Quote: "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio."

DaveP
 
Focus on enemies that's nearby who will be a threat first ... the 1% and that monster in the office !

The 1% and that monster in the office uses all these "horror stories" to make most people busy while they can proceed fooling all !
 
With Trump's escalating war with the press, it brings up an argument I've had with people for years about the Citizen's United decision and efforts to overturn it with a constitutional amendment.
Yes, in a brief window of history it may seem that you would want to restrict the ability of corporations to make whatever media they want - especially when it is untrue and blatantly propaganda. Yes, it may be powerful in elections and lead to some undesirable outcomes.
But then you have such a political turn with a minority of people succeeding in electing a person like Trump to the Presidency. He is trying to instigate his own reality and "alternative facts" and seems willing to use anything in his disposal against opponents - the press, "intelligence".
Do we want a law on the books giving the executive standing to tell corporations they cannot print something? NYT, WSJ, PBS - these are all corporate structures.
A free press / free speech and a vigorous public dialog is fundamental to this countries persistence (and ideally, an informed public and that will distinguish lies from facts)
 
C.U. wouldn't have had the impact it did if we had 100% transparency for political donations.  Funneling money via tax-exempt 501(c)'s allows anyone (corporations included) to make unlimited donations without fear of disclosure (not specifically covered under the C.U. decision).

I think most people problems with C.U. are actually about the "dark money" phenomena more than anything else.
 
Back
Top