America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

The name of the town in Switzerland escapes me. It was a reporter that Sean Hanity interviewed on his podcast a couple weeks ago. The reporter shared his story as the authorities warned about going to a certain area that they avoid because of the opposition they received. He went anyways and ended up getting mugged. You can hear his whole first hand account if you like.

I'm not Swiss, sorry I might have been clear but I was asking about the UK.

 

[Pako]

I'm not Swiss, sorry I might have been clear but I was asking about the UK.

Oh, not sure about the U.K. Other than what problems I have seen on various news networks.

 

[Biggles]

What is also naive is turning a blind eye to the everyday concerns and fears of the common man. The common man that feels that a monolithic, elitist, remote and gargantuan conglomerate of political and business elites are busy lining their own pockets and pursuing their expensive globalist agenda on the backs of those very same common men and women. Globalism has it's problems all right, the main one being the little guy is feeling left out, like everyone is benefiting except him. His wages seem awfully stagnant but his taxes keep going up and up, his energy is more and more expensive, the price of food is rising, he's regulated up the wazoo. Worst, he's told to shut the hell up, that he doesn't know what he's talking about, that those very same elites know what is best for him and that they way he thinks is wrong, outdated, born of some notion of privilege that he's neither earned or deserved, he was simply born with it.

Ignore the common man at your own peril. History tells us that sooner or later he's going to rise up. It's already happened with Brexit and Trump. It may continue and the EU might fall. Who knows where we'll end up.

I don't disagree with any of this, what I don't agree with is the solutions put forward by Trump.

The unavoidable, underlying reality is this: the "little guy" you are talking about is a worker in the US - he is "privileged" - or at least he has been. Globally, there are now hundreds of millions of new "little men" who are willing to work harder & for less money. What is more, the education & infrastructure available to this new global working class has been rapidly improving, so that the advantages enjoyed by the working class in the US (& other 1st World countries) are disappearing. Why do these new global workers not have the right to pursue a better standard of living for themselves & their children? That's the basic promise of capitalism.

Trump's solution is to try & turn the clock back to a previous era (post WWII) when the US was overwhelmingly the dominant economic (& military & political) power in the world. Even with tariffs, US manufacturing businesses will not be able to compete in most arenas with Asian-made products & high tariffs would dramatically increase the cost of living for working & middle-class families in the US. Lowering business taxes would have some effect, but lowering taxes on the profit made by US businesses will not help business unable to make a profit by manufacturing in the US. Under Trumpism there will be a drive to reduce wages in the US & a mess of protectionist measures to help US businesses succeed ... & the inevitable cronyism that goes along with that. And on the end, other countries will introduce their own retaliatory measures that will result in less trade for everyone - a lose-lose proposition.

My expectation for globalization is that the low cost labour advantages enjoyed by Asian countries will diminish over time & the growing wealth in Asia will increasingly provide markets for global (including US) companies. At the same time, more economic security in Asia will lead to increasing demands for political freedom, worker rights & social democratic reforms.

 

[andrea]

Reuters: Republicans set to kill U.S. rules on corruption, environment, labor and guns next week

Congressional Republicans are set to overturn a slew of Obama-era regulations next week, including a controversial anti-bribery rule aimed at U.S. resource companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) and Chevron Corp (CVX.N), according to a top lawmaker.

After six years of legal battles, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in June approved the rule requiring companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. It will probably be killed swiftly with two simple congressional votes.

Other rules eyed for quick overturning by Congress include newly minted environmental, gun control and labor relations measures, sources said.

Earlier this month, McCarthy said the House would try to kill regulations protecting streams and forests from coal mining's impacts, curbing methane leaks on public lands, and requiring employers to report workers' information as part of an attempt to end pay discrimination.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Wednesday, he also added a rule expanding background checks on gun purchases for disabled Social Security recipients to the hit list, as well as the anti-bribery regulation.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

 

[Scaff]

Oh, not sure about the U.K. Other than what problems I have seen on various news networks.

Which stories on which news networks.

A number I've seen have been highly innacurate, if not outright nonsense. Such as Fox news stating that Birmingham was a Muslim only city, and none Muslims could not travel too. What was funny about that was going to Birmingham a few days latter for work.

As regards the Swiss story, I'd like to see the details before being able to comment more on it, but certainly a reporter getting mugged is a long way from an area the police don't go. Plenty of place the world over that a reporter could go and get mugged (and worse) without a refugee in sight.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The park service has gone rogue against comrade drumpf https://twitter.com/AltNatParkSer

Good.

 

[Parker]

Just a thought, but why is it okay for people to comment on and insult Trump because of his skin color (calling him a Dorito, orange and whatnot) but I don't think many people would be okay with doing that to Obama? I suspect that if people were to insult Obama because of the color of his skin they'd be called a racist.

Just a thought from reading various websites over the past couple of weeks.

 

[eran0004]

Meanwhile on Amazon, 1984 is back in business.

 

[Touring Mars]

Just a thought, but why is it okay for people to comment on and insult Trump because of his skin color (calling him a Dorito, orange and whatnot) but I don't think many people would be okay with doing that to Obama? I suspect that if people were to insult Obama because of the color of his skin they'd be called a racist.

Just a thought from reading various websites over the past couple of weeks.

Because skin colour itself is not especially important - it's racism that is not acceptable. Additionally, Trump's skin colour is (presumably) a matter of choice/lifestyle rather than an innate feature, hence it is something that most people consider fair game for poking fun at.

 

[ryzno]

Because skin colour itself is not especially important - it's racism that is not acceptable. Additionally, Trump's skin colour is (presumably) a matter of choice/lifestyle rather than an innate feature, hence it is something that most people consider fair game for poking fun at.

But is it not an insult and a personal attack? Or cause it's Trump it's ok?

 

[Parker]

Because skin colour itself is not especially important - it's racism that is not acceptable. Additionally, Trump's skin colour is (presumably) a matter of choice/lifestyle rather than an innate feature, hence it is something that most people consider fair game for poking fun at.

So as a moderator here if people referred to Obama as "darkie" or some other comment based on the color of his skin, nothing racist, would that be acceptable?

 

[huskeR32]

Just a thought, but why is it okay for people to comment on and insult Trump because of his skin color (calling him a Dorito, orange and whatnot) but I don't think many people would be okay with doing that to Obama?

Because his orange, overly-tanned skin is a result of personal choice, not to mention that it's an indicator of his vanity - something that a lot of people don't like about him.

Obama's on the other hand, quite obviously isn't a choice.

So as a moderator here if people referred to Obama as "darkie" or some other comment based on the color of his skin, nothing racist, would that be acceptable?

Of course not. Again, choice vs. not-a-choice.

I don't necessarily condone the jokes about Trump being "orange," but c'mon - it's quite obvious what the difference is.

 

[xyloscissor]

Healthcare is going to be the story for me to try and follow over the short term. The insurance companies are doing their best to keep their claws in us deep and are currently pandering to The Congress.

Health insurers quietly trying to help fix Obamacare

A replacement plan would need to include some type of bonus to entice healthy people to get insurance.That, they say, would be a step towards a good mix of sick and healthy people that will keep the plans profitable.

 

[Parker]

Because his orange, overly-tanned skin is a result of personal choice, not to mention that it's an indicator of his vanity - something that a lot of people don't like about him.

Obama's on the other hand, quite obviously isn't a choice.



Of course not. Again, choice vs. not-a-choice.

I don't necessarily condone the jokes about Trump being "orange," but c'mon - it's quite obvious what the difference is.

Personally, I don't think it matters at all. Either we allow comments and insults on the color of someone's skin or we don't. I don't think this website should allow it for Obama, Trump or anyone else.

 

[Pako]

Which stories on which news networks.

A number I've seen have been highly innacurate, if not outright nonsense. Such as Fox news stating that Birmingham was a Muslim only city, and none Muslims could not travel too. What was funny about that was going to Birmingham a few days latter for work.

As regards the Swiss story, I'd like to see the details before being able to comment more on it, but certainly a reporter getting mugged is a long way from an area the police don't go. Plenty of place the world over that a reporter could go and get mugged (and worse) without a refugee in sight.

The mugging wasn't proof of lack of authorities, the authorities warned him before he went there that the area he was going to, they would not enter. He went anyways.

Like I said, I heard it on Sean Hannity pod cast. They are still up if you want to find it. It was a couple weeks ago if memory serves.

 

[Pako]

The media accounts of events are largely ensationalized. For example, my experience of the inauguration was much different than what was portrayed by main stream media.

 

[ryzno]

Because his orange, overly-tanned skin is a result of personal choice, not to mention that it's an indicator of his vanity - something that a lot of people don't like about him.

Obama's on the other hand, quite obviously isn't a choice.



Of course not. Again, choice vs. not-a-choice.

I don't necessarily condone the jokes about Trump being "orange," but c'mon - it's quite obvious what the difference is.

So we should do everything in our power not to get a tan? Lol Im about as orange as him and pale as a ghost where I'm covered. It's along the lines of calling me a redneck over something I have no control over. And judging be his eyes he earned his tan.

 

[Touring Mars]

But is it not an insult and a personal attack?

It would not be considered a 'personal attack' unless it was directed at another GTP member.

So as a moderator here if people referred to Obama as "darkie" or some other comment based on the color of his skin, nothing racist, would that be acceptable?

"Darkie" is a racial slur where I live, so I would consider it a racist comment and therefore as not acceptable.

I can see your point, but context is important here - commenting about somebody's dodgy fake tan is not equivalent to a racial slur (i.e. an innate property versus an adopted one).

 

[polysmut]

It would not be considered a 'personal attack' unless it was directed at another GTP member.

I thought he was?
@Donald Trump
Please don't tell me it's not really him?

 

[huskeR32]

Personally, I don't think it matters at all.

It does matter, in a very very fundamental way.

Either we allow comments and insults on the color of someone's skin or we don't.

Poking fun at Trump's orange skin is much more comparable to making fun of Hillary's pantsuits. Out of curiosity, did you have similar objections to those comments?

Again - the difference between commenting on Trump's tan vs. Obama's natural skin color is massive.

If you advocate not allowing either, I'd be with you. But let's not pretend those two things are anything alike.

--

So we should do everything in our power not to get a tan? Lol

It's quite clearly a fake tan. So the only thing he needs to do is avoid the spray gun.

 

[xyloscissor]

If Trump identified himself as a cheeto it would be hands off right?

 

[Parker]

It does matter, in a very very fundamental way.



Poking fun at Trump's orange skin is much more comparable to making fun of Hillary's pantsuits. Out of curiosity, did you have similar objections to those comments?

Again - the difference between commenting on Trump's tan vs. Obama's natural skin color is massive.

If you advocate not allowing either, I'd be with you. But let's not pretend those two things are anything alike.

--



It's quite clearly a fake tan. So the only thing he needs to do is avoid the spray gun.

Yes, I think attacking the person instead of their position or policies is one of the reasons why politics in America is such a joke. I did advocate not allowing either, I don't think it has any place in what should be an intelligent discussion regarding this country.

 

[ryzno]

It would not be considered a 'personal attack' unless it was directed at another GTP member.



"Darkie" is a racial slur where I live, so I would consider it a racist comment and therefore as not acceptable.

I can see your point, but context is important here - commenting about somebody's dodgy fake tan is not equivalent to a racial slur (i.e. an innate property versus an adopted one).

That makes no sense, Neither are members here. Both terms can be found offensive...

 

[Dennisch]

I like how people have trouble typing Trump.

 

[huskeR32]

Both terms can be found offensive...

Sure. But there's a fundamental difference between insulting someone for a choice they make, rather than an attribute they're born with.

I'm honestly baffled by anyone who professes to not see that.

 

[Dennisch]

But what if Trump has a skin condition, giving him the carrot look.

 

[Biggles]

Trump has earned any comments about his ... err ... unnatural ... appearance. Trump made a point about insulting other people's appearance throughout his campaign: Rosie O'Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, Alicia Machado, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Heidi Cruz, even, somewhat bizarrely, Rand Paul.

 

[xyloscissor]

Trump has earned any comments about his ... err ... unnatural ... appearance. Trump made a point about insulting other people's appearance throughout his campaign: Rosie O'Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, Alicia Machado, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Heidi Cruz, even, somewhat bizarrely, Rand Paul.

It's always best when two wrongs make a right.

 

[Dotini]

Trump has issued a forest of executive orders doing all kinds of interesting things, and here we are like a bunch of 14 year-olds discussing his skin tone. But at least we aren't rehashing the election and emoting about our hurt personal feelings like a bunch of 55 year-old women.

I believe he is taking more actions than we can even comprehend! And some may be revolutionary, some may be brilliant, and some may be illegal or downright unconstitutional!

 

[Scaff]

The mugging wasn't proof of lack of authorities, the authorities warned him before he went there that the area he was going to, they would not enter. He went anyways.

Like I said, I heard it on Sean Hannity pod cast. They are still up if you want to find it. It was a couple weeks ago if memory serves.

Which seems rather anecdotal, and corroboration if that.

The media accounts of events are largely ensationalized. For example, my experience of the inauguration was much different than what was portrayed by main stream media.

I agree, which is why I found the certainty of your post odd.