America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,920 comments
  • 1,803,639 views
Environmentalist Ethos: Buy local, mostly voluntarily (I'm sure there are some militant corners that would enforce it if possible)
Reason: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions I presume (I'm sure Ocean pollution and other things factor in as well)
​
Trump Ethos: Buy American by decree
Reason: Ethno-nationalism, xenophobia, racism, misguided/disingenuous economic policy
​
There's overlap in the result, but its coincidental. For an environmentalist to celebrate Trump's globalism/multilateral crackdown, they would necessarily need to also celebrate the reasoning for it. Largely, I don't imagine they would be inclined to do that, so it's reasonable that they will just not be vocal about the issue and continue on as usual, buying their kale from their local kale guy. Or whatever.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Environmentalist Ethos: Buy local, mostly voluntarily (I'm sure there are some militant corners that would enforce it if possible)
Reason: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions I presume (I'm sure Ocean pollution and other things factor in as well)
​
Trump Ethos: Buy American by decree
Reason: Ethno-nationalism, xenophobia, racism, misguided/disingenuous economic policy
​
There's overlap in the result, but its coincidental. For an environmentalist to celebrate Trump's globalism/multilateral crackdown, they would necessarily need to also celebrate the reasoning for it. Largely, I don't imagine they would be inclined to do that, so it's reasonable that they will just not be vocal about the issue and continue on as usual, buying their kale from their local kale guy. Or whatever.
Click to expand...

Nope.

You do not need to celebrate the reason to celebrate the result. There's more of a mix in there when it comes to force vs. voluntary for buying "locally" (left-wing phrasing) or "American" (right-wing phrasing). Plenty of "Made in America" types are all for voluntary forms of patriotic consumerism. Many environmentalists are all for force (in the form of government regulations).

I agree that the result is coincidental, but there is some sort of natural barrier that keeps green folks from saying "buy American". They say "buy local" all day long. But "buy American" just doesn't roll off the tongue.

Edit:

I get that "buy local" can mean a much smaller picture than on the national level. But for goods around the world, America is "local" for Americans. What they mean is buy as local as possible, and I'd just expect that to lend support to Made in America.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Nope.

You do not need to celebrate the reason to celebrate the result. There's more of a mix in there when it comes to force vs. voluntary for buying "locally" (left-wing phrasing) or "American" (right-wing phrasing). Plenty of "Made in America" types are all for voluntary forms of patriotic consumerism. Many environmentalists are all for force (in the form of government regulations).

I agree that the result is coincidental, but there is some sort of natural barrier that keeps green folks from saying "buy American". They say "buy local" all day long. But "buy American" just doesn't roll off the tongue.
Click to expand...

If their overwhelming, highest priority is resisting Trump (essentially the biggest threat to their worldview and even identity), than I think its reasonable for them to downplay more finite positions, to that end. Its the long game. "Buy American", is, as you say, a right wing slogan. For a left wing person to use that phrase is tantamount to existential infidelity. Opposing everything about the monster (Trump) is more important than being conflicted by areas of shared interest.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
If their overwhelming, highest priority is resisting Trump (essentially the biggest threat to their worldview and even identity), than I think its reasonable for them to downplay more finite positions, to that end. Its the long game. "Buy American", is, as you say, a right wing slogan. For a left wing person to use that phrase is tantamount to existential infidelity. Opposing everything about the monster (Trump) is more important than being conflicted by areas of shared interest.
Click to expand...

I think you just described partisan politics quite nicely.
 
Danoff
I think you just described partisan politics quite nicely.
Click to expand...

This may just be my opinion, but I think it transcends merely partisan politics specifically for Donald Trump. He does not represent the usual condition, I think you would agree. I know my perspective is skewed by my limited time frame, but have we ever had such a self-serving president? I think he is uncommonly dangerous (again, beyond mere partisan perspective, beyond even policy itself - I genuinely think the man would sacrifice every US citizen - every man, woman, and child if it meant saving himself) and I think the majority in the democratic party probably feel the same. Put another way:

Donald Trump Distrust/Opposition from the Left: 98% personality, 2% partisan
Mitch McConnell Distrust/Opposition from the Left: 75% personality, 25% partisan
Rand Paul Distrust/Opposition from the left: 25% personality, 75% partisan (Ok I'm just spitballing this one)

As I saw the Obama presidency more from the context of the right (I lived in Texas mostly during his time) I perceived most of his distrust from the right was partisan (or flat out capital R RACIST). I always felt like people really reached for reasons to dislike him: Tan Suit episode, Bicycle Helmet Episode, Mustard on Hamburger Episode which, to me, belied a lack of substantial/legitimate opposition. I say that as somebody who did oppose Obama (at least at the beginning). I heard people over and over claim without a trace of satire that Obama was literally Satan. Now I understand that Obamacare was a large expansion of entitlements and was worth debating on merit, but Satan? I found myself always in the position of, "yeah I disagree with his policy...but damn you people hate this guy for some pretty awful reasons".

TL;DR: Complete opposition of DT45, even if it is against one's own interest in select areas, is not unreasonable and I think beyond partisan politics .... because DT45. Why? Because bigger things are at stake.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
This may just be my opinion, but I think it transcends merely partisan politics specifically for Donald Trump. He does not represent the usual condition, I think you would agree. I know my perspective is skewed by my limited time frame, but have we ever had such a self-serving president? I think he is uncommonly dangerous (again, beyond mere partisan perspective, beyond even policy itself - I genuinely think the man would sacrifice every US citizen - every man, woman, and child if it meant saving himself) and I think the majority in the democratic party probably feel the same. Put another way:

Donald Trump Distrust/Opposition from the Left: 98% personality, 2% partisan
Mitch McConnell Distrust/Opposition from the Left: 75% personality, 25% partisan
Rand Paul Distrust/Opposition from the left: 25% personality, 75% partisan (Ok I'm just spitballing this one)

As I saw the Obama presidency more from the context of the right (I lived in Texas mostly during his time) I perceived most of his distrust from the right was partisan (or flat out capital R RACIST). I always felt like people really reached for reasons to dislike him: Tan Suit episode, Bicycle Helmet Episode, Mustard on Hamburger Episode which, to me, belied a lack of substantial/legitimate opposition. I say that as somebody who did oppose Obama (at least at the beginning). I heard people over and over claim without a trace of satire that Obama was literally Satan. Now I understand that Obamacare was a large expansion of entitlements and was worth debating on merit, but Satan? I found myself always in the position of, "yeah I disagree with his policy...but damn you people hate this guy for some pretty awful reasons".

TL;DR: Complete opposition of DT45, even if it is against one's own interest in select areas, is not unreasonable and I think beyond partisan politics .... because DT45. Why? Because bigger things are at stake.
Click to expand...

Ok but... as you rightly point out... Obama was deeply hated by many. As deeply as people hate trump now (although admittedly not with the same numbers). My point is this is what partisan politics looks like now. Deep-seeded, personal, unwavering demonization of the other side. And it's not even specific to America, the UK seems to be having their own version.
 
Danoff
Ok but... as you rightly point out... Obama was deeply hated by many. As deeply as people hate trump now (although admittedly not with the same numbers). My point is this is what partisan politics looks like now. Deep-seeded, personal, unwavering demonization of the other side. And it's not even specific to America, the UK seems to be having their own version.
Click to expand...

I won't argue with "Deep-seeded, personal, unwavering demonization". But I don't think Trump represents the Other Side (the Other Side being the GOP, not the RHCP jam) to liberals, rather he represents only himself as an agent of chaos. While Obama was certainly more than a faceless embodiment of the democratic party, I still think he overwhelmingly represented the concept of successful liberalism...which is why people hated him at the end of the day (other than that he was Black). Trump doesn't represent conservatism, not by a long shot. He represents Trump and chaos. The partisanship I do see is not directed towards Trump, but directed towards congress, but I think that is significantly a result of the GOP enabling him, rather than outright, normal partisanship.

People hated Obama because he was liberal (and black) - Partisanship & Racism
People hate Trump because he is a narcissistic maniac - Genuine Anxiety (IMO)

I'm generalizing of course but I'm trying to articulate the idea that Trump is an outlier and the hatred of him is unique in that it is largely not partisan (I mean, just look at the uncommonly large & fierce opposition to him is parts of the right) compared to his predecessors where opposition/hatred to them was substantially more partisan. To give another example, I always felt like the hatred of GWB was oversold and highly partisan in a way very similar to BHO.

Of course, many probably said exactly the same thing about Obama that I'm now saying about Trump. So at the end of the day:

giphy.gif
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I won't argue with "Deep-seeded, personal, unwavering demonization". But I don't think Trump represents the Other Side (the Other Side being the GOP, not the RHCP jam) to liberals, rather he represents only himself as an agent of chaos. While Obama was certainly more than a faceless embodiment of the democratic party, I still think he overwhelmingly represented the concept of successful liberalism...which is why people hated him at the end of the day (other than that he was Black). Trump doesn't represent conservatism, not by a long shot. He represents Trump and chaos. The partisanship I do see is not directed towards Trump, but directed towards congress, but I think that is significantly a result of the GOP enabling him, rather than outright, normal partisanship.

People hated Obama because he was liberal (and black) - Partisanship & Racism
People hate Trump because he is a narcissistic maniac - Genuine Anxiety (IMO)

I'm generalizing of course but I'm trying to articulate the idea that Trump is an outlier and the hatred of him is unique in that it is largely not partisan (I mean, just look at the uncommonly large & fierce opposition to him is parts of the right) compared to his predecessors where opposition/hatred to them was substantially more partisan. To give another example, I always felt like the hatred of GWB was oversold and highly partisan in a way very similar to BHO.

Of course, many probably said exactly the same thing about Obama that I'm now saying about Trump. So at the end of the day:

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

People said Bush Jr. was the antichrist. I think you need to come to terms with the fact that Trump represents the Republican party today.

Edit:

It's a strange sort of apology you're offering for the Republicans to shield them from blame over Trump. They're married, the wedding was a few years back. They don't get to sidestep his behavior.
 
Danoff
People said Bush Jr. was the antichrist. I think you need to come to terms with the fact that Trump represents the Republican party today.
Click to expand...

Please let me cling to hope that there might still be a moderate, reasonable Republican party out there somewhere. You wouldn't take that away from me, would you?
 
Danoff
Which part? The last two sentences were sarcastic, the first two are basically inescapable given Trump.
Click to expand...
Okay...so the whole thing, but then it also read as a complete thought; and taken as a complete thought, the latter didn't read as sarcasm. In hindsight, armed with that information, I apologize "if" (it's not a particularly big if) my response was overly argumentative.

Edit: Gah! There were other things I wanted to address but I posted prematurely. I'll do so in a future post.
 
I'm curious to know whether any other US President used the presidency to prop up his own businesses. Or at the very least... so brazenly.

Somehow I doubt that Jimmy Carter demanded that all peanuts at White House shindigs were from his family's peanut farms but any factual examples would be welcome.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
I'm curious to know whether any other US President used the presidency to prop up his own businesses. Or at the very least... so brazenly.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I think there are five or six presidents in history who've owned businesses, surely the value of those businesses has increased through association with their presidency. But as brazenly? No, he does the brazenisting by a country club mile.
 
TenEightyOne
That's the thing, I think there are five or six presidents in history who've owned businesses, surely the value of those businesses has increased through association with their presidency. But as brazenly? No, he does the brazenisting by a country club mile.
Click to expand...

Do you think he at least issue discounts to the government?
 
PocketZeven
Do you think he at least issue discounts to the government?
Click to expand...
According to 1 article, he cut-rated the rooms and allowed free... rounds of golf.

I'm not a serviceman, but I don't see where they'd have much time for 18 holes if they're only there to refuel over night.
 
TenEightyOne
What would that have to do with it?
Click to expand...

I guess if he could demonstrate that he was providing services or goods at cost (or below cost), then that would be much less of a conflict of interest. With major events like the G7 there's still the added brand value, but at least then he wouldn't be directly profiting from his ability to direct the government to give money to his companies.
 
McLaren
According to 1 article, he cut-rated the rooms and allowed free... rounds of golf.

I'm not a serviceman, but I don't see where they'd have much time for 18 holes if they're only there to refuel over night.
Click to expand...

629 fuel purchases is a lot of flights, that suggests at least 629 crew (likely at least five times that) will have overnighted there, and a cut-rate room in the Trump hotel is probably still far from a cut-price Travelodge. The tell will come if his resort starts making money instead of losing it.

Imari
I guess if he could demonstrate that he was providing services or goods at cost (or below cost), then that would be much less of a conflict of interest. With major events like the G7 there's still the added brand value, but at least then he wouldn't be directly profiting from his ability to direct the government to give money to his companies.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what a place to put them. And why make the layovers there rather than at one of the US military airfields that have fuel and accommodation?

You can see why a cynic might think he's spending the country's money on propping up an airport that's going bust because it's central to saving the golf resort that runs at a loss.
 
TenEightyOne
You can see why a cynic might think he's spending the country's money on propping up an airport that's going bust because it's central to saving the golf resort that runs at a loss.
Click to expand...

I can see why an optimist might think he's spending the country's money on propping up and airport that's going bust because it's central to saving the golf resort that runs at a loss. Because that's just about the only reasonable and rational explanation for the military not taking advantage of military facilities.
 
TenEightyOne
What would that have to do with it?
Click to expand...

McLaren
According to 1 article, he cut-rated the rooms and allowed free... rounds of golf.

I'm not a serviceman, but I don't see where they'd have much time for 18 holes if they're only there to refuel over night.
Click to expand...

Nothing relevant. Just curious how greedy the Trump's are. It seems they have at least some morality in receiving taxdollars, instead of squeezing out as much as they can.

edit: added quote.
 
Last edited:
Rallywagon
It appears his resort benefited greatly. Surely this alone would be enough to secure an impeachment?
Click to expand...

You'd think, but impeachment relies on the idea that those who are responsible for implementing said impeachment value that responsibility over, say, partisan politics.

It's possible that Trump could do something so obviously awful that even the Republicans would be forced to turn against him, but in 2019 I don't think enriching himself through military spending is it. Which says a fair bit about how out of whack the system has become, but then again I don't think anyone thinks that politics is in a particularly good place right now. It's just that most people (politicians and otherwise) seem to think that the solution lies in destroying the other side at any cost, instead of working together for the benefit of the country.

America as a whole benefits from a system where senior politicians are held to account for acting against the country's interests, and ultimately some politician is going to have to take a fall to prove that it's enforceable. It's probably better if it happens sooner rather than later, before something really catastrophic happens.
 
Imari
It's possible that Trump could do something so obviously awful that even the Republicans would be forced to turn against him, but in 2019 I don't think enriching himself through military spending is it.
Click to expand...

But imagine if a Democrat did that?!?!

I know, I know it's so cliche to flipside something like that in an almost whatabboutist sort of way but it's so depressingly true.
 
Liquid
But imagine if a Democrat did that?!?!

I know, I know it's so cliche to flipside something like that in an almost whatabboutist sort of way but it's so depressingly true.
Click to expand...
Its the ol' "do as I say, not as I do."
 
Compared to how things were a few generations ago, our politics has become unbelievably corrupted. Corrupted most obviously by corporate lobbying, but maybe other ways too. Scary and depressing, or abounding with hope and opportunity?
 
Liquid
I'm curious to know whether any other US President used the presidency to prop up his own businesses. Or at the very least... so brazenly.
Click to expand...

Seeing as no-one was able to come up with anything (or cared) I decided to do some research anyway.

Most Presidents of the United States (26/45 - a whopping 58%) had lawyer as their non-political occupation. Only four are listed as having "businessman" as their occupation; Harry Truman, George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr and Donald Trump; Trump we all know about by now but Truman was a farmer and county judge, Bush Sr was an oil magnate and Bush Jr also worked in energy as well as owning a sports team.

As @TenEightyOne said, name value alone for their firms would lead to an increase in business but that's not the same as directly using your own businesses in the line of federal work or charging Presidential activities, business or pleasure, to your companies. It is obviously difficult to to prove whether any President actively profiteered their businesses in their capacity as President but from what I have been able to see, pretty much every other President had given up their professional business career when they entered politics and that leads to the crux of this echo chamber discussion; all the other Presidents were either in politics or the military already. They'd left their business careers behind and some, but not even all, only went back to them after their Presidencies were over. Even the other three listed as "businessmen" held political office before becoming President; Truman was Vice President, Bush was Vice President as well as a former DCI and Bush Jr was a state governor.

The only case where I found that in-office profiteering might have been possible would have been Herbert Hoover, who was a mining engineer, but almost all of his mining interests were abroad; Australia, England and Russia.

It seems that President Golf has once again set a new standard all of his own.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
618K
Strittan
Strittan
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
449 450 451
Replies
14K
Views
743K
TPGRacing75
T
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
792
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back