The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mueller (and Trump's other targets) should sue*.


*Though I guess that's problematical right now.
 
ErranMorad said:
The discussion started with me replying to the hyperbole of the two statements below with some facts:

"America is simply a second tier nation by every metric other than how much money it has. It's a broken country."

"It's a disgusting country in so many ways. Remove California and it's also a pretty toothless one in terms of its level of importance to the world."

I replied to those outrageous statement with numbers that disapprove both.

No one is saying that America is without faults. In fact we'll need days to discuss it's flaws. Although that doesn't mean things are black and white. You should start from where the discussion started before making generalizations about me "coming off a little bit stereotypical American here with the whole ''murica is the best country in the world".

That poster portrayed America as some dystopian nightmare outside of California. Which is absolute and total horseshit. It shows lack of basic understanding of the country and it's structure. I did not make posts trying to defend America as the greatest country in the world. I merely pointed out to the absurdity of those claims.

As for the healthcare argument, I have already said that the system was not working and that is why Obamacare was a decent start, and Universal Health care is voting very high. I don't know where the poster got the idea the people are voting en masse to deny people healthcare. US is also at the forefront of medical innovation or research. It's by far the leading country. A balance needs to be found where the US doesn't lose it's edge in those areas.
Click to expand...

I replied to your post, which was exactly what I said it was. I don't need to read your entire post history to tell you how one post is coming off. With regards to the dystopian nightmare outside of California, now it's your turn to use hyperbole. With regards to healthcare, the US ranks 37th in the world and whilst you concede that Obamacare was a decent start, it's a fact that Republicans were vehemently against this, and supported en masse Trumps statements about getting rid of it. This classes as Republicans voting en masse to deny people healthcare, since that was the whole point of Obamacare and it was an objective of Trumps. I think once again, you're missing his point in talking about Republicans, and you're replying as if he's talking about Democrats included or the US population as a whole.
 
Dan said:
Click to expand...

I do worry that in the end Trump & his family will get hung out to dry by the establishment GOP like Pence and Sessions, who will largely escape what they deserve. But Sessions is such a vile person responsible for so many of the administration's worst policies, hopefully Trump being Trump ensures their mutual destruction.
 
NoLogo said:
Yeah that's what I meant. They basically took a term that was coined to for something that right wing propaganda on the net managed to sell as news and turned it against all of the "mainstream" media. It's pretty ingenious when you think about it.
Click to expand...
So a lot or people will believe them because they are against the system.
 
Zarlak said:
I replied to your post, which was exactly what I said it was. I don't need to read your entire post history to tell you how one post is coming off. With regards to the dystopian nightmare outside of California, now it's your turn to use hyperbole. With regards to healthcare, the US ranks 37th in the world and whilst you concede that Obamacare was a decent start, it's a fact that Republicans were vehemently against this, and supported en masse Trumps statements about getting rid of it. This classes as Republicans voting en masse to deny people healthcare, since that was the whole point of Obamacare and it was an objective of Trumps. I think once again, you're missing his point in talking about Republicans, and you're replying as if he's talking about Democrats included or the US population as a whole.
Click to expand...

What Zarlak/I said.

And the articles I referenced.
 
Zarlak said:
I replied to your post, which was exactly what I said it was. I don't need to read your entire post history to tell you how one post is coming off. With regards to the dystopian nightmare outside of California, now it's your turn to use hyperbole. With regards to healthcare, the US ranks 37th in the world and whilst you concede that Obamacare was a decent start, it's a fact that Republicans were vehemently against this, and supported en masse Trumps statements about getting rid of it. This classes as Republicans voting en masse to deny people healthcare, since that was the whole point of Obamacare and it was an objective of Trumps. I think once again, you're missing his point in talking about Republicans, and you're replying as if he's talking about Democrats included or the US population as a whole.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to read my entire post history. However, if someone decides to butt into a discussion then he/she needs to inform themselves about it.

"But lose California, the economic power, the electoral college votes that are owned by progressive people.... America would be a no-go zone inside a few decades."

No, not hyperbole. That's exactly what he said.

Voting to repeal ACA is not the same as being averse to decent healthcare; i.e if people only voted with only that single issue in mind. Usually your voting preference has to do with a variety of factors than one single issue. ACA was a good beginning, however it still has it's deficiencies. The individual mandate and people's premiums going up were a couple of reasons for it's unpopularity. Not everyone is well informed either. Then comes your point about conservatives aversion to a welfare state and nonacceptance of government interference in healthcare.

About republicans/democrats, how can I be missing any point when the guy keeps asserting that the US is a hellhole outside of California. Actually he is uninformed about even California. There are plenty of conservative/right wing areas in California too. In fact one it's most affluent, Orange County, has voted staunchly republican in the past.
 
Yes, California isn't all Dem. There are huge areas of conservativism like San Diego, OC, the Central Valley and the North. There have been many republican governors and Saint Reagan got his start here. But the population is majority democrat by a long way.
 
Grinner said:
Yes, California isn't all Dem. There are huge areas of conservativism like San Diego, OC, the Central Valley and the North. There have been many republican governors and Saint Reagan got his start here. But the population is majority democrat by a long way.
Click to expand...

Interesting article on Fresno:

The Atlantic said:
Eighty years after Helming published his report, the gulf between white, black, and brown residents remains embedded in the city’s geography. “Once you have a group of people segregated into a place you can take resources from that place,” said Amber Crowell, a Fresno State sociologist. “It creates a monster of social inequality that falls along racial lines, then it recreates itself. The boundaries are put in place and it automates itself from there.”

In the exclusive enclaves of north Fresno, life expectancy is 90 years. The neighborhoods are some of California’s richest, on par with parts of Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills. In the city’s south and southwest, Fresnans live, on average, 20 years less. There’s more concentrated poverty there than nearly anywhere else in America.


“We’ve done a very good job at sectioning off the poor,” said Matthew Jendian, chair of Fresno State’s sociology department. “We do that better than almost any other place in the country. And it’s not by accident.”

Segregation here is older than the city itself, dating to its post-Gold Rush-era founding.

Settled by homesteaders and land speculators, Fresno developed around a railroad station in a pattern so common in the rapidly industrializing country that it has since become a cliché: the poorest residents, and residents who were not white, were forced to live, literally, on the other side of the tracks. At an 1873 town meeting, Fresno’s white residents agreed not to rent, sell or lease any land east of the railroad tracks, where they and their families lived, to Chinese immigrants—many of whom built the very tracks that cut them off from the rest of Fresno.

This set in motion “the creation of a segregated ghetto that has lasted to the present day,” according to a paper by Ramón Chacón, a historian who grew up in west Fresno and researched racism and segregation in his hometown.
Click to expand...

aca29ef24.jpg

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation used this redlining map to preserve segregation in Fresno. The areas shaded red were home to an "undesirable" population. (Courtesy of T-RACES, University of Maryland)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/fresnos-segregation/567299/
 
Fresno is country-ass MFers. Lots of big ag and oil down there.

As for segregated housing, LA had the same in the post-war period which indirectly led to the rise of gangs down there.
 
Dan said:
“Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller” - he’s ramping up the attacks.

Seems he’s also given up redoing tweets because he keeps getting ‘counsel’ wrong.
Click to expand...

First time he's actually come after Mueller in that sense? Usually he's sprouting rubbish in a non direct way but that seemed very directly at him.
 
Dan said:
“Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller” - he’s ramping up the attacks.

Seems he’s also given up redoing tweets because he keeps getting ‘counsel’ wrong.
Click to expand...

He'd better be careful because that alliteration works much better with Donald than Bob.

"Disgraced and discredited Donny 'Treasonous' Trump"
 
ErranMorad said:
I didn't ask you to read my entire post history. However, if someone decides to butt into a discussion then he/she needs to inform themselves about it.

"But lose California, the economic power, the electoral college votes that are owned by progressive people.... America would be a no-go zone inside a few decades."

No, not hyperbole. That's exactly what he said.

Voting to repeal ACA is not the same as being averse to decent healthcare; i.e if people only voted with only that single issue in mind. Usually your voting preference has to do with a variety of factors than one single issue. ACA was a good beginning, however it still has it's deficiencies. The individual mandate and people's premiums going up were a couple of reasons for it's unpopularity. Not everyone is well informed either. Then comes your point about conservatives aversion to a welfare state and nonacceptance of government interference in healthcare.

About republicans/democrats, how can I be missing any point when the guy keeps asserting that the US is a hellhole outside of California. Actually he is uninformed about even California. There are plenty of conservative/right wing areas in California too. In fact one it's most affluent, Orange County, has voted staunchly republican in the past.
Click to expand...

You're just being stuborn/obtuse at this point. What was meant was quite clear and it's only you that wants to split hairs over it. People didn't vote against ACA because it had deficiencies, the Republicans that we're talking about didn't even know that Obamacare was ACA - they just wanted it gone because it was Obamacare and they dislike anything to do with the man. How many examples did you see afterwards when they realised that actually it was their ACA they were losing which they realised they actually needed? By voting en masse to repeal something that gives access to healthcare without a replacement, you are voting en masse for the removal of healthcare. That may not be the singular reason you're voting for it, but you're still voting for that. If the president says he's going to nuke North Korea if elected, and he's elected, then you voted for nuking North Korea. You knew it was what was going to happen, and you voted for it which means on a level you accept it. Whether or not you voted soley for that is irrelevant, if you voted for his economic policy you still voted to nuke North Korea because you knew it was going to happen. You just figured that that issue was enough to overlook/accept because of the benefits of the reasons you primarily voted for him which would be worth more to you than not nuking North Korea. This is common sense but you're splitting hairs over it continuously.

Also let's not have the embarrassing conversation about whether California is a majorly democratic state or not. You can point to right wing areas of California just as I can point out Democrats in Texas, it doesn't make Texas a blue state. You're bringing semantics into a general point, when the whole point of generalising is that it doesn't encompass everybody and there are always exceptions.
 
There's also the fact that a single issue is often a crucial factor. For example, in this 2012 poll 17% of Americans say they won't vote for someone who doesn't share their view on abortion.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx

Jobs are almost certainly the overwhelming issue for other voters, for example those coal workers Trump sucked up to. And, of course, there was also the single issue of Anyone But Hillary for other voters.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
There's also the fact that a single issue is often a crucial factor. For example, in this 2012 poll 17% of Americans say they won't vote for someone who doesn't share their view on abortion.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx

Jobs are almost certainly the overwhelming issue for other voters, for example those coal workers Trump sucked up to. And, of course, there was also the single issue of Anyone But Hillary for other voters.
Click to expand...

Trump played the single issue card to perfection in 2016. He promised every single issue group the world and for the most part there was nothing to actually deliver.
 
Zarlak said:
You're just being stuborn/obtuse at this point. What was meant was quite clear and it's only you that wants to split hairs over it. People didn't vote against ACA because it had deficiencies, the Republicans that we're talking about didn't even know that Obamacare was ACA - they just wanted it gone because it was Obamacare and they dislike anything to do with the man. How many examples did you see afterwards when they realised that actually it was their ACA they were losing which they realised they actually needed? By voting en masse to repeal something that gives access to healthcare without a replacement, you are voting en masse for the removal of healthcare. That may not be the singular reason you're voting for it, but you're still voting for that. If the president says he's going to nuke North Korea if elected, and he's elected, then you voted for nuking North Korea. You knew it was what was going to happen, and you voted for it which means on a level you accept it. Whether or not you voted soley for that is irrelevant, if you voted for his economic policy you still voted to nuke North Korea because you knew it was going to happen. You just figured that that issue was enough to overlook/accept because of the benefits of the reasons you primarily voted for him which would be worth more to you than not nuking North Korea. This is common sense but you're splitting hairs over it continuously.

Also let's not have the embarrassing conversation about whether California is a majorly democratic state or not. You can point to right wing areas of California just as I can point out Democrats in Texas, it doesn't make Texas a blue state. You're bringing semantics into a general point, when the whole point of generalising is that it doesn't encompass everybody and there are always exceptions.
Click to expand...
@ErranMorad was right, at least initially. Acting as though California is the only redeeming factor in the US from an economic and/or moral perspective is absurd. As is calling the US a 2nd tier nation.

It displays a complete lack of perspective.
 
Zarlak said:
If the president says he's going to nuke North Korea if elected, and he's elected, then you voted for nuking North Korea. You knew it was what was going to happen, and you voted for it which means on a level you accept it. Whether or not you voted soley for that is irrelevant, if you voted for his economic policy you still voted to nuke North Korea because you knew it was going to happen.
Click to expand...

excellent. glad to have your support for not voting hillary
 
Organic Potatoes said:
@ErranMorad was right, at least initially. Acting as though California is the only redeeming factor in the US from an economic and/or moral perspective is absurd. As is calling the US a 2nd tier nation.

It displays a complete lack of perspective.
Click to expand...

What...you don't think the US would turn into a dystopian Mad Max style wasteland 10 years after California secedes ? ;)
 
Raoul said:
What...you don't think the US would turn into a dystopian Mad Max style wasteland 10 years after California secedes ? ;)
Click to expand...

A secession chain would be historically interesting. Texas would definitely secede if California did. It could eventually lead to:
Pacific Union (California, Oregon, Washington and Las Vegas)
Texas (Texas plus border towns that associate with Texas)
Confederacy (the old South)
Yankees (New York and New England)
New USA (Great Lakes to Rocky Mountain states)
Quebec (on its own from Canada)
Chiapas (on its own from Mexico)
 
Mike Teevee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.