'Murica! (238 Viewers)

[Zacheryah]

You do know sowell can't stand Trump

I know and i agree with Sowell, not Trump. I have said that like 10+ times in the past 5 pages now.


I differ in opinion on trump's economic plan. But i want to see how it works out and if we can learn something new.


But if he wants to negotiate trade deals cause he can do better, he should. I expect nothing less from the leaders of my country.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[KB824]

In one of Trump rallies he said "Obama's divided the country for the last 8 years", the guy who was filming shouted "yessss, fuck that nigger"

Reminded me of you.

- - - Updated - - -
@swag, @Enron do you guys know any Trump supporters who are decent (but not necessarily intelligent) human beings? Serious question.

My father and my brother in law, and not only are they decent, they are intelligent as well. My brother in law's distrust for Clinton is a result of personal contact that he and his sister (Marine and New Hampshire State Police officer, respectively) have had with her whenever she was in New Hampshire. Her utter disrespect that she showed them , while they were in uniform, was enough for him. My father was a staunch Democrat until the Carter Administration.

All three of us are Republicans, but they and myself are on diametrically opposing viewpoints of this president.

 

[Nzoric]

As a European viewing it from our perspective, I need to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. A cessation of the hitherto US foreign policies is by default much better for Europe than had Clinton been allowed to continue in the same vain.

On the fate of the American people, well - that's a secondary concern for me. The planned parenthood funding is terrible for US women and there will be a lot more restriction on core liberties. But, he was voted president and he is following the path he campaigned on - tyranny of the majority sucks but it is the basis of our democracies.

 

[Ocelot]

As a European viewing it from our perspective, I need to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. A cessation of the hitherto US foreign policies is by default much better for Europe than had Clinton been allowed to continue in the same vain.

On the fate of the American people, well - that's a secondary concern for me. The planned parenthood funding is terrible for US women and there will be a lot more restriction on core liberties. But, he was voted president and he is following the path he campaigned on - tyranny of the majority sucks but it is the basis of our democracies.

Is it? I'd argue the opposite, at least for European post-WWII democracies. Admittedly, the US might be a bit different, theory and practice have differed a lot more over there historically, with slavery and what not.

Also, stuff like his tax plan could be pretty bad for Europe (race to the bottom), and I wouldn't put it past his administration to really ignite conflicts with Iran, plus geopolitical instability is never good thing, and Trump brings plenty of it.

 

[Seven]

Is it? I'd argue the opposite, at least for European post-WWII democracies. Admittedly, the US might be a bit different, theory and practice have differed a lot more over there historically, with slavery and what not.

Also, stuff like his tax plan could be pretty bad for Europe (race to the bottom), and I wouldn't put it past his administration to really ignite conflicts with Iran, plus geopolitical instability is never good thing, and Trump brings plenty of it.

Yup. So would I. But his point definitely stands for the US imo.

 

[Nzoric]

Is it? I'd argue the opposite, at least for European post-WWII democracies. Admittedly, the US might be a bit different, theory and practice have differed a lot more over there historically, with slavery and what not.

Also, stuff like his tax plan could be pretty bad for Europe (race to the bottom), and I wouldn't put it past his administration to really ignite conflicts with Iran, plus geopolitical instability is never good thing, and Trump brings plenty of it.

Should have said 'their democracy' - a slip on my behalf.

I'm honestly interested in an explanation to your last point, regarding geopolitical instability. I see plenty mention of it but no reasonable arguments. If anything, his isolationalism and outspoken willingness to cooperate with Russia rather than carry on the brinksmanship is an indicator that he brings geopolitical stability with him, if anything.

 

[Ocelot]

Should have said 'their democracy' - a slip on my behalf.

I'm honestly interested in an explanation to your last point, regarding geopolitical instability. I see plenty mention of it but no reasonable arguments. If anything, his isolationalism and outspoken willingness to cooperate with Russia rather than carry on the brinksmanship is an indicator that he brings geopolitical stability with him, if anything.

First of all, Trump and his cabinet doesn't really have a clearly formulated geopolitical vision - on the one hand, he advocates for more isolated policies, condemned the Iraq invasion and wants to reduce support for Nato. On the other hand, he takes an extremely hard line when it comes to Iran, and wants to "bomb the shit out of ISIS".

Also, there are plenty of differences between his comments, and the ones of his cabined and adviser's picks. His secretary of defense for example is much more supportive of Nato, extremely critical of Putin, and approved of the Iran deal. There's at times very little coherence.

Not to mention the obvious issues of Trump's temperament, and what that could lead to in a moment of crisis.

 

[Seven]

First of all, Trump and his cabinet doesn't really have a clearly formulated geopolitical vision - on the one hand, he advocates for more isolated policies, condemned the Iraq invasion and wants to reduce support for Nato. On the other hand, he takes an extremely hard line when it comes to Iran, and wants to "bomb the shit out of ISIS".

Also, there are plenty of differences between his comments, and the ones of his cabined and adviser's picks. His secretary of defense for example is much more supportive of Nato, extremely critical of Putin, and approved of the Iran deal. There's at times very little coherence.

Not to mention the obvious issues of Trump's temperament, and what that could lead to in a moment of crisis.

Although that is somewhat countered by the fact that everyone knows Trump just talks out of his ass all the time. If other countries don't take him too seriously, it'll be easier for them to let some of his more insane comments slide.

 

[Post Ironic]

You're the one who just said democrats are exclusively to blame for all problems African Americans face today.

Seriously, it's as if you've had no education whatsoever when it comes to politics or world history.

He's embarrassingly ignorant, and what's worse is he's shameless and deluded about it. Zach seems to think his biochemistry studies qualify him as an educated experd in every field... when in reality all he's doing here is perfectly illustrating the dire need for a well-rounded education with a dedicated humanities and social sciences aspect.

His posts here are cringeworthy beyond belief. I can go through a laundry list of policies and actions by the Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr administrations that directly affected and hurt African Americans... and another laundry list of policies and actions by those administrations that indirectly hurt that community through attacks on the middle class and impoverished... but Zach wants to harp on and on about what the Dems did. Let's just ignore republican gutting of low-income housing funding. Reagan gutted it from 33b to 8b in his tenure alone. Or the destruction of the Civil Rights Commission by the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations. Or Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr administrations attacks on public education which exacerbate the issues facing the poor and creating much worse social stratification by disallowing the possibility of access to good education and the ability to climb the class ladder with it. Reagan staunchly opposed the Martin Luther King holiday bill and called the guy a communist ffs.


But noooooo. It's all the Dems and the lefties. What's hilarious is guys like Andy and Zach call out liberals/lefties and literally blanket blame them for every issue in America today, and then try to call them out for blaming the right for everything. Well, everyone in this thread who identifies as centre left is more than willing to apportion blame and lay lots at the feet of the democrats and liberal politics. At the very least we understand that both parties have made mistakes, have lied and manipulated, have supported policies and acted in ways that have led to the current situation in America vis a vis poverty, racial issues, the economy, education, etc.

Zach and Andy on the other hand spend their time laying exclusive blame at the feet of ".whiny libtards."

And it's just like Trump blaming Obama exclusively for a divided America and failing to mention that the Republican controlled congress is just as much to blame for refusing to work with the sitting president.

Intellectual dishonesty and ignorance at its finest.

 

[Hængebøffer]

You do know sowell can't stand Trump

Of course. He used to be a Marxist.

at Zach talking about "leftish" people. They are right wing compared to European standards.

 

[Seven]

He's embarrassingly ignorant, and what's worse is he's shameless and deluded about it. Zach seems to think his biochemistry studies qualify him as an educated experd in every field... when in reality all he's doing here is perfectly illustrating the dire need for a well-rounded education with a dedicated humanities and social sciences aspect.

Yes. He's coming at this with seemingly no background whatsoever. The naivety of a first grader too.

 

[Zacheryah]

"i want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns" - Moens, Libertarian party of canada

 

[Seven]

"i want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns" - Moens, Libertarian party of canada

I thought Obama wanted more gun control and the republicans did not.

You make zero sense right now.

And just so you know, Canada and the USA are two seperate countries.

 

[Enron]

Still can't get over how dems registered 3 million illegals to vote and still lost the election.

 

[Zacheryah]

I thought Obama wanted more gun control and the republicans did not.

You make zero sense right now.

And just so you know, Canada and the USA are two seperate countries.

You might want to read that again.

- - - Updated - - -

Still can't get over how dems registered 3 million illegals to vote and still lost the election.

Because Russia hacked the election obviously, hence the recount

 

[Ocelot]

"i want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns" - Moens, Libertarian party of canada

....and what exactly is your point relating to this discussion?

Of course. He used to be a Marxist.

at Zach talking about "leftish" people. They are right wing compared to European standards.

Honestly depends on what part of politics you're talking about. Economically, or when it comes to stuff like patriotism for sure.

Gay rights on the hand not so much.

- - - Updated - - -

Spoiler

He's embarrassingly ignorant, and what's worse is he's shameless and deluded about it. Zach seems to think his biochemistry studies qualify him as an educated experd in every field... when in reality all he's doing here is perfectly illustrating the dire need for a well-rounded education with a dedicated humanities and social sciences aspect.

His posts here are cringeworthy beyond belief. I can go through a laundry list of policies and actions by the Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr administrations that directly affected and hurt African Americans... and another laundry list of policies and actions by those administrations that indirectly hurt that community through attacks on the middle class and impoverished... but Zach wants to harp on and on about what the Dems did. Let's just ignore republican gutting of low-income housing funding. Reagan gutted it from 33b to 8b in his tenure alone. Or the destruction of the Civil Rights Commission by the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations. Or Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr administrations attacks on public education which exacerbate the issues facing the poor and creating much worse social stratification by disallowing the possibility of access to good education and the ability to climb the class ladder with it. Reagan staunchly opposed the Martin Luther King holiday bill and called the guy a communist ffs.


But noooooo. It's all the Dems and the lefties. What's hilarious is guys like Andy and Zach call out liberals/lefties and literally blanket blame them for every issue in America today, and then try to call them out for blaming the right for everything. Well, everyone in this thread who identifies as centre left is more than willing to apportion blame and lay lots at the feet of the democrats and liberal politics. At the very least we understand that both parties have made mistakes, have lied and manipulated, have supported policies and acted in ways that have led to the current situation in America vis a vis poverty, racial issues, the economy, education, etc.

Zach and Andy on the other hand spend their time laying exclusive blame at the feet of ".whiny libtards."

And it's just like Trump blaming Obama exclusively for a divided America and failing to mention that the Republican controlled congress is just as much to blame for refusing to work with the sitting president.

Intellectual dishonesty and ignorance at its finest.

- - - Updated - - -

Although that is somewhat countered by the fact that everyone knows Trump just talks out of his ass all the time. If other countries don't take him too seriously, it'll be easier for them to let some of his more insane comments slide.

True, but that ultimately depends on how much power he really has on foreign policy within his cabinet/the military.

 

[Nzoric]

First of all, Trump and his cabinet doesn't really have a clearly formulated geopolitical vision - on the one hand, he advocates for more isolated policies, condemned the Iraq invasion and wants to reduce support for Nato. On the other hand, he takes an extremely hard line when it comes to Iran, and wants to "bomb the shit out of ISIS".

Also, there are plenty of differences between his comments, and the ones of his cabined and adviser's picks. His secretary of defense for example is much more supportive of Nato, extremely critical of Putin, and approved of the Iran deal. There's at times very little coherence.

Not to mention the obvious issues of Trump's temperament, and what that could lead to in a moment of crisis.

Sorry, that's not a reasonable argument. That's pure speculation and we simply won't know what he is about until his administration starts taking decisions. Which is exactly my point, we, as Europeans, definitely need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Zacheryah]

Sorry, that's not a reasonable argument. That's pure speculation and we simply won't know what he is about until his administration starts taking decisions. Which is exactly my point, we, as Europeans, definitely need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

it would be nice if everyone got past the point of acceptance and sees it like that.

I liked your point about international policy btw and its why i strongly wanted him to win over Mrs. Clinton in the first place

 

[Maddy]

it would be nice if everyone got past the point of acceptance and sees it like that.

I liked your point about international policy btw and its why i strongly wanted him to win over Mrs. Clinton in the first place

 

[Ocelot]

Sorry, that's not a reasonable argument. That's pure speculation and we simply won't know what he is about until his administration starts taking decisions. Which is exactly my point, we, as Europeans, definitely need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But that's pretty much what I'm arguing for, most of his foreign policy attitude at this point is pure speculation -> hence the instability argument that comes from unpredictability.

Of course European leaders should still try to work together with him on issues that make sense, if that's what you're alluding to.

Basically, for me the man holding the most powerful office on earth has the burden of proof that he's got some idea on how to govern, I shouldn't have to prove the opposite.

And there's still the whole issue of how Americans will fare under his leadership, even if that's a secondary concern for you.