Destroy north korea!!!
[Trump thread]The worst day in Western history since Adolf Hitler
#121
Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:01 PM
#122
Posted 11 August 2017 - 09:25 PM
- Cʜɪʟʟɪɴ_Pᴀɴᴅᴀ likes this
#123
Posted 13 August 2017 - 02:29 PM
Destroy north korea!!!
Because everything went so well the last time we fought on the Korean peninsula.
#124
Posted 13 August 2017 - 05:42 PM
actually murica did destroy their country so thoroughly that there practically was no target left, so the air force blew up dams and flood the civilians
that was something the nazi's did too, and their generals got hung for it
technically blowing up dams/attacking hospitals are suppose to be a war crime according to the geneva convention
#125
Posted 13 August 2017 - 07:13 PM
Wow, no. What about the millions of innocents who live there?
If you didn't notice the norks are the one's threatening on mass geocoding
I find it weird how liberals usually sympathize with insane leaders that genocide their people like the USSR in the 1920s -1930s or NKOREA today lol. NKOREA has actualy active concentration camps lmao
Edited by wife in training, 13 August 2017 - 07:16 PM.
#126
Posted 13 August 2017 - 07:30 PM
well I just checked North Korea doesn't have oil or uranium.
What would USA benefit except very reach (2nd highest) magnesite reserves there?
​Threatening huh ... even a beaten dog barks...
but there's a saying here.. a barking dog doesn't bite.
yes I agree that North Korea should be contained..
and United Nations should do it
to avoid any unnecessary terror attraction to any country.
#127
Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:21 PM
Lil kimmy backed down.
Since this is a trump thread lets start stating the obvious...
----
Was the KKK originally republican or democrat? DEMOCRAT!
What's the difference between BLM and the KKK? BLM HAS A TAN
What does the left call you when they disagree with your opinion? A NAZI
Antifa means anti fascist.. but they use violence to stop free speech! LOL
#128
Posted 15 August 2017 - 06:00 PM
Racism is almost always a sign of economic stress. So the KKK formed during the economic ruins of southern defeat is a good example. Germany during the 1930s suffering from economic hyperinflation due to the Versailes treaty is also another good example. It is hardly unique. During the days of Jim Crow south, you could predict the number of lynchings based on the price of cotton. So if you fix the underlying issue, i.e. giving the peasant class more life-chances, some signs of economic assurance, then the problem almost goes away. But to do that, you'll have to take money from rich and powerful people, and use that as incentive to churn the economic engine, which is hard to do. In the US at least, race problems is a cover for class problems.
#129
Posted 01 September 2017 - 09:12 PM
COMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#130
Posted 15 November 2017 - 04:01 AM
I can't be bothered writing out a serious reply, because everything you type is mimicry with no real thought. It doesn't matter which puppet is elected president.
#131
Posted 02 January 2018 - 02:07 AM
#132
Posted 08 January 2018 - 10:15 PM
A couple answers here. First: Not everyone is anti trump, however, our media and entertainment industry are almost entirely against him so if you live outside outside our borders you most likely have only heard anti trump viewpoints.
Stateside, his approval ratings are not great but they are rising now that our economy is improving rather dying like many said it would.
Second: Trump is an arrogant prick - and this is coming from someone who voted for him. He constantly antagonizes people who are against him so, unsurprisingly the media view of him only gets more negative. A year later, I still think he was easily the better choice over Clinton and after watching the behavior of the republican party, I think he was the best pick out of that group. Yes I consider it a sad thing that Trump was the best we had to choose from.
- Silvermoment likes this
#133
Posted 09 January 2018 - 06:46 AM
#134
Posted 09 January 2018 - 08:11 AM
Thanks for helping me out! If I may, why exactly is so much media anti-trump?
As for why the media is disproportionately disfavorable of Trump, compared to the votes cast... any answer to that is going to be very controversial depending on your political beleifs.
I think the simple and relatively unbiased and uncontroversial (inasmuch as that's possible) version is, Trump has very low support among those living in cities, and higher support among rural areas (though still low, as far as many voters were concerned this was a race to the bottom). And journalists live in cities.
Anything else that can be said on the matter will get heated pretty quickly. There's a genuine problem in that we don't know for sure why people elected him; neither polls nor common public discourse would have suggested it was likely before the fact. And most of us (in the cities, I guess?) were bloody confused, even before then, as to how, well... not to put too fine a point on it, how a grotesquely offensive raving idiot madman was doing so well in the polls. Actually, a lot of us still are, though we've come up with some very good post-facto rationalizations as to why and how our opinions differed so much without us noticing.
(As for the media being biased against Trump, a lot of us don't think they are. We think he's genuinely horrifying enough to merit the tone of coverage he usually gets. It just inevitably sounds melodramatic when you cover the guy in a normal fashion, because he's a very melodramatic guy who does melodramatic things, and unfortunately often right in the middle of delicate situations. But I'm not going to get into that here. I'm just trying to outline, somewhat shakily and at a very high level, the sort of national discourse dysfunction we're having right now.)
Edited by pokari, 09 January 2018 - 08:26 AM.
- Silvermoment likes this
#135
Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:17 PM
We have an opinion from the other side now so Ill be a bit more biased with my answer while still trying to avoid a fight
The media is very liberal and has been for as long as I can remember. Looking back at old news coverage, possibly as long as there has been televised news. They tend to lean very much toward socialism, open borders and a unified world government. Any leader pushing a conservative or nationalistic viewpoint is presented as a boogeyman to their audiences - eg. The economy was supposed to nosedive after trump was elected. They have done this to every Republican president from Regan onward only Trump really is obnoxious and he hits them back.
Trumps voters, myself included, tend to be those who are tired of the usual BS. Most of us view the major media networks as antagonistic and being in bed (sometimes literally) with the Dems. There is also a growing lack of faith in the Republican party but they are viewed as the lesser of two evils.
The above is all a horribly over simplified but I really don't want to insult anyone or get involved in a forum war.
#136
Posted 09 January 2018 - 09:11 PM
I think the truth is far simpler.
The US has had an oversaturated job-market for decades, leading to ever lowering net-wages, and a significantly shrinking middle-class. This trend is fueled by many things, like globalization / industry moving to china and india, but also heavily influenced by mass immigration. That's no partisan statement, but the simple truth. The dems still want ever more immigrants, while the republicans want to at least control that flow. People literally voted with their wallet. In mind, that is.
It's not the whole truth, but another facet of it. There are many reasons people voted for trump, but that one is among the bigger ones.
Well, it actually is also only the starting point of that argument, but talking about illegal labour and tax cost/benefit will not turn any minds, but an otherwise sound argument into a heated discussion.
#137
Posted 09 January 2018 - 09:49 PM
The main loss of jobs is due to technological progress, automation.Even before manufacturing moved to Mexico and Canada, the northern industrial base, which undoubtedly generated the country's first middle class, have been losing jobs to the South, the union-free right-to-work states. Mass migration, legal or otherwise, is encouraged by both parties as a way to lower labor wages. Since there's no virtually unionized labor here (7% or so), and trying to unionize both immigrants and non-immigrants together would be harder than herding sheep, it's logical that those near the bottom of the economic bottom to want to keep immigrants out.
The caving of the center is a worldwide phenomenon. Where the far left alternative is not available (i.e. Austria), people gravitate towards the far right. Japan's biggest non-governing opposition party is the communist party. So is Portugal. The US actually had a chance to pivot to the far left instead of the far right, if the party political machine hadn't snuffed out Bernie Sanders. And it was not the first time this was rigged. Truman was never suppose to be FDR's running mate. The vice president Wallace was seen as the more popular choice, but he was a far left socialist, but had his chance to be nominated removed during the convention.
Edited by Feishy Pit Boar, 09 January 2018 - 09:50 PM.
#138
Posted 10 January 2018 - 05:27 AM
Oh, but as to Silvermoment's original question,
Why IS everyone anti-trump? I've never actually seen a well structured argument(for either side) about how bad/good he's doing in office. I don't really care about what he says, I'm more concerned about what's actually happening.
I think part of the reason you don't see a structured argument is because his administration has been such a whirlwind of... stuff, that it's difficult to stop just reacting to things, to instead sit down and construct an overview of what's going on.
...This is going to be sloppy, maybe slightly biased (not that avoiding bias in this topic is possible at this point--I tried, at least), and maybe involve too much civics-lesson, but:
First off, in theory in American politics (though less and less in practice), it isn't really the President's explicit job to do much directly. (Caveat: Except in his role as chief commander of the military which used not to matter much except in wartime, though these days we're always at war or preparing for it, being the military superpower that we are, though aside from some sleep lost over the possibility of nuclear war, and diplomatic snafus hurting some relationships, Trump has done comparatively little that people object to in that part of his role).
The president is also our chief figurehead / diplomat, being the head of state and all, so the stuff he says does matter, unfortunately, as a matter of both national and international diplomacy. It's fine if you don't care about what he says personally, but the effects of his words are very real (if hard to pin down precisely). Given his position in the world, him saying something stupid at the wrong time can actually cost a lot of lives (for instance, indelicate handling of political situations in the middle east).
Next, the president, at least in theory, doesn't write or introduce laws (pretty much all he officially does in law-making is sign or veto them). But lately "executive orders" work way more like laws then they were ever intended to. Some of those that Trump has issued--like his self-proclaimed muslim travel ban (though he's denied ever calling it anything of the sort, like many such things he's denied saying after saying them on... public television... I don't even...)--are part of what people are riled up about. For a full(?) summary of his executive orders: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/here-s-full-list-donald-trump-s-executive-orders-n720796 (there's some commentary here that some would call biased but you can just pay attention to the factual bits). If you read through them, you'll see some are sensible, some are obviously going to be controversial, and some are almost Kafka-esque in their sheer absurdity (e.g. "The order states that executive departments and agencies must slash two regulations for every one new regulation proposed")--but that's just my take on it.
However, he also does--and is supposed to--have a lot of administrative power through the people he appoints: cabinet positions in particular (though also judges and other things). And plenty of the more (depending on who you are, of course) mind-boggling/terrifying actions coming from this administration are not from the president himself but from the very interesting characters he has chosen to put in positions of power. For example, they guy he put in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency that thinks the department should be destroyed and appears to think pollution regulations should not exist at all.
Honestly, though, depending on who you believe, it's even possible Trump doesn't do much at all, except for saying a lot of awkward things and elevating a lot of questionable people to power. There's some allegations (probably exaggerated and possibly fabricated, mind) that he spends much of the day essentially goofing off.
So... heck if I know what he's doing, really. But all in all, it's been a very stressful year to be following politics for a lot of us.
Edited by pokari, 10 January 2018 - 05:53 AM.
- Ominous and Silvermoment like this