Oh and for the record, the remains of those 200 Korean War dead that Trump claimed 110+ year old parents were asking him to get returned on the campaign trail?? That Trump has been repeatedly stating have ALREADY been sent back?? Hasn't happened. He lied about long dead parents talking to him about it, and he is lying now that they have already been returned. They haven't been. It HAS NOT happened. I love Pompeo's quote when asked about this. He says “We have not yet physically received them”. There is only one way that I know of to be in possession of the remains of war dead, and metaphorically is not it:
I find this entire narrative around these remains so emblematic about Trump in general. Everything about this lie is absurd on it's face. In the first place, it was literally IMPOSSIBLE for the people he said asked him about this issue during the campaign to have done so, because any hypothetical person who fit that description has probably been dead for over a decade. But beyond that, his own Secretary of State is forced to admit that we don't in fact have the remains, even though Trump is running around the country at rallies claiming that we do. Demonstrably false statements, easily debunked and dismissed by anyone who even has a foot in the door of what reality is anymore. Yet if you took a poll at a Trump rally, how many people would claim this is true?? 95%?? 99%?? And again, the shitstorm that would rain down on any Democrat who so cynically exploited Goldstar Families would be epic in scope, and even the most hardcore conservative would have to admit that.
Totally normal Trump lies about 110 year old Korean War parents asking for remains that we haven't got but Trump says we totally got. Trump says the press is the enemy of the people that's normal.
But Maxine Waters says we have to resist Trump officials omg civility!
Taxes on American aluminium, steel and ketchup from Canada now
Trump may have reckoned that the us was stronger than Canada, the EU and China individually. But together not do much. Seriously misunderestimated things. Oopsie, right. Uh Obama's fault! Right?
"Angela Merkel has saved her political skin with an EU deal that enables Germany to send migrants back to Spain and Greece - three years after she forced Europe to open its doors to refugees.
The German Chancellor had been given an ultimatum from her hardline coalition partners to find a Europe-wide solution to the migrant crisis - or risk seeing her government fall apart.
But the 63-year-old emerged this morning after nine hours of 'toxic' negotiations to reveal a 'joint text' which included moves to stop migrants registered in Italy and other EU countries from moving on to Germany.
She said that Greece and Spain had now agreed to take back in future migrants previously registered in those countries who are picked up at the German-Austrian border. This arrangement does not include Italy, it has emerged.
Exhausted leaders also thrashed out pledges to strengthen external borders and create 'controlled centres' inside the EU on a voluntary basis. Refugees in these centres would be relocated within the bloc if eligible for asylum or returned to their country in the event of a failed application.
Hours later reports emerged that up to 100 Europe-bound migrants were feared to have drowned off the Libyan coast - underlining the critical need to agree a deal.
The NGOs that operate in the Mediterranean in order to rescue migrants have been enraged by the overnight deal.
'EU member states are abdicating their responsibility to save lives and are deliberately condemning people to be trapped in Libya or die at sea,' charity Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF) said in a statement.
During tense negotiations, Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte had threatened to veto a joint conclusion for the entire agenda of the summit in Brussels until his demands were finally met before dawn.
The country's anti-immigrant government has turned away a series of rescue boats in recent weeks, sparking a fresh political row three years after the bloc faced its biggest ever migration crisis.
But as leaders left the crunch talks early this morning, Conte, who described the marathon talks as 'virulent' said Italy was 'no longer alone' in shouldering responsibility for asylum seekers.
His far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini later declared the meeting a victory for his nation, saying 'Finally Europe has been forced to accept the argument of Italy's proposal.
'Our numerous demands have been accepted. Italy is coming out of its isolation and playing a new role.'
Merkel, under intense political pressure at home, praised leaders for reaching an agreement but admitted the bloc still had 'a lot of work to do to bridge the different views.'
Her CSU coalition partners gave a cautious welcome to the deal this morning, with deputy leader Hans Michelbach, calling it a 'positive signal'.
'The question is about what's next for national borders and the integration of migrants in the next months.'"
Stuttering John Melendrez apparently made a prank call to Trump pretending to be Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ).
After speaking to Kushner apparently Trump called the comedian from Air Force One. Stuttering John has talked with Trump about 20 times before including getting real estate advice.
Let's all think back to how many thousands and thousands of times over the last 17 years Republicans have harped on national security. Let's think back to the thousands of times they have called Democrats weak on national security. Let's think back to how appalled they were about Hillary's email server, ostensibly BECAUSE of national security. And you're telling me Trump's phone calls are apparantly so loosely monitored that he is susceptible to what is essentially a Jerky Boys skit?? Imagine what actual foreign intelligence agents could accomplish. No wonder Russia saw his campaign as easy marks. Never take these people seriously about "national security" again. Ever.
I listened to this full call yesterday on a liberal talk show. #1, it shows what an absolute dullard Trump is. No one could have possibly actually thought this was a sitting US Senator speaking, or that they would try to contact him like this. But most interesting was #2, which is that Bob Menendez happens to be a Democratic Senator who was barely able to beat a corruption trial last year. And one of the first things Trump said to who he THOUGHT was Menendez was that he thought he had gotten a "raw deal" and that Federal prosecutors were "too tough" on him. I don't think that at all. I think Menendez was likely guilty and he managed to skate by because of a hung jury. It's like Trump has an innate kinship with anyone who has been accused of corrupt practices.
It certainly has. Just as in the US there are a whole range of threats at the moment. Those include: 1) The above quote referred to migration. That's the result of the major inflows in 2015-16 pretty much exhausting countries' desire to help and resulting in elections of anti-immigration parties in a number of countries. Numbers of immigrants are significantly down in the last couple of years, but a fresh surge could definitely result in either the EU agreements to deal with them breaking down, or resorting to the sort of harsh measures seen in the US. 2) Brexit is rumbling on and prospects for a deal don't look great at the moment with time running out. If no deal is reached that's going to be bad for everyone (at least in the short term). For the EU there would be not only a noticeable economic shock, but a big shortfall in their budget - meaning the need to renegotiate existing agreed support programs between countries. There's also the possibility that other countries will wish to follow the Brexit model, though I haven't seen anything recently suggesting that's likely in the near future. 3) The EU economy has been quite strong recently, which has helped those wishing to take a hard line with the US. If that trade war continues to escalate though everyone is going to suffer. My feeling is that this issue is actually less of an existential threat to the US than the others - partly because Trump is generally so unpopular in Europe. I think that providing a very visible external enemy for EU countries to join together against politically will counteract the negative economic consequences - but I could be wrong . 4) The strength of the EU economy has meant that the threat of a domino effect from failing countries has receded somewhat. However, that's come at the cost of stoking up a lot of negative EU feeling. Another economic down-turn leading to the need for a further Greece-type bailout could cause major problems - both due to the possibility that the country in trouble would refuse to accept a bailout (as a result of the economic measures required alongside that) and that other countries would refuse to offer it. 5) I think the greatest threat to the EU is not any of the above, but the breaking down of the consensus over liberal democracy as the basis for the union. For many years the UK has been slightly the outsider in the EU due to concerns over the loss of economic freedoms and sovereignty. However, those differences are in reality less than those now being seen in other countries. Examples of the problems include: - Poland raising the issue of whether the legal system should be independent of government. There's been an ongoing argument about this for some time now and the EU has already invoked a legal sanction on Poland as a result. Poland is very keen to stay in the EU due to the economic benefits they've got and may ultimately agree to change things just enough to avoid further action, but this will undoubtedly continue to be a source of tension. - There are similarities between Poland and Hungary and there have also been concerns expressed about the policies of the latter for a number of years. I don't fully agree with the slant of this article, but it does correctly highlight the mis-match between the political culture of EU institutions and that of some individual countries. Part of the agreed treaty objectives of the EU has been to 'ever-closer union', but that's something that the EU institutions have always taken more seriously than most individual countries and that mis-match will continue to be a major source of tension. - Things have been relatively quiet recently over the Catalonia independence question. The change in the Spanish government has enhanced the chances for successful negotiation there, but there's still plenty of opportunity for things to go sour again. So far the EU have been able to avoid any concern over this, but there are other regional concerns in the EU and there's certainly the potential for those to cause problems at the EU level. - Election results in the last few years across Europe have seen gains by parties that are clearly opposed to the particular version of liberal democracy espoused by the EU institutions. This article is a few months old and doesn't reflect the recent change in Italy's government, but does give a good feel for the overall impact. The result is that the idea of the EU moving towards a full political union currently looks pretty hopeless. Will that result in a significant change in the culture or institutions of the EU or will the current system try to fudge a way forward ...
A FBI report titled ”Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States Between 2000 and 2013” was released.
The 30-page report dives into the pre-shooting behaviors, which found that most shooters don’t, in fact, have mental illness.
An individual’s reaction to stressors (divorce,money problems, etc) is common among shooters studied, but only 25 percent of the active shooters had a diagnosed mental illness.
Conclusion: " In short, declarations that all active shooters must simply be mentally ill are misleading and unhelpful."
It seems that the reason for mass shootings is still the ludicrous amount of guns in the US.
- No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters. The US had 90 mass shooters and more than 200 million guns.
- It's not the video games or movies, other countries watch and play the same stuff. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country. American entertainment is exported throughout the world.
- It's not mental health, our rates of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.
-The United States is not more prone to crime than other developed countries studies. Data that has been repeatedly confirmed shows that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.
- Gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries. This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.
-The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.
- From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama. (Maybe Canada should build a wall or other countries need an American ban until they figure out what the hell is going on.)
-An ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion. It's the guns, stupid.
Beyond the data...
In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 deaths caused by an accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths.
This means an American is about 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person. America’s gun ownership rate is 150 times as high as Japan’s. That gap between 150 and 300 shows that gun ownership statistics alone do not explain what makes America different.
The United States also has some of the weakest controls over who may buy a gun and what sorts of guns may be owned.
Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate of any developed country, about half that of the United States. Its gun homicide rate in 2004 was 7.7 per million people — unusually high, in keeping with the relationship between gun ownership and murders, but still a fraction of the rate in the United States.
Swiss gun laws are more stringent, setting a higher bar for securing and keeping a license, for selling guns and for the types of guns that can be owned. Such laws reflect more than just tighter restrictions. They imply a different way of thinking about guns, as something that citizens must affirmatively earn the right to own.
And if had passed get would have been patting himself on the back for weeks about how he alone passed the immigration bill.
Can't you guys see through this guy's nonsense? He lies with impunity. He breaks the law with impunity. Why stop, if you always get away with it? His supporters seem proud that he's a lying jerk. I don't get it.
I've been called out before for maybe suggesting that certain voters do not seem to have long-term (or short-term) memories. Well, look at the dates on those tweets. June 27th-June 30th. 72 hours. In the first one, he is loudly proclaiming his support for the bill, in all caps no less. 3 days later, an insistence he never supported it. He thinks so little of the people he knows will believe him even though he is taking the totally opposite position he did previously that he doesn't even bother deleting the old tweet.
We'd all be better off if this man had gone to see a therapist once or twice 30 or 40 years ago. He is psychologically incapable of accepting blame for anything he views as a negative development, and he basically lies about EVERYTHING, even when there is no real reason to do so. I mean, if I was his lawyer, I guess I would do everything I could to keep him out of the reach of Mueller's questions as well. Because he is just incapable of telling the truth. He would perjure himself a dozen times within 15 minutes. Because he makes up a new reality in his head every 12 hours or so.
Can't you guys see through this guy's nonsense? He lies with impunity. He breaks the law with impunity. Why stop, if you always get away with it? His supporters seem proud that he's a lying jerk. I don't get it.
@smeagolheart I agree that Trump lies and has no respect for the law - and I've done my share of pointing instances of that out. That's not the same as suggesting his supporters are proud of such behavior though. Trump has tapped into legitimate concerns that huge numbers of people share (immigration, religious sensitivity, impacts of globalization etc). I may think that Trump's approach to most issues is likely to make things worse not better, but plenty of people believe otherwise. Over time I would hope that the sort of approach you took above to the gun issue will have an impact. I doubt that blaming people for their views ever will - that's more likely to just reinforce the tendency to react to an issue based on which 'side' you're on.
Well, Merkel is in a difficult position in its country because she made an allied with a borderline far-right branch of her party. But That's just Merkel, if she's outed someone else will take her place and in the last resort the president of Germany (Steinmeier, yes people forget Germany, as well as Italy and Israel for example, also has a president as a safety check) can call for new elections if he deems the ruling party unable to form a gouvernment.
I would also point the dailymail, often nicknamed the dailyfail, isn't quite the best source for information. Especially international ones. For example "she forced europe to open its doors to migrants"... errrr, well no. She didn't force anything, she just said no refugees would be turned down in Germany leading in a surge of application there and thus even more rejected application.
I think the concept of politicians "tapping into legitimate concerns" is very real, as indicated by the divisions appearing within European countries over recent years. However this in itself raises a couple of questions:
1. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do - listen to their constituents and act accordingly? 2. Why have these legitimate concerns become such big issues now, when they could have been dealt with earlier when they were smaller?
On the latter, my perception (speaking as someone who currently lives in a comparatively rural part of England) is that our politicians live in a bubble called London. London has nothing in common with the rest of England, let alone Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Also, having spent eight years of my life in London I found that the London mindset itself is basically and fundamentally alien to anything else I've experienced in the rest of the UK.
On top of that, politicians are incapable of forward thinking beyond the next election. For example, so many of our current problems (such as NHS funding, housing, infrastructure etc.) are a direct result of population growth generally, but the "baby boom" specifically, for which plans could have been put in place when it was identified decades ago - but that would have involved unpopular policies and expenditure that wouldn't have seen benefits within the term of the incumbent government.
As for a solution to this mess? I would like to think that true proportional representation would help to give politicians a dose of reality but would probably end up with a government in perpetual stalemate. And as for government short-sightedness, I fear that the only politicians who would ever look beyond their term of office would be those whose term of office is indefinite and not subject to the will of the people.
I think the concept of politicians "tapping into legitimate concerns" is very real, as indicated by the divisions appearing within European countries over recent years. However this in itself raises a couple of questions:
1. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do - listen to their constituents and act accordingly? 2. Why have these legitimate concerns become such big issues now, when they could have been dealt with earlier when they were smaller?
On the latter, my perception (speaking as someone who currently lives in a comparatively rural part of England) is that our politicians live in a bubble called London. London has nothing in common with the rest of England, let alone Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Also, having spent eight years of my life in London I found that the London mindset itself is basically and fundamentally alien to anything else I've experienced in the rest of the UK.
On top of that, politicians are incapable of forward thinking beyond the next election. For example, so many of our current problems (such as NHS funding, housing, infrastructure etc.) are a direct result of population growth generally, but the "baby boom" specifically, for which plans could have been put in place when it was identified decades ago - but that would have involved unpopular policies and expenditure that wouldn't have seen benefits within the term of the incumbent government.
As for a solution to this mess? I would like to think that true proportional representation would help to give politicians a dose of reality but would probably end up with a government in perpetual stalemate. And as for government short-sightedness, I fear that the only politicians who would ever look beyond their term of office would be those whose term of office is indefinite and not subject to the will of the people.
I'm a born and bred Londoner, born within 1/2 mile of where my father was born, a mile from where my grandfather and great grandparents were born. Quite simply, I was driven out 18 years ago, and so were millions of others.
I didn't want to live anywhere else but England, but Blair's goverment decided London wouldn't be English anymore. And it's totally reasonable for a person, any person anywhere in the world, to say they don't want their home to change to the point where it doesn't feel like home.
The subtle, small things that every person in the world recognise as being a part of their "home", their culture, their homeland were overwhelmed. Even worse, the very concept of being English in London became a term of abuse to be degenerated and attacked at every opportunity. And that was then, it's far worse now and the numbers fleeing London back that up.
Maybe someday you’ll be lucky enough to get a government that will Make UK Great Again! Careful what you wish for.
If this is in reply to my post, all I can say is, what a strange comment.
The UK is a great country, one of the best, because of the people. It would be nice to have a government that appreciated them a bit more and took steps to protect them and the society they created.
Maybe someday you’ll be lucky enough to get a government that will Make UK Great Again! Careful what you wish for.
If this is in reply to my post, all I can say is, what a strange comment.
The UK is a great country, one of the best, because of the people. It would be nice to have a government that appreciated them a bit more and took steps to protect them and the society they created.
That's great you realize that.
bleusteel is suggesting a politician might tap into anti-"change" feelings and promise a return to the glory days mostly by scapegoating different minority groups.
And that person might even be able to fool enough people that he gets elected. Once elected you guys would realize that the leader is only interested in his own power. You'd have elected your own Franco, Hitler, or Trump.
Can't you guys see through this guy's nonsense? He lies with impunity. He breaks the law with impunity. Why stop, if you always get away with it? His supporters seem proud that he's a lying jerk. I don't get it.
@smeagolheart I agree that Trump lies and has no respect for the law - and I've done my share of pointing instances of that out. That's not the same as suggesting his supporters are proud of such behavior though. Trump has tapped into legitimate concerns that huge numbers of people share (immigration, religious sensitivity, impacts of globalization etc). I may think that Trump's approach to most issues is likely to make things worse not better, but plenty of people believe otherwise. Over time I would hope that the sort of approach you took above to the gun issue will have an impact. I doubt that blaming people for their views ever will - that's more likely to just reinforce the tendency to react to an issue based on which 'side' you're on.
I did not mean all his supporters are proud that he's a lying conman but you could put at least half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
These are the people that in Trump rallies flip people the bird, yell about the fake news, and wear '"feck" your feelings' t-shirts. I posted photos a few posts back. These people don't realize they are voted against their own interests and don't seem to care because they enjoy being contrarian.
These people seem to have blinders on when it comes to Trump. Either they are oblivious to Trump's schtick or they just don't care because they've internalized the rhetoric so that even though Trump is lying at least he's not as bad as the 'libtards','MS13 animals immigrants, fake librul news, or whatever other groups Trump has told them to hate.
These people seem proud that their dear leader is a total jerk.
With Trump's approval rating wavering from 30% to 40% as the days go by, a 50% rate of "deplorables" would be 15% to 20% of the entire nation, which seems immensely implausible to me. The people you're talking about are a tiny minority even at Trump rallies, much less among Trump supporters more generally.
Most people aren't stupid or crazy, even people who belong to the other party. Most people have reasons for believing what they do, and they're not motivated by blind hatred.
Even so, I do find it distressing that even a small number of people are motivated more by opposition to liberal ideas than any affection for conservative ideas.
Milo Yiannopoulos would be the classic example. I have seen no indication that he supports limited government or fiscal conservatism or traditional values or a strong military or anything like that--he has no real loyalty to conservative values. Honestly, I think he's just a troll who decided that liberals were fun or easy to troll, and so he says whatever he thinks will make them angry. If he thought conservatives were more fun or easier to troll, he'd be doing the exact same thing to them.
People have suggested that this apparent increase in vitriol might just be because the Internet makes the fringe groups more visible, but then, the Internet has been around for decades, and I don't remember a time when this vocal fringe seemed quite so large. I think a lot of it is just that the standards for political discussion have become lower.
And I do blame Trump for that much. If Trump insults everyone from his opponents to people in his own administration, then insults are going to be seen as acceptable. You see the same thing on online forums: if personal attacks are viewed as normal, then everyone will resort to them. If respectful behavior is the norm, then people will be respectful to each other. We imitate the culture we see.
It only takes one person to poison the well. Once a small group of people start throwing out insults, the behavior will spread.
I agree with everything you said except I do believe that the number if Trump's Troll Nation is larger than you suspect.
Maybe it's artificially inflated by Russian bots but there seems to be a whole lot of people who delight in bullying, name calling, and other various assholery from behind the curtain of the Internet.
And there are a lot of people in real life as well - i feel these are insecure people who are miserable that they aren't rich or famous or whatever and don't want anyone else to be either. So they delight in tearing others down.
Trump offers the opportunity for you to join the bullying side and take out your insecurities and frustrations on others.
Example - Lost your job? It's a brown persos fault not your fault or your employer.
It's all an illusion but people are easily suckered it would seem.
And there are a lot of people in real life as well - i feel these are insecure people who are miserable that they aren't rich or famous or whatever and don't want anyone else to be either. So they delight in tearing others down.
Wow, that statement is hilarious. Socialism is all about insecure, miserable people jealous of the rich and wanting them to 'give us what we're owed'. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The left created a whole industry out of doing to the right what Trump does to the left many years before he came on the scene, The Daily Show, Steven Colbert, Samantha Bee, any number of mainstream replacable pundits who all think alike and spout the same talking points and are dedicated to this very sort of thing. Trump supporters were deplorable and probably nazis. Trump was a racist and a misogynist. Ann Coulter is the C-word. We have all heard it before. I think it's clearly absurd to believe vitriol in politics is something uniquely bad in this era or with Trump himself. You can find classic political burns from centuries past.
The left created a whole industry out of doing to the right what Trump does to the left many years before he came on the scene, The Daily Show, Steven Colbert, Samantha Bee, any number of mainstream replacable pundits who all think alike and spout the same talking points and are dedicated to this very sort of thing. Trump supporters were deplorable and probably nazis. Trump was a racist and a misogynist. Ann Coulter is the C-word. We have all heard it before. I think it's clearly absurd to believe vitriol in politics is something uniquely bad in this era or with Trump himself. You can find classic political burns from centuries past.
Two incredible differences: The Daily-show/Colbert Report/Samantha Bee arent intentionally gaslighting or lying to people for political gain, and they arent inciting people to violence. Civil discourse didnt die when the left took to late night (Thomas Jefferson was doing this 200+ years ago), but the reality is that the game changed as soon as Trump was allowed to lie his way into the oval office and has numerous times suggested he wouldnt mind violence at his rallies.
For the record: Almost all liberals would be totally fine with a Daily Show equivalent for the right. No one has any issues with that. As long as they arent lying constantly (A la Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones).
Wow, that statement is hilarious. Socialism is all about insecure, miserable people jealous of the rich and wanting them to 'give us what we're owed'. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is all people. It has nothing to do with Socialism and nothing to do with Capitalism. People naturally want what other people have - the human condition. Socialism is about setting up a system so that wealth is more evenly shared with the hope that less people will want afterwards.
The left created a whole industry out of doing to the right what Trump does to the left many years before he came on the scene, The Daily Show, Steven Colbert, Samantha Bee, any number of mainstream replacable pundits who all think alike and spout the same talking points and are dedicated to this very sort of thing. Trump supporters were deplorable and probably nazis. Trump was a racist and a misogynist. Ann Coulter is the C-word. We have all heard it before. I think it's clearly absurd to believe vitriol in politics is something uniquely bad in this era or with Trump himself. You can find classic political burns from centuries past.
Two incredible differences: The Daily-show/Colbert Report/Samantha Bee arent intentionally gaslighting or lying to people for political gain, and they arent inciting people to violence. Civil discourse didnt die when the left took to late night (Thomas Jefferson was doing this 200+ years ago), but the reality is that the game changed as soon as Trump was allowed to lie his way into the oval office and has numerous times suggested he wouldnt mind violence at his rallies.
For the record: Almost all liberals would be totally fine with a Daily Show equivalent for the right. No one has any issues with that. As long as they arent lying constantly (A la Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones).
Wow, that statement is hilarious. Socialism is all about insecure, miserable people jealous of the rich and wanting them to 'give us what we're owed'. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is all people. It has nothing to do with Socialism and nothing to do with Capitalism. People naturally want what other people have - the human condition. Socialism is about setting up a system so that wealth is more evenly shared with the hope that less people will want afterwards.
Socialism is about ensuring equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
Capitalism at it's worst you can end up with a rigged game. Where a couple families owning all of the wealth. The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%.
Social Security and Medicare are two of the most popular government programs and they are socialist. They exist just fine in Americas mixed capitalist system.
The left created a whole industry out of doing to the right what Trump does to the left many years before he came on the scene, The Daily Show, Steven Colbert, Samantha Bee, any number of mainstream replacable pundits who all think alike and spout the same talking points and are dedicated to this very sort of thing. Trump supporters were deplorable and probably nazis. Trump was a racist and a misogynist. Ann Coulter is the C-word. We have all heard it before. I think it's clearly absurd to believe vitriol in politics is something uniquely bad in this era or with Trump himself. You can find classic political burns from centuries past.
Only one side made an entire political movement based on no more "political correctness" and the idea that feelings don't matter. You DO NOT get to then turn around and talk about how offended you are about the language people use. It was made VERY clear what Trump was about, especially in regards to his support among younger supporters. Screw the PC culture, we say what we want and do what we feel, damn the torpedoes. Yet without fail, we have to set up the fainting couches for all those on the right apparently getting the vapors about "civility". Whenever you see the tone police come on the scene with sirens blaring, be very wary of the motives.
It is also worth noting that almost all the liberal late-night comics like John Stewart and Colbert became popular during the Bush Administration. An 8-year period where we were lied into a war that the left predicted would be a unmitigated disaster (which it was), an American city was left to drown for an entire week, and the economy had the floor drop out from underneath it. And in this period in the days before Youtube took off as the media platform it is now, the left was basically able to turn to Keith Olbermann and Comedy Central to keep from going insane while the rest of American was reelecting him. Trust me, it wasn't much, but it was something.
I was lucky enough to get on board with Sirius Satellite Radio in it's relative infancy, so I had access to Air America and the left-wing politics channel, which almost no one I am guessing did. I used to listen to the Young Turks when they were a dime-store, start-up radio show on Sirius Left 146 from 5-8pm. They didn't even have the budget for semi-professional production at the time. Trying to find an actual terrestrial station broadcasting left-wing talk was, even then, a monumental crap-shoot, and it is even more so now, though that is somewhat mitigated by the internet. But that wasn't the dynamic back then. Trying to find any explicitly left-wing media back then was simply looking for an island refuge in a sea of Bush-era jingoism. People mistakenly think in retrospect it was Katrina that was Bush's Waterloo, but that wasn't the case. It took until the undeniable reality of the financial crisis hit the retirement accounts of Bush voters for his support to crater.
With Trump's approval rating wavering from 30% to 40% as the days go by, a 50% rate of "deplorables" would be 15% to 20% of the entire nation, which seems immensely implausible to me. The people you're talking about are a tiny minority even at Trump rallies, much less among Trump supporters more generally.
It was only about 15 years ago that 40% of Alabamians voted to keep their state constitution's ban on interracial marriage. It was only 20-something years ago that the Southern Baptists finally got over 50% of their synod to vote to remove their doctrine that stated black slavery was approved by god.
So, yes, I find it entirely plausible that we're currently holding at a 15-20% "deplorable" rate.
Comments
But Maxine Waters says we have to resist Trump officials omg civility!
Taxes on American aluminium, steel and ketchup from Canada now
EU's got some troubles of its own:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5899753/EU-leaders-reach-migration-deal-marathon-talks-Brussels.html
"Angela Merkel has saved her political skin with an EU deal that enables Germany to send migrants back to Spain and Greece - three years after she forced Europe to open its doors to refugees.
The German Chancellor had been given an ultimatum from her hardline coalition partners to find a Europe-wide solution to the migrant crisis - or risk seeing her government fall apart.
But the 63-year-old emerged this morning after nine hours of 'toxic' negotiations to reveal a 'joint text' which included moves to stop migrants registered in Italy and other EU countries from moving on to Germany.
She said that Greece and Spain had now agreed to take back in future migrants previously registered in those countries who are picked up at the German-Austrian border. This arrangement does not include Italy, it has emerged.
Exhausted leaders also thrashed out pledges to strengthen external borders and create 'controlled centres' inside the EU on a voluntary basis. Refugees in these centres would be relocated within the bloc if eligible for asylum or returned to their country in the event of a failed application.
Hours later reports emerged that up to 100 Europe-bound migrants were feared to have drowned off the Libyan coast - underlining the critical need to agree a deal.
The NGOs that operate in the Mediterranean in order to rescue migrants have been enraged by the overnight deal.
'EU member states are abdicating their responsibility to save lives and are deliberately condemning people to be trapped in Libya or die at sea,' charity Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF) said in a statement.
During tense negotiations, Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte had threatened to veto a joint conclusion for the entire agenda of the summit in Brussels until his demands were finally met before dawn.
The country's anti-immigrant government has turned away a series of rescue boats in recent weeks, sparking a fresh political row three years after the bloc faced its biggest ever migration crisis.
But as leaders left the crunch talks early this morning, Conte, who described the marathon talks as 'virulent' said Italy was 'no longer alone' in shouldering responsibility for asylum seekers.
His far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini later declared the meeting a victory for his nation, saying 'Finally Europe has been forced to accept the argument of Italy's proposal.
'Our numerous demands have been accepted. Italy is coming out of its isolation and playing a new role.'
Merkel, under intense political pressure at home, praised leaders for reaching an agreement but admitted the bloc still had 'a lot of work to do to bridge the different views.'
Her CSU coalition partners gave a cautious welcome to the deal this morning, with deputy leader Hans Michelbach, calling it a 'positive signal'.
'The question is about what's next for national borders and the integration of migrants in the next months.'"
After speaking to Kushner apparently Trump called the comedian from Air Force One.
Stuttering John has talked with Trump about 20 times before including getting real estate advice.
Trump was apparently clueless.
I listened to this full call yesterday on a liberal talk show. #1, it shows what an absolute dullard Trump is. No one could have possibly actually thought this was a sitting US Senator speaking, or that they would try to contact him like this. But most interesting was #2, which is that Bob Menendez happens to be a Democratic Senator who was barely able to beat a corruption trial last year. And one of the first things Trump said to who he THOUGHT was Menendez was that he thought he had gotten a "raw deal" and that Federal prosecutors were "too tough" on him. I don't think that at all. I think Menendez was likely guilty and he managed to skate by because of a hung jury. It's like Trump has an innate kinship with anyone who has been accused of corrupt practices.
1) The above quote referred to migration. That's the result of the major inflows in 2015-16 pretty much exhausting countries' desire to help and resulting in elections of anti-immigration parties in a number of countries. Numbers of immigrants are significantly down in the last couple of years, but a fresh surge could definitely result in either the EU agreements to deal with them breaking down, or resorting to the sort of harsh measures seen in the US.
2) Brexit is rumbling on and prospects for a deal don't look great at the moment with time running out. If no deal is reached that's going to be bad for everyone (at least in the short term). For the EU there would be not only a noticeable economic shock, but a big shortfall in their budget - meaning the need to renegotiate existing agreed support programs between countries. There's also the possibility that other countries will wish to follow the Brexit model, though I haven't seen anything recently suggesting that's likely in the near future.
3) The EU economy has been quite strong recently, which has helped those wishing to take a hard line with the US. If that trade war continues to escalate though everyone is going to suffer. My feeling is that this issue is actually less of an existential threat to the US than the others - partly because Trump is generally so unpopular in Europe. I think that providing a very visible external enemy for EU countries to join together against politically will counteract the negative economic consequences - but I could be wrong
4) The strength of the EU economy has meant that the threat of a domino effect from failing countries has receded somewhat. However, that's come at the cost of stoking up a lot of negative EU feeling. Another economic down-turn leading to the need for a further Greece-type bailout could cause major problems - both due to the possibility that the country in trouble would refuse to accept a bailout (as a result of the economic measures required alongside that) and that other countries would refuse to offer it.
5) I think the greatest threat to the EU is not any of the above, but the breaking down of the consensus over liberal democracy as the basis for the union. For many years the UK has been slightly the outsider in the EU due to concerns over the loss of economic freedoms and sovereignty. However, those differences are in reality less than those now being seen in other countries. Examples of the problems include:
- Poland raising the issue of whether the legal system should be independent of government. There's been an ongoing argument about this for some time now and the EU has already invoked a legal sanction on Poland as a result. Poland is very keen to stay in the EU due to the economic benefits they've got and may ultimately agree to change things just enough to avoid further action, but this will undoubtedly continue to be a source of tension.
- There are similarities between Poland and Hungary and there have also been concerns expressed about the policies of the latter for a number of years. I don't fully agree with the slant of this article, but it does correctly highlight the mis-match between the political culture of EU institutions and that of some individual countries. Part of the agreed treaty objectives of the EU has been to 'ever-closer union', but that's something that the EU institutions have always taken more seriously than most individual countries and that mis-match will continue to be a major source of tension.
- Things have been relatively quiet recently over the Catalonia independence question. The change in the Spanish government has enhanced the chances for successful negotiation there, but there's still plenty of opportunity for things to go sour again. So far the EU have been able to avoid any concern over this, but there are other regional concerns in the EU and there's certainly the potential for those to cause problems at the EU level.
- Election results in the last few years across Europe have seen gains by parties that are clearly opposed to the particular version of liberal democracy espoused by the EU institutions. This article is a few months old and doesn't reflect the recent change in Italy's government, but does give a good feel for the overall impact. The result is that the idea of the EU moving towards a full political union currently looks pretty hopeless. Will that result in a significant change in the culture or institutions of the EU or will the current system try to fudge a way forward ...
The 30-page report dives into the pre-shooting behaviors, which found that most shooters don’t, in fact, have mental illness.
An individual’s reaction to stressors (divorce,money problems, etc) is common among shooters studied, but only 25 percent of the active shooters had a diagnosed mental illness.
Conclusion: "
In short, declarations that all active shooters must simply be mentally ill are misleading and unhelpful."
It seems that the reason for mass shootings is still the ludicrous amount of guns in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
- No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters. The US had 90 mass shooters and more than 200 million guns.
- It's not the video games or movies, other countries watch and play the same stuff. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country. American entertainment is exported throughout the world.
- It's not mental health, our rates of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.
-The United States is not more prone to crime than other developed countries studies. Data that has been repeatedly confirmed shows that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.
- Gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries. This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.
-The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.
- From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama. (Maybe Canada should build a wall or other countries need an American ban until they figure out what the hell is going on.)
-An ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion. It's the guns, stupid.
Beyond the data...
In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 deaths caused by an accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths.
This means an American is about 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person. America’s gun ownership rate is 150 times as high as Japan’s. That gap between 150 and 300 shows that gun ownership statistics alone do not explain what makes America different.
The United States also has some of the weakest controls over who may buy a gun and what sorts of guns may be owned.
Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate of any developed country, about half that of the United States. Its gun homicide rate in 2004 was 7.7 per million people — unusually high, in keeping with the relationship between gun ownership and murders, but still a fraction of the rate in the United States.
Swiss gun laws are more stringent, setting a higher bar for securing and keeping a license, for selling guns and for the types of guns that can be owned. Such laws reflect more than just tighter restrictions. They imply a different way of thinking about guns, as something that citizens must affirmatively earn the right to own.
He's making sure his word is everything and nothing at the same time so he's never wrong. He's dangerous.
After the bill fails...
Before the bill failed... ALL CAPS SO HE REALLY MEANT IT..
And if had passed get would have been patting himself on the back for weeks about how he alone passed the immigration bill.
Can't you guys see through this guy's nonsense? He lies with impunity. He breaks the law with impunity. Why stop, if you always get away with it? His supporters seem proud that he's a lying jerk. I don't get it.
We'd all be better off if this man had gone to see a therapist once or twice 30 or 40 years ago. He is psychologically incapable of accepting blame for anything he views as a negative development, and he basically lies about EVERYTHING, even when there is no real reason to do so. I mean, if I was his lawyer, I guess I would do everything I could to keep him out of the reach of Mueller's questions as well. Because he is just incapable of telling the truth. He would perjure himself a dozen times within 15 minutes. Because he makes up a new reality in his head every 12 hours or so.
I would also point the dailymail, often nicknamed the dailyfail, isn't quite the best source for information. Especially international ones. For example "she forced europe to open its doors to migrants"... errrr, well no. She didn't force anything, she just said no refugees would be turned down in Germany leading in a surge of application there and thus even more rejected application.
The migration issue in Europe has been going on for decades and decades, I mean do people even remember this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7973649/Gaddafi-Europe-will-turn-black-unless-EU-pays-Libya-4bn-a-year.html
1. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do - listen to their constituents and act accordingly?
2. Why have these legitimate concerns become such big issues now, when they could have been dealt with earlier when they were smaller?
On the latter, my perception (speaking as someone who currently lives in a comparatively rural part of England) is that our politicians live in a bubble called London. London has nothing in common with the rest of England, let alone Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Also, having spent eight years of my life in London I found that the London mindset itself is basically and fundamentally alien to anything else I've experienced in the rest of the UK.
On top of that, politicians are incapable of forward thinking beyond the next election. For example, so many of our current problems (such as NHS funding, housing, infrastructure etc.) are a direct result of population growth generally, but the "baby boom" specifically, for which plans could have been put in place when it was identified decades ago - but that would have involved unpopular policies and expenditure that wouldn't have seen benefits within the term of the incumbent government.
As for a solution to this mess? I would like to think that true proportional representation would help to give politicians a dose of reality but would probably end up with a government in perpetual stalemate.
And as for government short-sightedness, I fear that the only politicians who would ever look beyond their term of office would be those whose term of office is indefinite and not subject to the will of the people.
Quite simply, I was driven out 18 years ago, and so were millions of others.
I didn't want to live anywhere else but England, but Blair's goverment decided London wouldn't be English anymore.
And it's totally reasonable for a person, any person anywhere in the world, to say they don't want their home to change to the point where it doesn't feel like home.
The subtle, small things that every person in the world recognise as being a part of their "home", their culture, their homeland were overwhelmed.
Even worse, the very concept of being English in London became a term of abuse to be degenerated and attacked at every opportunity.
And that was then, it's far worse now and the numbers fleeing London back that up.
So we moved out to live in England again.
The UK is a great country, one of the best, because of the people. It would be nice to have a government that appreciated them a bit more and took steps to protect them and the society they created.
Another rabbi arrested in the USA for protesting Trump's policy on migrants.
bleusteel is suggesting a politician might tap into anti-"change" feelings and promise a return to the glory days mostly by scapegoating different minority groups.
And that person might even be able to fool enough people that he gets elected. Once elected you guys would realize that the leader is only interested in his own power. You'd have elected your own Franco, Hitler, or Trump.
These are the people that in Trump rallies flip people the bird, yell about the fake news, and wear '"feck" your feelings' t-shirts. I posted photos a few posts back. These people don't realize they are voted against their own interests and don't seem to care because they enjoy being contrarian.
These people seem to have blinders on when it comes to Trump. Either they are oblivious to Trump's schtick or they just don't care because they've internalized the rhetoric so that even though Trump is lying at least he's not as bad as the 'libtards','MS13 animals immigrants, fake librul news, or whatever other groups Trump has told them to hate.
These people seem proud that their dear leader is a total jerk.
Most people aren't stupid or crazy, even people who belong to the other party. Most people have reasons for believing what they do, and they're not motivated by blind hatred.
Even so, I do find it distressing that even a small number of people are motivated more by opposition to liberal ideas than any affection for conservative ideas.
Milo Yiannopoulos would be the classic example. I have seen no indication that he supports limited government or fiscal conservatism or traditional values or a strong military or anything like that--he has no real loyalty to conservative values. Honestly, I think he's just a troll who decided that liberals were fun or easy to troll, and so he says whatever he thinks will make them angry. If he thought conservatives were more fun or easier to troll, he'd be doing the exact same thing to them.
People have suggested that this apparent increase in vitriol might just be because the Internet makes the fringe groups more visible, but then, the Internet has been around for decades, and I don't remember a time when this vocal fringe seemed quite so large. I think a lot of it is just that the standards for political discussion have become lower.
And I do blame Trump for that much. If Trump insults everyone from his opponents to people in his own administration, then insults are going to be seen as acceptable. You see the same thing on online forums: if personal attacks are viewed as normal, then everyone will resort to them. If respectful behavior is the norm, then people will be respectful to each other. We imitate the culture we see.
It only takes one person to poison the well. Once a small group of people start throwing out insults, the behavior will spread.
Maybe it's artificially inflated by Russian bots but there seems to be a whole lot of people who delight in bullying, name calling, and other various assholery from behind the curtain of the Internet.
And there are a lot of people in real life as well - i feel these are insecure people who are miserable that they aren't rich or famous or whatever and don't want anyone else to be either. So they delight in tearing others down.
Trump offers the opportunity for you to join the bullying side and take out your insecurities and frustrations on others.
Example - Lost your job? It's a brown persos fault not your fault or your employer.
It's all an illusion but people are easily suckered it would seem.
Don't Be A Sucker
1947 - United States Department of War Short Film
Two incredible differences: The Daily-show/Colbert Report/Samantha Bee arent intentionally gaslighting or lying to people for political gain, and they arent inciting people to violence. Civil discourse didnt die when the left took to late night (Thomas Jefferson was doing this 200+ years ago), but the reality is that the game changed as soon as Trump was allowed to lie his way into the oval office and has numerous times suggested he wouldnt mind violence at his rallies.
For the record: Almost all liberals would be totally fine with a Daily Show equivalent for the right. No one has any issues with that. As long as they arent lying constantly (A la Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones).
This is all people. It has nothing to do with Socialism and nothing to do with Capitalism. People naturally want what other people have - the human condition. Socialism is about setting up a system so that wealth is more evenly shared with the hope that less people will want afterwards.
Capitalism at it's worst you can end up with a rigged game. Where a couple families owning all of the wealth. The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%.
Social Security and Medicare are two of the most popular government programs and they are socialist. They exist just fine in Americas mixed capitalist system.
It is also worth noting that almost all the liberal late-night comics like John Stewart and Colbert became popular during the Bush Administration. An 8-year period where we were lied into a war that the left predicted would be a unmitigated disaster (which it was), an American city was left to drown for an entire week, and the economy had the floor drop out from underneath it. And in this period in the days before Youtube took off as the media platform it is now, the left was basically able to turn to Keith Olbermann and Comedy Central to keep from going insane while the rest of American was reelecting him. Trust me, it wasn't much, but it was something.
I was lucky enough to get on board with Sirius Satellite Radio in it's relative infancy, so I had access to Air America and the left-wing politics channel, which almost no one I am guessing did. I used to listen to the Young Turks when they were a dime-store, start-up radio show on Sirius Left 146 from 5-8pm. They didn't even have the budget for semi-professional production at the time. Trying to find an actual terrestrial station broadcasting left-wing talk was, even then, a monumental crap-shoot, and it is even more so now, though that is somewhat mitigated by the internet. But that wasn't the dynamic back then. Trying to find any explicitly left-wing media back then was simply looking for an island refuge in a sea of Bush-era jingoism. People mistakenly think in retrospect it was Katrina that was Bush's Waterloo, but that wasn't the case. It took until the undeniable reality of the financial crisis hit the retirement accounts of Bush voters for his support to crater.
So, yes, I find it entirely plausible that we're currently holding at a 15-20% "deplorable" rate.