|
Post by tangent on Sept 25, 2018 17:18:31 GMT
Donald Trump has just made a speech to the United Nations General Assembly and made his audience laugh... unintentionally. He starts off: ... and continues... Politicians don't usually write their own speeches, they have speech writers who are so much more eloquent. What's the betting, Donald Trump's speech writer put that in on purpose knowing the reaction it would get? Whatever, it was worth it
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 25, 2018 22:35:27 GMT
I thought that the only human thing he said was the 'I didn't expect that response.' Clearly was caught on the hop there.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Sept 25, 2018 22:47:31 GMT
The sad thing is that not only does he believe it, so do many of his followers --and those are the only ones he listens to. No wonder he was mystified at the reaction.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 25, 2018 23:27:56 GMT
Ah yes, but his followers are Americans and they are only interested in domestic achievements, such as the stock market, the Wall, banning Muslims, creating jobs and improving the economy. Trump has achieved a great deal domestically. Moreover, the right wing media cherry picks statistics to make his achievements look a lot better (and why not, the left wing media cherry picks statistics to make them look worse). But world leaders are singularly uninterested in domestic issues (except perhaps when it affects them) and they only see his failures on the world stage, of which there are many. So we mustn't be surprised that we have a very different view to his followers.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 29, 2018 1:22:58 GMT
Very true tangent.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 29, 2018 10:59:17 GMT
Perhaps KE, you might like to comment on his international reputation since you have a different view from most of us. Is he a disaster, has he damaged world trade severely, does it matter that he's insultated a dozen world leaders and ever country in Africa, has he brought us closer to World War III? Left wingers would all say yes to all of those but what is your view?
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 30, 2018 6:25:48 GMT
I don't really have to many views on this as the world really isn't in my scope of daily issues. I lead a stress free life and don't give it much thought. Find it all interesting as kind of a reality show type of thing but not losing sleep over it. Heck! I really don't watch much tv and certainly never watch the news so you are asking the wrong person on this. I'm strictly economics only. I am responsible for 350 people and a couple companies so keeping there livelihoods going is my main concern.
Stress free as possible.... going to school for several more degrees so that probably isn't stress free but I try.
We here don't participate in all the drama and human nature is to be dramatic about everything.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 30, 2018 15:58:18 GMT
This explains exactly why Donald Trump is liked so much at home and is so successful. We would do well to remember that. Unfortunately, the repercussions will not be apparent until the next regime is in place. The damage is done on the world stage but no one at home cares.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 30, 2018 16:13:53 GMT
I think I've mention this before. Trump only won because we did not like Hillary or Bernie. If they had put anyone else besides a Hillary we would have voted. We did not like her. So We voted for the less evil figure. I'm not giving any other opinion on this beside why we voted for trump. Do I like trump. Not really. Do I like Hillary. Hell no!
They would do well to remember to leave clintons out. Tired of those flip flop families that take and take.
After all this the world will continue on. Checks and balances will continue to operate. Drama people will continue to be dramatic. There have been tons of other presidents in history that have had this kind of drama go on and we r still here. Life goes on.
|
|
|
Post by tourmaline on Sept 30, 2018 16:41:09 GMT
Trump is a terrible example and unfortunately, we now have our own Trump Like figure in power in Ontario... one Doug Ford....who is doing real damage. Unfortunately, people take short term looks at things ( I did take Economics courses in University, and one of the problems is the way they look at short term timelines, and not long term timelines, AND the way it is Assumed that "all other things remain equal". I never ever thought we could assume all other things would remain equal)
So... Right now Canada and the USA are working on the trade agreements...and it is a sadness in the works)
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 30, 2018 18:53:36 GMT
It will work out. This is not the first time in history this has been done. It won't be the last.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 30, 2018 21:15:07 GMT
This is the first time you've had a Trump.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2018 2:46:44 GMT
This is the first time you've had a Trump. Well, not really, but it has been a long time. I'd say that Andrew Jackson rates right up there.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2018 2:51:30 GMT
Trump is a terrible example and unfortunately, we now have our own Trump Like figure in power in Ontario... one Doug Ford....who is doing real damage. Unfortunately, people take short term looks at things ( I did take Economics courses in University, and one of the problems is the way they look at short term timelines, and not long term timelines, AND the way it is Assumed that "all other things remain equal". I never ever thought we could assume all other things would remain equal) So... Right now Canada and the USA are working on the trade agreements...and it is a sadness in the works) Excellent retention, Tourm. “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.” John Maynard Keynes. He also noted that, "“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” He is also noted for writing, "I work for a Government I despise for ends I think criminal." I also agree with your assessment of 'ceteris paribus', the infamous 'all other things equal' loophole in economic thought. And I'm a trained economist....a heretic.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Oct 1, 2018 4:04:25 GMT
Ulysses Grant. Even Abe Lincoln was an upset at his time. Plus in the early turn of the century I remember my great grandmother saying there was a presidency that created an uproar. Plus the Teapot Dome Scandal in 1924, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding. Don't forget Nixon-Carter era to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 4, 2018 15:24:14 GMT
I think I've mention this before. Trump only won because we did not like Hillary or Bernie. If they had put anyone else besides a Hillary we would have voted. We did not like her. So We voted for the less evil figure. I'm not giving any other opinion on this beside why we voted for trump. Do I like trump. Not really. Do I like Hillary. Hell no! They would do well to remember to leave clintons out. Tired of those flip flop families that take and take. After all this the world will continue on. Checks and balances will continue to operate. Drama people will continue to be dramatic. There have been tons of other presidents in history that have had this kind of drama go on and we r still here. Life goes on. I never understood why (so many) Americans hated Hillary Clinton with such a vehemence. Would it not be great to have a female president at last? And Clinton was smart and experienced. No, a woman must not be smart, then she is considered cold and unfeminine.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 4, 2018 15:53:49 GMT
Would it not be great to have a female president at last? No, a presidential candidate has to stand in her own right and not just because she's a woman.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 4, 2018 17:38:36 GMT
I'm not a Clinton fan because I see her and her husband as a political team. Her political ideas and positions are derivations of his, because they are their political positions. The Clintons are the exemplars of the "New Democrat" paradigm, with its intent to move slightly to the right on the political spectrum to capture 'disgruntled Republicans'. NAFTA, restructuring of the social safety network, and commitment to the killer drone paradigm overseas. But, when my favored candidate was bested by some very dubious methods on the part of the DNC, I assessed the situation and determined that I would be better voting for Clinton and working for reform from within than placing any hope on the candidacy of Donald Trump. I cast my vote for the lesser evil once again (as I have done repeatedly throughout my life) and, sure enough, we have been saddled with something far, far worse than the presumptuous smugness of 'New Democrats' and their misguided programs. At this point, I am still putting my money on Senator Elizabeth Warren of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She and her cadre in Congress are the way out of this mess. Watch her, follow her lead. I will support this woman 100% in any bid for any higher office in the United States. I would recommend that the junior senator from my state of Oregon, Jeff Merkeley, be nominated to serve as the vice-presidential nominee with her as the presidential nominee on the ticket for 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Oct 4, 2018 19:23:22 GMT
I'm not an American but I always saw H Clinton as off the scale on the sleaze-o-meter. That offset any vagina solidarity for me.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 4, 2018 19:33:15 GMT
Was Clinton hated because of her policies, because she was smug and self-reliant on her own abilities or because she was a woman? If it was the latter, then Elizabeth Warren will fail.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Oct 4, 2018 19:48:53 GMT
The majority of people hated Clinton because they were told to hate her. Not directly (well, not just directly, Fox News) but by disinformation and social media. Sponsored the 1%, by the Russians, by other Republican donors probably.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 4, 2018 19:53:41 GMT
Was Clinton hated because of her policies, because she was smug and self-reliant on her own abilities or because she was a woman? If it was the latter, then Elizabeth Warren will fail. One major reason Hillabeans was resented was that she cozied up to Wall Street and the fatcats of the big money scene. She made it clear that she was for sale. She sold out to special interests and then tried to horn her way in to office by intimating that she, and only she, could steer the nation on its correct course, when it was in large part a purchased agenda. That she acted like she expected to be crowned president because of who she was didn't endear her to those who felt others might better represent the interests of the American public. I saw the rise of Obama as a grassroots response to the presumptions of the 'New Democrats' to be positive, but as the campaign rolled along, I became concerned with the rising tide of support, particularly influential special interest support, the big $$. I viewed the change of the campaign to have occurred when the Obama campaign clinched the Democratic Party nomination. In the span of 48 hours, it was like Obama had been read the riot act and then sold out to ride to the top. I was skeptical of that incoming administration, but heartened but what followed in terms of an administration of dignity run in the interest of the greatest good for the American public given the constraints imposed by reality. He revived the American economy after the last time that the plutocrats looted, pillaged, and burned. Now that he is gone, the Reptilians have returned with looting and pillaging and this time have thrown in rape for good measure. *sigh* The fault is not in our elected, but in ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 4, 2018 20:30:51 GMT
Would it not be great to have a female president at last? No, a presidential candidate has to stand in her own right and not just because she's a woman. I wrote that she was smart and experienced. So where does this "just because she's a woman" come from? Nobody says that Trump was elected "just because he's man". She seemed to me a much better candidate than Trump. So it seems she was not elected b/c she was a woman.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 4, 2018 21:28:16 GMT
No, a presidential candidate has to stand in her own right and not just because she's a woman. I wrote that she was smart and experienced. So where does this "just because she's a woman" come from? Nobody says that Trump was elected "just because he's man". She seemed to me a much better candidate than Trump. So it seems she was not elected b/c she was a woman. I don't think so. I think she was not elected because she is a Clinton, not because she is a woman. I think if another woman had run, say Elizabeth Warren, for example, I think she may well have won. But she was tainted by being a Clinton and being associated with the 'insiders' inside the Beltway and on Wall Street. I think the 'anti-dynastic' sentiments widespread amongst Americans tweaked. I personally resent that because somebody is born in to some particular family they are somehow automatically given precedence in consideration for the highest offices in the land. I did with the Kennedys. I did with the Bushes. I do with the Clintons. That smacks of inherited title and privilege.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 4, 2018 22:58:30 GMT
Are not all candidates privileged? They come from families with money and connections, otherwise they could not afford a presidential campaign. Maybe people thought Trump was not part of the "establishment" but he was from a rich business family.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 4, 2018 23:13:29 GMT
... So it seems she was not elected b/c she was a woman. You see, I'm wondering why you said, "Would it not be great to have a female president at last?". Are you thinking that a woman brings qualities that are absent in a man, that America deserves to have a woman president or that America would be better off with a woman president? I'd like to know why it would be great to have a female president because I believe the gender of the president is (or should be) irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Oct 4, 2018 23:25:59 GMT
I think it is strange that there never would be a woman qualified to be a president, only men. Women make up at least 50% of the population so why should they be excluded? Have you never wondered why it is always must be a man? Do you really think that men are alwayes better qualified? So, no I don't think this is irrelevant at all.
Also, in theory any boy could be a president of USA. But as long as there never has been a female president, it is harder for a girl to think that she could be a president of USA.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Oct 5, 2018 2:37:13 GMT
Before they were presidential candidates they were pretty well known in our area. Greed was one way to describe. Friends that knew them well in certain social circles knew they were a marriage as a machine to get money crookedly. And they were not always legal in everything they did. So haveing an idea of who they were before and how they got the where they were didn't sit well with us.
I was not about to have another Clinton in office again. Go away.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 5, 2018 7:26:32 GMT
I think it is strange that there never would be a woman qualified to be a president, only men. No, I don't think it is strange, we live in a patriarchical society where it is very difficult for women to become leaders. I think this built-in bias is completely wrong. As you say, there is no reason why a woman should not be just as qualified as a man. But to prefer a female candidate because she is a woman is putting a bias on the election in the opposite direction, which is equally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 5, 2018 13:20:10 GMT
Before they were presidential candidates they were pretty well known in our area. Greed was one way to describe. Friends that knew them well in certain social circles knew they were a marriage as a machine to get money crookedly. And they were not always legal in everything they did. So haveing an idea of who they were before and how they got the where they were didn't sit well with us. I was not about to have another Clinton in office again. Go away. **rolls eyes** Yet you ignored ALL that knowledge about Dump beforehand. His personal history is just as, if not more, lurid than that of the Clintons. And, he bragged about being able to shoot a person in the middle of Fifth Avenue without being arrested. Bragged about it! He also made it ever so clear that he is a flaming bigot and hatemonger. You didn't pay attention to that, though. If you want to get in to a 'Who is the Biggest Fuckwit' of the two candidates, YOU would lose miserably. Dump is pond scum excrement. A grade A #1 moronic fuckwit. Even his own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, made that ever so clear. You weren't paying attention, though, were you? Remember....We are not even two full years in to this administration, and there have, so far, been 19 convictions of felons associated with the administration, some very highly placed. You haven't given that a thought, now, have you? M.A.G.A. now stands for My Attorney Got Arrested. Hahahahahahahahaha....
|
|