President Trump

It's a fundamental problem when we don't discuss a topic on facts and the good old idea of logics (thanks again, Aristoteles) but just defend the colours we have chosen. (like football fans...)

Not a US expert, but the country offers only Red or Blue.
Once chosen, you can't swap or you're a dirty traitor. That's it.

Debating topics on that premise won't get well and in the end both sides are just defending their complete way of life about the smallest details.
 
St.Pauli support said:
It's a fundamental problem when we don't discuss a topic on facts and the good old idea of logics (thanks again, Aristoteles) but just defend the colours we have chosen. (like football fans...)

Not a US expert, but the country offers only Red or Blue.
Once chosen, you can't swap or you're a dirty traitor. That's it.

Debating topics on that premise won't get well and in the end both sides are just defending their complete way of life about the smallest details.
Click to expand...
It's no surprise given the extremes on each side.

I'll argue against what Trump does, not because I'm anti Teump but because I don't like the policies he's introducing, the language and rhetoric he's using and the way he's going about things.

Efficiency is a great example, I think few will have complaints with a Trump administration looking to cut costs. The criticism comes, not because he's Trump but because of the way he (and Musk) are going about it.
 
moomba said:
They can't care too much about border crossings if they'll vote down a bitpartisan bill designed to limit crossings just so Trump doesn't get upset with them.

For me, you vote with your conscience. If you think the bill is bad, vote against it. If you think the bill is good, vote for it.

If you think the bill is good but you vote against it to appease an oompah oompah you're a coward, and not worthy of holding a position of responsibility. This will be an issue for 99% of Republicans that have tied themselves to Trump no matter what.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly, Republicans were in opposition so if Republicans chose Trump to lead their party then why wouldn't they act in the best interests to get Trump elected? It was only in Trump's interest to ensure the immigration debate continued on.

So of course they were going to do exactly as they were told and it worked given he's now president. Immigration was a major issue and Trump had to control the narrative. He couldn't control the narrative if Republicans voted through a bill and the issue was minimised.

So indeed they probably could of sorted the problem earlier by accepting the bill but if you were a Republican then would you rather sort the issue with the opposition or sort the issue and land a blow on the opposition? Even the Democrats would opt for the latter, especially if it increased the chances of winning an election.

Labour did this for years in opposition to the Tories, they opposed pretty much everything whilst offering no alternative. That's the point of why any government has to hold a majority. If you have to rely upon the opposition to get legislation through then you have a serious problem.
 
inbetween said:
Don't be silly, Republicans were in opposition so if Republicans chose Trump to lead their party then why wouldn't they act in the best interests to get Trump elected? It was only in Trump's interest to ensure the immigration debate continued on.
Click to expand...

Like I said, they had a chance to improve the situation and didn't. Remember this was a bipartisan bill, put together by both sides.

So forgive me if I don't believe anyone that says they're upset about immigration when they had a chance to improve it, but tanked.
 
inbetween said:
Don't be silly, Republicans were in opposition so if Republicans chose Trump to lead their party then why wouldn't they act in the best interests to get Trump elected? It was only in Trump's interest to ensure the immigration debate continued on.

So of course they were going to do exactly as they were told and it worked given he's now president. Immigration was a major issue and Trump had to control the narrative. He couldn't control the narrative if Republicans voted through a bill and the issue was minimised.

So indeed they probably could of sorted the problem earlier by accepting the bill but if you were a Republican then would you rather sort the issue with the opposition or sort the issue and land a blow on the opposition? Even the Democrats would opt for the latter, especially if it increased the chances of winning an election.

Labour did this for years in opposition to the Tories, they opposed pretty much everything whilst offering no alternative. That's the point of why any government has to hold a majority. If you have to rely upon the opposition to get legislation through then you have a serious problem.
Click to expand...
So before it was “Democrats did absolutely nothing”; now it’s “Republicans killed the bill that would have done something for political purposes; who can blame them?”
 
BlueHammer85 said:
The consequences of falling out with America would be catastrophic, economically, trade, security- everything. Any sane PM has to keep Trump on side.
Click to expand...
How would security be affected ? Trump has almost withdrawn America from NATO by voting with Russia, Belarus and Nth Korea in the United Nations.
We are less safe when the only time article 5 was invoked was Afghanistan, the White House now openly supports Russia. I maintain the EU are our friends we should be aligning ourselves with Europe (which we are doing)

On trade Trump will impose Tariffs on us, we will have to buy British and take European trips or the rest of the world holidays instead of spending our holiday money in the states
Stickers in the shops will help us identify British made products
It’s insane to fawn all over Trump as a couple of MPs do.
 
inbetween said:
Labour did this for years in opposition to the Tories, they opposed pretty much everything whilst offering no alternative. That's the point of why any government has to hold a majority. If you have to rely upon the opposition to get legislation through then you have a serious problem.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you’re seriously making a comparison.
The Tories had an outright majority from 2015 and a majority coalition before that so it didn’t matter what Labour did. The Dems had a tiny majority in the House but didn’t have the Senate then lost the majority in the House. They needed bipartisan support hence a bill that was agreed by both sides then scuppered for Trump.
 
west didsblue said:
Not sure if you’re seriously making a comparison.
The Tories had an outright majority from 2015 and a majority coalition before that so it didn’t matter what Labour did. The Dems had a tiny majority in the House but didn’t have the Senate then lost the majority in the House. They needed bipartisan support hence a bill that was agreed by both sides then scuppered for Trump.
Click to expand...
Herein lies a problem. Instead of just writing “I was wrong”, we end up in this endless cycle of explanation of facts and excuses and nuances that is just exhausting because some people can’t just come off the stance they have.

The seemingly widely-held human stubbornness and unwillingness to admit a mistake is why I have so little confidence and so much fear about how bad things have to get before Trump supporters come off him.
 
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Yes.

So what?
Click to expand...
last-battlefield-400x200.jpg
 
Hungary under Orban is very pro putin and because of that a thorn in the side of the EU.
The Orange Shit Gibbon has stated he might pull his troops out of Germany and station them in Hungary.
If Trump and Putin are allowed to carve up Ukraine and end the conflict I can see the next step being Hungary.
Far fetched ?
I don't think so, Trump is destroying Nato, the EU wouldn't be in a position to do anything and who is going to attack the Russian troops whilst America are there and Hungary have welcomed them into the country, effectively you would also be fighting their troops.
 
blueparrot said:
What is ‘woke’ and why does it need eliminating? Is it another meaningless word like snowflake.
Click to expand...
The classic definition...

Aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues—especially issues of racial and social justice.

It can and does mean very different things to different factions of the American public, and the British public for that matter. A highly polarised society like the USA will continue to morph its meaning over time and we'll limp along later as we increasingly seem to do.

Snowflake is not meaningless....

Snowflake is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top