Ukraine flag Armor Games stands with Ukraine Ukraine flag
If you’d like to help, please consider giving to Ukraine Crisis Fund

ForumsWEPRCan we try to find some positivity? (Current American Political Landscape)

54 20772
Unbl
offline
Unbl
22 posts
Baron

I am a Donald Trump supporter, but the hatred and name calling from both major political parties and candidates was something I personally hoped would come to pass regardless of the result of the election. Unfortunately, it seems that we are still as divided as before the current president was announced. This saddens me, because even though Americans are very discontent with one another, at the end of the day, we are still supposed to all be on the same side. At this point, I just wish we could all at least settle for the common ground of simply being Americans. Any and all thoughts are welcome.

  • 54 Replies
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,059 posts
Treasurer

Okay I'm going to try to be positive and I will pretend that I don't despise the guy and I don't have a burning hatred for the Republican party.

Let's pretend I'm an alternate version of myself.

Believe me this is very hard to do but I will try.

I agree with Trump about bringing back factories to the US and punish companies oversees and give a tax break to the companies who come back and employ American workers.

There I said it!

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

@Olinser

Right now his best trait is that he seems intent on actually fulfilling his campaign promises - which is quite refreshing in a politician.
He really isn't, though. His promises consisted of glittering generalities, solutions to nonexistent problems, and quaint but clearly illogical boasts.

But overall he seems to be moving in the right direction.
In what conceivable sense is that?

On the other hand, you would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to find American liberals willing to admit the many deep flaws that Clinton has and demonstrated as a Presidential candidate, or one that will say that a Clinton presidency would have been anything other than sugar and rainbows raining down from the sky.
I don't believe that even you believe what you just said there.

But Trump HAS to be evil. Because if Republicans aren't actually evil, then maybe SSTG isn't particularly smart or virtuous.
Of course! And if doctors aren't actually evil, then maybe malpractice suits aren't particularly important or useful, and if tobacco plants aren't actually evil, then maybe cigarrettes aren't very toxic or carcinogenic, and if sentences aren't actually evil, maybe your conditional isn't as relevant or logical as you seem to think it is.

In order to avoid confronting the reality of how bad a candidate and person Clinton was, or how some liberal positions and policies either will not work or are simply not popular, liberals are lashing out and screaming and stamping their feet calling Trump a Nazi, evil racist, bigot, XXXXist, whatever. Because to do anything else would require them to examine themselves and realize the shortcomings of their own party, candidate, and positions that allowed him to be elected in the first place.
No. They're calling Trump a racist, bigot, and whatever because he's a racist bigoted whatever. The evil Nazi stuff is just hyperbole unless you're basing this argument on youtube conspiracy videos, in which latter case it's exactly the same groundless lunacy that goes into the conspiracy videos about Clinton and virtually everything else under the sun.

Obama and the Democrats, in the same manner, rode to victory promising change, and had a golden opportunity to secure their dominance for years simply by delivering. Instead, they failed to deliver what they promised, and what they DID deliver was roundly rejected by a pretty strong majority of Americans. In failing to deliver, they gave the Republicans back the largest majority they have had in quite literally almost 100 years.
So? If you're trying to make a point here, it's in need of clarification.

[...] the people that are emotionally invested in Trump and Republicans being evil are not interested in any rational or logical argument to the contrary.
Which is why these people, imaginary or otherwise, have no relevance to any discussion on politics.

Not once in any of his rantings has he come close to admitting that Clinton was a terrible, unpopular candidate with myriad flaws.
Okay, then. Have you tried, I dunno, asking him about that? The basis of your own argument appears to be "This person is completely and unambiguously opposed to Trump; therefore this person (and, by extension, any other person opposed to Trump) is an absolute unshakable supporter of Clinton and suffers from a pathological state of willful ignorance that makes any recognition of her shortcomings completely impossible."
Unbl
offline
Unbl
22 posts
Baron

Thank you @SSTG for contributing to the original purpose of me starting this thread. While I am not entirely happy with the derailing mentioned by others, I am very appreciative of you finding something nice to say about someone you do not like or respect. I wanted to focus on the need to generate some common ground in America, and everyone doing something to assist that is positive in my eyes.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,059 posts
Treasurer

Thank you @SSTG for contributing to the original purpose of me starting this thread. While I am not entirely happy with the derailing mentioned by others, I am very appreciative of you finding something nice to say about someone you do not like or respect. I wanted to focus on the need to generate some common ground in America, and everyone doing something to assist that is positive in my eyes.

You're welcome. It'll take a long time for people to get together because of the huge party divisions but if the current investigation prove to be right about Russia messing with the US and
Europe in order to divide us up then we all have a good reason to unite and make whoever dare messing with our country pay the price.
In other word we're gonna kick some a$$!

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

@FishPreferred

So? If you're trying to make a point here, it's in need of clarification.

I think he is saying that SSTG, being a Democrat, was part or at least a voter of the party that practically gave the Republicans their majority in those elections. In all he is trying to shoot down the previous notion by SSTG that... let me find it...

Oh yes. Here:

The reason why Trump is president is because of the lousy jobs the Republican did and people were fed up with the corruption. Now look at what's happening, more corruption than ever!

SSTG here is a particularly interesting case study in cognitive dissonance because he claims that 'Trump is President because of the lousy job the Republicans did and people were fed up with the corruption'. In other words, SSTG is literally claiming a Republican got elected because people were fed up with the lousy job the Republicans were doing.

Which is why these people, imaginary or otherwise, have no relevance to any discussion on politics.

I think he is trying to point out that SSTG might be one

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

I think he is saying that SSTG, being a Democrat, was part or at least a voter of the party that practically gave the Republicans their majority in those elections. In all he is trying to shoot down the previous notion by SSTG [...]
In which case he's doing a terrible job. When one party's agenda is limiting government authority and empowering the private sector, the next party to take office cannot rationally be blamed for lacking the power and authority to change things.

I think he is trying to point out that SSTG might be one
In which case he's still doing a terrible job by ignoring his opponent's argument in favour of a fictional one.

Slightly unrelated, but I believe that we can all agree that this was (or was one of) the worst election(s) in American history.
Well, the phrase Scylla and Charybdis certainly comes to mind.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,920 posts
Grand Duke

I call upon everyone who has posted so far to not get overheated here. It is one thing to point out that an argument is overly emotional in less emotional language, and another to just trade barbs.

---------------
Clinton and Trump are deeply flawed individuals. But one is a deeply flawed individual who knows her way around Washington and has years of experience in government. The other is a corporate magnate, no doubt leading him to possess valuable skills, with a mixed business record, who has never been in government. I think Clinton edges out on him for most observers.

If I was American I would have voted for Clinton although Trump should get his period of grace. I can see why angry voters have flocked to Trump. Unfortunately, the 100 day mark which Presidencies are traditionally given an initial grading on is fast approaching, and his record isn't exactly stellar to say the least. The Republican Party needs to act like a party that is governing and no longer like the party in opposition that it has been for years.

His healthcare plan is a case in point: It seems like he did not bother about policy details but tried to rush out a badly thought out plan just to repeal a vilified one, and then flipflopped and threatened party members who did not step in line with him. It won't inspire confidence.

Let's see how he goes on with his tax plans, especially given that they were rather dependent on his healthcare savings.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

Trump is the best president we have had in a long time. He is protecting us from North Korean missiles, imposing taxes on companies that oursource labor, and cutting down worthless "free" trade agreements. While he may have been bad in the past, as a president he is doing a great job and deserves the support of the American people.

The same liberals who want to destroy our country are trying to edge us to animosity with Russia. Russia is the only hope we have of surviving a war with Communist China, we wouldn't hold out against China and Russia combined. In worsening our relations with Russia, the liberals are hoping to create a war.

England, our "great ally" seems to be stirring up trouble for us. One of their spies was conveniently poisoned, just in time to blame it on the Russians. It has been England's longtime policy in previous centuries to play off the two most powerful European countries, and emerging on the top. Winston Churchill "the hero" instigated war with Germany, playing off France, the Soviets, and America. The Polish were about to cede the Danzig Straight to Germany - effectively preventing war - when the Brits issued their war guarantee. After the guarantee, the poles felt safe and wouldn't negotiate with the Germans, and that led to war.

The British are just too happy to play off two countries against one another, and sit back to watch the show. Yes, they want nuclear weapon treaties, because they are too weak to build their own. It is time for bloody old England to be eclipsed, and they don't like it.

North Korea is a buffer state for China, and as such, China does not want them to stir up trouble; on the contrary, China expects them to keep the peace. By threatening North Korea and escalating the situation, Trump has effectively slapped down the North to their position and has shown that he cannot be toyed with. By exerting utmost pressure on North Korea, we also make China uncomfortable, and they too will talk with North Korea.

No president could do better, with Clinton we would be at war.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

Considering that the Trump administration is now consisting of several war hawks, has already successfully contributed in derailing the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, is actively endangering the Iranian atomic deal which is the only thing currently keeping Iran from building nukes, and is close to blow up peace negotiations with North Korea despite Kim Jong Un's best effort and propaganda to make a truce become reality, I'm asking myself if you're not just trolling. Are you?

edit: Oh, and let's not forget economic war with Europe.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha,

The only way to prevent future Israeli-Palastenian conflict was to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol. It is really Israel's capitol, go and see for yourself.

The Iranian atomic deal did nothing for the United States. We were basically paying them millions of dollars not to do research, and we cannot even inspect to see if the agreement is
being followed. Basically, we are funding their secred research facilities that we may not inspect.

Trump did not even come close to blowing up the negotiations with North Korea. On the contrary,
Korea was bluffing and trying to gain ground when Trump made the call. Korea is desperate: they cannot survive under the economic sanctions any longer. By showing that he was prepared to walk away from the agreement and that he was not just trying to gain support for re-election by getting a deal at any cost, Trump significantly improved his hand and got himself in a position where Korea is virtually begging for negotiations.

The European "free" trade agreement was not fair at all. It gave a significant advantage to overseas companies over ours. Trump is not pushing for a trade advantage: he is just ensuring that the tables are EVEN. But I wouldn't call it a "trade war" yet. Currently, he is just throwing off the bad trade policy and they are trying to get it back.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

The only way to prevent future Israeli-Palastenian conflict was to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol. It is really Israel's capitol, go and see for yourself.

No matter what your ideological inclinations are, by doing that you are effectively pushing the scale hard on Israel's side, to the detriment of the Palestinians. This will not result in a solution of the conflict. It might end it, by ending the Palestinians.

The Iranian atomic deal did nothing for the United States. We were basically paying them millions of dollars not to do research, and we cannot even inspect to see if the agreement is
being followed. Basically, we are funding their secred research facilities that we may not inspect.

Trade with Iran was helping to stabilize Iran's society after years of embargo, which would contribute to disarm the conflict. That money was useful. Now you're pushing them back into the radical corner, and that is exactly where the atomic bomb looms.

By showing that he was prepared to walk away from the agreement and that he was not just trying to gain support for re-election by getting a deal at any cost, Trump significantly improved his hand and got himself in a position where Korea is virtually begging for negotiations.

Yeah, that's what that diplomat said, didn't he. Actually, it was North Korea who first aborted the negotiations. Don't remember the details or reasons why. It's true that NK is in a bad position; that's why they've been building rockets all the time, as an assurance for themselves, not to actually attack America. Kim Jong Un knows he cannot simply attack, but he needs a certain lever. M.A.D., remember? Anyway, Trump's Twitter trolling and the arrogance of his staff is, at the very least, not doing anything to better the situation.

The European "free" trade agreement was not fair at all. It gave a significant advantage to overseas companies over ours. Trump is not pushing for a trade advantage: he is just ensuring that the tables are EVEN. But I wouldn't call it a "trade war" yet. Currently, he is just throwing off the bad trade policy and they are trying to get it back.

It can be considered a trade war because Trump unilaterally decided to ignore international agreements by putting taxes on the wares, and Europe replied in the same way. You can resign an agreement if you don't like it, but then you need to do it properly. Trump just broke it where he saw an advantage. That's not politics, that's opportunism.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


It might end it, by ending the Palestinians.

How would Jerusalem being Israel's capitol end the Palestinians?


Trade with Iran was helping to stabilize Iran's society after years of embargo, which would contribute to disarm the conflict. That money was useful. Now you're pushing them back into the radical corner, and that is exactly where the atomic bomb looms.

I am an American. Americans don't bribe.


You can resign an agreement if you don't like it, but then you need to do it properly.

Nobody can force us to make a bad deal with any country. Ever.


Trump just broke it where he saw an advantage.

Of course. It is his responsibility to do what is in the best interests of this nation, not of other nations. We shouldn't be involved in trade deals that benefit others and not us.


That's not politics, that's opportunism.

It is the job of a politician to do what is best for his country. It was good for the U.S. to be let out of those restrictive and unfair trade agreements.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

How would Jerusalem being Israel's capitol end the Palestinians?

It escalates the conflict, for ideological reasons. It might start a new Intifada, and so forth and so forth. The end result will be that Netanyahu will finally have his justification to wipe out any resistance to his nationalist agenda.

Nobody can force us to make a bad deal with any country. Ever.

The deal was already made. Breaking a contract is illegal, even on the international scale.

Of course. It is his responsibility to do what is in the best interests of this nation, not of other nations. We shouldn't be involved in trade deals that benefit others and not us.

Again, he cannot simply do whatever he likes without consequences. That's what politics is about. Otherwise we'd be in an anarchy. Or dead.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


It escalates the conflict, for ideological reasons. It might start a new Intifada, and so forth and so forth. The end result will be that Netanyahu will finally have his justification to wipe out any resistance to his nationalist agenda.

Jerusalem was Israel's capital even before the U.S. recognized it as such, so the U.S.' recognition of that is only proper for a good ally.


The deal was already made. Breaking a contract is illegal, even on the international scale.

Illegal according to what?


Again, he cannot simply do whatever he likes without consequences. That's what politics is about. Otherwise we'd be in an anarchy. Or dead.

The consequences of his actions seems to be pretty good!

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

Jerusalem was Israel's capital even before the U.S. recognized it as such, so the U.S.' recognition of that is only proper for a good ally.

I could say that 'The land was Palestinian even before the Jews were settled there.' This kind of argumentation is precisely why this conflict is ever ongoing.

Illegal according to what?

According to international law.
Showing 16-30 of 54

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More