US Politics Thread

[Murat B.]

Actually I think you're missing my point. The media is irrelevant in this. World leaders are not swayed by CNN or the Beeb's take. They see Trump with the tariffs, with Greenland, with this Iran fiasco, with threats to pull out of NATO, with support for Russia. They don't see this as normal. In fact it's so abnormal they're done. They want off the dollar, the want off SWIFT, they want to create and buy their own weapons. Nothing to do with the media. It's about ACTIONS

Still not getting it. No one is talking about world leaders. I am talking about regular people who make up 99.99999999% of the population, whose opinions are shaped, reshaped and shaped again by the media, social media and even AI. Do you think people listen to Trump more or listen to what is being SAID about Trump more? How many millions of morons STILL to this day believe that Trump's full quote was "There were good people on both sides" ?

And the issues you are talking about...are there valid economical and political discussions to be had? You agree or disagree is one thing but dismissing issues because it is brought up by the orange one is pure TDS:
Tariffs: It is an economical tool and policy. You are at a trade deficit and you think some countries are taking advantage of you, you may employ this, wrong or not.

Greenland: Your arch enemy is doing shady things around the Arctic. Greenland is a place of strategic importance. Starting a conversation about it is a strategy to wake some people up . Don't worry about HOW Trump starts that conversation. If you don't know by now he is not a "diplomat", well..

Iran: My Persian neighbor upstairs wears his Make Iran Great Again hat every day and prays to his god Trump finishes the job. Some like it, some don't.

NATO: Increase your spending on your military, pull your own weight , we are tired of carrying your sorry ass for all these years. That is his argument. It is a legit one. Come up with your own argument and let's talk. Again, Trump does not word it like that but read above. He will be blamed for many things but he will not be blamed for being a typical politician.

Russia: I am not buying that he supports Russia. "Support" is a strong word, implies direct involvement in my opinion. I am not seeing that but I am open to discussion.

Now, all these above arguments, how are they presented in the media and online?

 

[Federberg]

Still not getting it. No one is talking about world leaders. I am talking about regular people who make up 99.99999999% of the population, whose opinions are shaped, reshaped and shaped again by the media, social media and even AI. Do you think people listen to Trump more or listen to what is being SAID about Trump more? How many millions of morons STILL to this day believe that Trump's full quote was "There were good people on both sides" ?

lol! No I disagree. No surprise there. If we were talking about an opinion being expressed then I might consider your point about the media relevant. But we're not doing that. We're talking about an event that happened. In real life. How people respond to that is not being formed by the media. People still have agency, and contrary to those who are stuck in a social or professional media bubble that's still precisely what happened for me. I"ll remind you that my comment was about my reaction to the incident with the shooter. You took it upon yourself to diagnose my thinking, mine I found it amusing, I don't believe you meant harm or disrespect, but come on man.. I'm not some sheep that follows the herd dog of social media. I am capable of forming opinions about this administration based on their actions and I believe that many other people are also capable of that. As I mentioned Anne Applebaum coincidentally stated that many people in power in Europe also admitted to some scepticism about what happened. That is entirely due to all the drama that surrounds this administration. It is simply not a media construct. Sorry but no.. if you're making some other point that's fine, but remember you responded, you opined about an observation I made

 

[Murat B.]

lol! No I disagree. No surprise there. If we were talking about an opinion being expressed then I might consider your point about the media relevant. But we're not doing that. We're talking about an event that happened. In real life. How people respond to that is not being formed by the media. People still have agency, and contrary to those who are stuck in a social or professional media bubble that's still precisely what happened for me. I"ll remind you that my comment was about my reaction to the incident with the shooter. You took it upon yourself to diagnose my thinking, mine I found it amusing, I don't believe you meant harm or disrespect, but come on man.. I'm not some sheep that follows the herd dog of social media. I am capable of forming opinions about this administration based on their actions and I believe that many other people are also capable of that. As I mentioned Anne Applebaum coincidentally stated that many people in power in Europe also admitted to some scepticism about what happened. That is entirely due to all the drama that surrounds this administration. It is simply not a media construct. Sorry but no.. if you're making some other point that's fine, but remember you responded, you opined about an observation I made

No diagnosing, honestly. Just observing, because I do it too. You yourself asked if you were being cynical. I said yes, because you are not alone. Occam's Razor is dead. A cigar is not a cigar anymore. Pick your pick. People see the blood squirting out of Charlie Kirk's neck and STILL say it was staged, or his own side did it, or some say his fucking WIFE was involved ! We don't even believe our eyes anymore.

It was NEVER like this. People argued in the past about Kennedy's death regarding who may have been behind it But nobody argued he was DEAD or not.

You are not sheep, neither am I, but don't you think some things have changed and it is impossible not to be affected by it , even if it is just a bit.

 

[Federberg]

No diagnosing, honestly. Just observing, because I do it too. You yourself asked if you were being cynical. I said yes, because you are not alone. Occam's Razor is dead. A cigar is not a cigar anymore. Pick your pick. People see the blood squirting out of Charlie Kirk's neck and STILL say it was staged, or his own side did it, or some say his fucking WIFE was involved ! We don't even believe our eyes anymore.

It was NEVER like this. People argued in the past about Kennedy's death regarding who may have been behind it But nobody argued he was DEAD or not.

You are not sheep, neither am I, but don't you think some things have changed and it is impossible not to be affected by it , even if it is just a bit.

oh I absolutely believe things have changed. I think our debate is really about what specifically has changed. For sure media and technology has changed, in two key ways, accessibility/ coverage is one way, and the other is the plethora of opinions that buzz around any event. What I mean is that we're past the age where opinion makers were few and far between. Now we have opinion makes in the comment sections.

But... another thing that's changed, which is entirely separate from the evolution of media is the fact that there has never been an Administration like Trump's. It's unique, and I believe this is where we have our difference of opinion. I think the difference is profound, you seem to think that it's just another administration perhaps slightly outside of the norm? To me this is an Administration that never mind how it will forever change America, it will change forever how other countries perceive and deal with America. That's already in motion.

This is an Administration that attacks its country's allies and gives cover to its nations enemies. This is a first. There are a host of reasons why it's different I won't belabour it here, but as a consequence it's not unreasonable for observers to be sceptical or react differently. You attribute the reaction to a media mania, excessive partisanship etc... when I saw Charlie Kirk's murder my first thought wasn't anything other than absolute horror. And by the way it's interesting to me that the assassin in that case seemed to be competent, yet for a much more challenging task the criminals seemed rather less so. Why is that? Never the less, just because a horrific influencer like Candace Owens makes up some nonsense about Charlie Kirk and his wife... I'm not gullible enough to be impacted.

The key point is that there are now a growing list of events that have happened with this administration that never have a bad outcome, but they're just threatening enough to create an alternative narrative to the one that dominated before the event. If we find out that this was a genuine crazy dude, I wouldn't be shocked. If we find out that it's some sort of basic false flag, who among us would really be shocked? `I repeat that we still don't have any definitive conclusions from the prior attempts. How is that possible? Given the resources that should have been put to bear to resolve them? I'm just saying... it's a crazy enough period in time in which things never reach a resolution so it's not crazy to wonder...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cynicism is the common thing these days. Charlie Kirk committed suicide, or something. The left are violent, and their hyperbolic rhetoric creates the climate for justifying violence, then they deny it and claim these evil Nazis obvious staged it, because we’re just innocent good guys.

But sometimes something is what it is. They’re not good guys, the left was anyways violent, going back to Karl Marx encouraging the death of millions until his permanent revolution succeeds, and the reigns of communism everywhere in the twentieth century.

We’re going to face a tidal wave of misinformation right now..

The right wing president the bullet was supposedly intended for launched 2 separate wars in the last few months alone, the second of which saw the massacre of over 170 children in literally its first few hours. Pretty sure violence is a bipartisan issue.

 

[Kieran]

The right wing president the bullet was supposedly intended for launched 2 separate wars in the last few months alone, the second of which saw the massacre of over 170 children in literally its first few hours. Pretty sure violence is a bipartisan issue.

Political violence. Attacks on political opponents just because they hold a different view. And yes, there is political violence on the right as well, but it’s become standard issue on the left, with all these “activists” who are really insurgents and not really activists at all.

Over the previous 100, 150 years, communism has caused a far greater death toll than anything on the right, and that’s sanctioned by Marx and others who didn’t care about the death toll once the dirty revolution succeeded..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Political violence.

I was confused as to what the assassination of Khamenei was...

Not to mention, you simply stated "the left are violent."

 

[Kieran]

I was confused as to what the assassination of Khamenei was...

Not to mention, you simply stated "the left are violent."

Yes, the left are violent. The Soviet Union and China taught you that, if you studied it. But my comment above - which you first quoted - was clearly about political violence, particularly in the west, where we ought to let the people decide and allow other opinions be heard, without threats or coercion. The left are violently opposed to this...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, the left are violent. The Soviet Union and China taught you that, if you studied it. But my comment above - which you first quoted - was clearly about political violence, particularly in the west, where we ought to let the people decide and allow other opinions be heard, without threats or coercion. The left are violently opposed to this...

And Nazi Germany famously taught us nothing about the right...

 

[Federberg]

Yes, the left are violent. The Soviet Union and China taught you that, if you studied it. But my comment above - which you first quoted - was clearly about political violence, particularly in the west, where we ought to let the people decide and allow other opinions be heard, without threats or coercion. The left are violently opposed to this...

I'm confused mate, when the right are violent it's not political?

Re: communism vs the right, you're probably correct because of Mao. But are you making a distinction between communist political violence and communist incompetent policies. Because if you treat incompetent policies as a separate thing, then... I'm not sure the tally supports your thesis. Consider the Nazi's, Mussolini, Japanese Imperialism, genocides in Africa and the Middle East. All of those could be classified as right wing. I haven't added up the deaths, but it seems pretty darn close to a wash for me. I think that both left and right are just as bad. Let's take the definitions out of it and I'll re-state it this way... extremes are bad

 

[Kieran]

And Nazi Germany famously taught us nothing about the right...

They absolutely taught us that violent extremes are evil. Hatred of Jews especially, and a belief in racial superiority is both backward and destructive…

 

[Kieran]

I'm confused mate, when the right are violent it's not political?

Yes but the right aren’t clogging the streets with hate and causing riots and chanting murderous slogans while being aided and abetted by the media machines.

Re: communism vs the right, you're probably correct because of Mao. But are you making a distinction between communist political violence and communist incompetent policies. Because if you treat incompetent policies as a separate thing, then... I'm not sure the tally supports your thesis. Consider the Nazi's, Mussolini, Japanese Imperialism, genocides in Africa and the Middle East. All of those could be classified as right wing. I haven't added up the deaths, but it seems pretty darn close to a wash for me. I think that both left and right are just as bad. Let's take the definitions out of it and I'll re-state it this way... extremes are bad

Communists killed as a matter of revolution. I think the death tolls and the gulags might show us that communism is the greatest evil secular ideology known to man. Had the Nazis won the war, we might be saying this about the right…

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes but the right aren’t clogging the streets with hate and causing riots and chanting murderous slogans while being aided and abetted by the media machines.

This happened in the US all the time in the early 20th century and the civil rights era. This happens all the time with Zionists too.

It really feels you're trying to split hairs to convince yourself one ideology is just more violent than the other despite plethora of evidence to suggest at the very least, both are violent, politically and otherwise.

 

[Federberg]

Yes but the right aren’t clogging the streets with hate and causing riots and chanting murderous slogans while being aided and abetted by the media machines.

Communists killed as a matter of revolution. I think the death tolls and the gulags might show us that communism is the greatest evil secular ideology known to man. Had the Nazis won the war, we might be saying this about the right…

Ah! so you're not making a distinction between the incompetence of the ideology and the violence in defence of the ideology? That wasn't clear

 

[Kieran]

This happened in the US all the time in the early 20th century and the civil rights era. This happens all the time with Zionists too.

It really feels you're trying to split hairs to convince yourself one ideology is just more violent than the other despite plethora of evidence to suggest at the very least, both are violent, politically and otherwise.

They both can be, for sure. Now we’re experiencing a poisonous tyranny of leftist idiocy and violence, intolerance and moral destruction.

I’m like Leonard Cohen, bro: “I’m neither left nor right, I’m just staying home tonight..”

 

[Federberg]

since we're talking about it...