|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 15, 2019 3:12:54 GMT 5
So yeah, I do think he really just wants to harm people he doesn't like, be that poor people, hispanics, muslims, liberals, women or LGBTQ people. I suppose that's true given his bias and actions. But he likely isn't going anywhere in 2020 - as was discussed in the other thread, he most likely will be re-elected |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 16, 2019 19:19:16 GMT 5
So yeah, I do think he really just wants to harm people he doesn't like, be that poor people, hispanics, muslims, liberals, women or LGBTQ people. I suppose that's true given his bias and actions. But he likely isn't going anywhere in 2020 - as was discussed in the other thread, he most likely will be re-elected That depends a lot on who he’s going to be running against, and whether that person will be seen as part of the "establishment" and cause people to vote for Trump in protest. His approval ratings aren’t exactly stunning (both the peak and average are the lowest of any US president, ever, and even his best approval ratings are well below 50%), although admittedly it’s not as if he had been democratically elected the last time. Still, it looks like he isn’t popular with a majority of voters in most states.  So by inference, there’s at least the potential for a suitable candidate to win on account of not being Trump, the challenge for Democrats is to not be perceived as even worse than Trump by most of those people. Here the question is, with the wacky voting system they have, whether that popular support will translate into an actual win, but I’m cautiously optimistic considering the map above and the statewide polls, although no doubt it would not be an easy win.
Your article makes a good point that other unpopular presidents have also usually been reelected. However all of those had peak and average approval ratings far higher than Trump, and Trump is also the only one whose approval has never exceeded 50%.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 16, 2019 20:09:53 GMT 5
Oh, then someone else may be the pick. But as you said, it depends upon the candidates
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 27, 2019 23:03:14 GMT 5
I really dont want to talk politics here.
I am a science enthusiast, a nature lover but I m definitely not, for many reasons, leftist/liberal...
I can tell this is rather difficult in a sciency student environment. Hidding your opinions from people that pretend themselves liberals but become hysterical once you discuss these matters.
It is always sad to read famous researchers on FB writing interesting things about science, then next write biased hogwash about Trump, calling him Orange Hitler or that kind of utter stupidities.
No political leader is ever perfect. In France, De Gaulle has been a great leader yet did terrible mistakes at times.
There was so much intox and lies and manipulations about Trump, from almost all the medias (that I totally despise in general matterd) and his opponents that I admit I was happy to see him winning the elections, not even mentionning, being in the military, the hatred the Obama/Clinton administration gets from US veterans.
I dont like everything, but my fundamental values, my vision of the world and human civilization are definitely at the right.
I think political correctness has, unfortunately, infected too many otherwise brilliant scientific minds...
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 27, 2019 23:07:05 GMT 5
Well, he has opponents in his own party.
The right is not a homogenous mass. It can be broadly divided in a Christian conservative centre right which is the larger part and into the alt-right which Trump embodies (although it's technically more of an alt-lite).
Not trying to persuade you into hating them, just saying that not everyone who is against him is necessarily a left-winger. LionClaws from Carnivora (who is definitely right-wing) detested him and thought his views on racism were as bad as Hillary's views on abortion (which LionClaws firmly opposes).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 27, 2019 23:20:09 GMT 5
Having opponents in his own party is nothing new. So much, by the way, for the Orange Hitler (a really really idiotic analogy, yet said by actual scientists).
I dont talk about the right as political parties but as values. To summarize, I affiliate myself to the Southern values in the US...only I m not from Texas but from France ^
Trump does not embody all the alt right which is not homogenous either, all are not neo-nazis with a negative IQ...
I m not gonna talk about it. There are definitely things that I like (anti-political correctness, isolationism..), some others less. On the other hand I hate my chief of the State.
I wont either detail what from which kind of right I am. Far too long and I m not here to talk about that.
Simply said, my values are one of the reasons why I did not attempt a scientific carrier, being surrounded by political correctness, (the gender theory is an absolute unscientific horror supported by...some scientists) and hysterical leftists students is not for my taste...
Anyway, I dont believe in democracy, vote and the French Republic anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 28, 2019 0:22:18 GMT 5
What is this Orange Hitler in reference to? Yes neither of them are the best person but Trump is pretty different from Hitler
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 28, 2019 0:37:59 GMT 5
What is this Orange Hitler in reference to? Yes neither of them are the best person but Trump is pretty different from Hitler Because of the hair... In all honesty, saying neither of them is the best person is still totally inappropriate. Hitler is simply the most destructive man in history (note I did not say the one who killed the more). An expansionist, bellicist, fanatic, eugenist, revengeful leader. Trump is a conservative businessman who defended minorities numerous times, not really environment sided, not politically correct and still with some liberal ideas (legal cannabis, transgender cause efforts...). Other than being in politics, there is nothing common between them. The people comparing Trump to Hitler are totally ridiculous statement at any level and frankly deserves to take my fist in the jaw. Calling Trump a Hitler is an absolute insult to the 19 million deaths directly killed by the Reich or even to the 50-80 million deaths of WW2. Such an indecency just drives me mad. And I know at least two paleobiologists, competent people, who still were able to say such a shameful claim. Hitler's mouvement killed numerous people before even being in command. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 28, 2019 0:39:57 GMT 5
That's awful!
I do hope they get what is coming to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 28, 2019 1:02:53 GMT 5
Yes, Hitler comparisons are getting old, and comparing Trump to Hitler is certainly inappropriate, although frankly no sane person calling Trump "Orange Hitler" means this in a way that equates the two.
However calling Trump anything but a racist, sexist, bigoted, self-serving, corrupt, bumbling fool is also inappropriate. There are very good arguments in favour of impeaching him, and the only reason it hasn't been done yet is probably that he controls a senate majority, and republicans don't want to impeach one of their own, no matter how ridiculous his behaviour. The man has had the audacity to openly advocate torture and war crimes, on public television no less ("bring back water-boarding", "going after terrorists' families"). That's way past "not politically correct". There are enough left-wingers who also criticize exaggerated political correctness, what Trump is doing (like calling all Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, when he himself is the one to publicly boast with comitting sexual assault) is something else entirely.
He is actually not a classic conservative, I can respect some conservatives as people, if not for most of their political ideas, even though I do not share their values. But Donald Trump is a racist idiot who lacks basic impulse control, is totally unfit for holding any public office, and is a major danger to global stability (don't even get me started on the climate!). So much so that he even alienated hardcore conservatives like Bush Sr. or McCain.
And Trump really did refuse to publicly condemn actual Neonazis and KKK members.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 28, 2019 2:00:14 GMT 5
We simply have totally different visions of the world.
I disagree on the racism accusations, his whole life just demonstrates this. He simply doesnt take gloves. That is something I do regularly. I am not racist but I never take gloves when designing the ponctual (or not) problems posed by some minorities(even if it is known that the brain is naturally "racist"; reacting differently depending the ethnicity if the person we talk to).
In my country, I ve grown up with racism but most of the time, it did not come from white people...
Same thing about the torture, sorry if this shovks you but I simply cannot care less about the torture of mass murderers that we fight since almost two decades.
I'd rather spend one year in Guantanamo than a day in a Daesh prison.
I should recall that a great leader is not necessary someone overly intelligent either.
Every liberals was terrified of a war with North-Korea, two months later, first time in history, the two leaders of the most antagonistic nations meet in person and discuss politely.
Impulsive but an unparalleled diplomacy with Kim Jung Un...
Playing impulsivity is a real politik tactic that actually pays if well done.
My only problem is the climate and even there, I m HIGHLY mistrutful of the exaggerations, unprecisions and utter lies exoressed by some ecolo-catastrophists.
A guy wanting to build (Obama idea btw) a wall at a border because there are massive security issues with it doesn't scare me.
Between 2006-2012, it is estimated that over 100 000 people died because of the Mexican cartel violence in Mexico. More than the war in Afghanistan on a longer period.
What scares me are the people who tell me that a child can chose his gender by himself, the cultural marxists.
Leftism in my country is the reason that I think I will quit my country one day...
Anyway, I will avoid this thread, I m not here for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 28, 2019 2:17:59 GMT 5
We certainly do. But I am very curious. What exactly about Donald Trump's life demonstrates to you that he isn't a racist?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 28, 2019 14:52:07 GMT 5
Grey OK there are points in there that I cannot leave unaddressed. It is fine if you choose not to reply and further discuss this, even if this leaves some very interesting questions unanswered, but since you posted on this thread, you must have at least willing for people to respond to your statements, otherwise you would not have made them. As I wrote above, I am very curious about that. What in his life did he do to demonstrate so clearly he is not a racist, when he’s spent his entire political career demonstrating that he is (again, "mexicans = rapists", "muslim ban", refusal to condemn known white supremacists…). Really, genuinely curious, I would love to know what you meant by this if you could find it in you to respond. Also h ow he supposedly "defended minorities numerous times" or had "some liberal ideas" on issues such as transgender rights.Yes, Donald Trump said he’s the "least racist person in the world". But I wouldn’t take his word for it, as we’ll come to later, he’s also probably the "least honest person in the world". Not "taking gloves" would suggest sticking to the facts, but not sugarcoating them. Donald Trump does not stick to the facts, on the contrary, he seems to fundamentally disagree with the very concept of a "fact". Donald Trump is probably one of the most pathological liars alive. Do you really find it so weird that the scientific community overwhelmingly opposes Trump, with his clear anti-science, anti-facts stance? That is not an excuse for racism. Racists are people who have heavily biased* feelings about race, and who also act on those thoughts. *Not just "different", of course groups of people have differences, but "different" does not mean "inferior", or "all criminals". That’s what I mean by "impulse control". Luckily, most humans are able to stop themselves from acting on every stupid instinct they have, and rationally evaluate it. Most humans, but not Donald Trump. With the propensity for violent thoughts you have expressed a few posts back, I sincerely hope yours is better. On a side note, I do wonder if a non-white person would agree with that assessment. But whether racism comes from white people or non-white people, it is still racism, still a bad thing, and that non-whites do it is not an excuse for white (or in this case, orange) people to do it as well. More on point, I have not heard of white people getting shot by black cops in the US. Racism is certainly a thing for any ethnicity, but the sheer volume, and the severity of the consequences, aren’t the same, they depend on the size and the power of the groups perpetrating it. Torture is a clear breach of the human rights, no matter how you slice it. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. So you are saying you disagree with the charter of human rights? That is certainly good news for Trump. On the other hand, this does not mean that someone not overly intelligent is automatically a great leader. This brings me back to the "torture of mass murderers"-point. So on the one hand, you think it is OK to torture mass murderers (or those thought to be mass murderers, which is not always the same thing), on the other hand, you consider it an achievement that Trump has met and discussed politely (and I think Trump went a bit further than just being "polite" with Kim Jong Un) with this confirmed mass murderer? So which is is, should mass murderers be tortured, or should they be discussed "politely" with? I think doing both at the same time would be tricky, not just ethically. I’m not saying his political tactics don’t work, but having good political tactics doesn’t make someone fit to be president. The best political tactics in the world are wasted if a person uses them to achieve the wrong goals. Such as? I have myself criticized inaccurate or unverifiable statements made by environmentalists before, and of course such things happen. But I am curious as to what you are referring to here, because you mention such statements while omitting the countless lies and "alternative facts" spread by Donald Trump, which would suggest the former would have to be even more pervasive than the latter. All that while claims made by the current major environmental movements mostly reflect the scientific consensus very closely. Yes. So 100 000 Mexicans fell victim to such violence. There’s an article in the UN Charter of Human Rights for that as well: Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Under international law, Mexicans seeking protection from persecution have to be granted asylum. This is a big argument against the border wall, not in favour of it (I couldn’t care less who came up with the idea, of course other presidents have taken steps to secure the southern border, but none of them have attempted to build a project the size of the great wall of China and then make another country pay for it). Granted, not every Mexican immigrant to the US is directly fleeing persecution (not every part of Mexico is a hellhouse ruled by drug cartels–who got rich and powerful off of drugs they sold, and continue to sell to the US btw, and who certainly won’t be stopped by a wall because if they want to get to the US, they take the plane), but most aren’t criminals either. You don’t need to support open borders to see that there must be realistic ways for people to legally come into a country, and that the problem of illegal immigration won’t be solved by a big fence. And also that you cannot just ban all people from certain countries from entering. And frankly, a country consisting of 98.5% immigrants telling people they cannot come in is hypocritical to begin with, according to the same logic, they would have no right to be there themselves. It is curious. It would appear to me that the thought of people choosing any gender they like is a lot less scary than the thought of getting shot by corrupt law enforcement, or a disturbed teenager with a gun he bought at the hardware store. The latter two are things Trump has done absolutely nothing against. Of course he’s probably too focused on the grave danger transgender people pose to society…
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 28, 2019 15:16:48 GMT 5
Grey, I can respect if you don't want to talk and originally did not want to reply. However, you did comment on some issues I care about. It has more to do with transsexuality and torture than with Trump, so you can ignore it, but should these issues turn up important somehow, here are my comments. Same thing about the torture, sorry if this shovks you but I simply cannot care less about the torture of mass murderers that we fight since almost two decades. I'd rather spend one year in Guantanamo than a day in a Daesh prison. Assuming these are actually mass murderers and not simple POWs labeled as terrorists. I mean, it's not that they're checking your DAESH passport before torturing you. Disregarding that, torture has proven to be an ineffective way of retaining information and all it does is cause pointless casualties because it makes enemies refuse to surrender. Now, you I can't force you to care about torture (I don't care about the Syrian civil war either, since I don't know enough and there appears to be no side to root for), but it is objectively a much bigger problem than the sort of things you consider as such: What scares me are the people who tell me that a child can chose his gender by himself, the cultural marxists. Yeah, this is an absolute non-problem. What's gonna happen once they can? Will everyone just make up ridiculous genders? Considering the enormous stigma against transsexuality (I mean, suicide rates of 50%), why should anyone do so for no reason? This is only going to affect those with gender dysphoria, so there is nor reason to worry about some drag queen dystopia. Or is the very concept of transsexuality an invention of cultural marxist cartoon villains so that they can destroy the Western World for no reason whatsoever? If I am not mistaken, this does seem your main concern and might explain our differences in political prioritization as well as your applause for Trump's opposition to political correctness. As for why this concept of a cultural marxist boogeyman is bogus, Fair Whisper summed it up well: carnivora.net/write-an-uncomfortable-thruth-or-some-uncomfortabl-t5424.html#p42880So, while there are threats to modern civilization, an international leftist conspiracy (or immigration) is not among them. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 28, 2019 16:53:11 GMT 5
In case anyone wants to hear my honest input...although I've personally never had to deal with a whole lot of racism (but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn some people have made racist remarks about me behind my back), the two racist instances I can think of at the top of my head were by a white and a non-white* person (interestingly, the white person also made remarks about how "You're probably from the United States, Canada, or Australia, as if that were a bad thing; we were on a trip to Rome at the time).
But, not to preach to the choir, this honestly doesn't matter. For some people, it could very well be that most of the racism they've experienced was by white or non-white people. It's not excusable for anyone, towards anyone.
*In middle school, I remember a black student who saw me, pointed me out, and said "Look, it's Kim Jong-il" (what with me being Korean by heritage and all). Does this qualify?
|
|
