2020 US Presidential Election

[FGG]

This video worries me. It's a video of Kyle Rittenhouse punching a teenage girl (this is completely unrelated to the protests). Rittenhouse was in training to become a cop.

 

[Luman]

I fully agree which is why licensing would be so helpful because it allows for anonymous reporting of colleagues.

I guess the "good cops" are enablers in this sense (understandably given the culture), which is really the whole problem and why people are protesting.

It really might come down to reducing the power of police unions but, as you pointed out, neither side wants to do that. Because it seems that the unions have enough power to oppose *any* measure (including presumably requiring insurance) or solution.

In that sense, I guess the only thing the protests can accomplish (at least in the near term) is justice in the cases that have gone viral. And that's pretty depressing.

There are working police officers with 20, 30, 50 and more complaints against them. The best way to handle bad cops, is to fire them before they have a chance to do serious damage. Every municipality that has cop unions, needs to first get rid of these organizations, analyze the complaints that have been filed against their officers, and fire the worst 10 or 20 percent ASAP: No "re-training", anger therapy, warnings, or demotions. There also needs to be a national database that every police department can access, with the names and the nature of complaints against those who were fired, so that they cannot be hired for a new police job elsewhere. This would be very effective in preventing future tragedies, due to bad cops. People in non-union, non-cop jobs, can be fired for minor mistakes, being disliked by a boss, or for simply not getting along with coworkers, yet bad cops with union backing have to actually kill somebody, before they are let go. This is insanity, and there's no indication whatsoever, that anything will be done to correct it, on a large scale, anytime soon.

 

[Christiaan]

I fully agree which is why licensing would be so helpful because it allows for anonymous reporting of colleagues.

I guess the "good cops" are enablers in this sense (understandably given the culture), which is really the whole problem and why people are protesting.

It really might come down to reducing the power of police unions but, as you pointed out, neither side wants to do that. Because it seems that the unions have enough power to oppose *any* measure (including presumably requiring insurance) or solution.

In that sense, I guess the only thing the protests can accomplish (at least in the near term) is justice in the cases that have gone viral. And that's pretty depressing.

Interesting how US police unions play a role in the protection of officers against scrutiny or prosecution. We also have very powerful unions, but they do not mingle in cases that involves (excessive use of) violence, corruption & false reporting by officers. If there's any indication (or complaint) of this, the independent National Criminal Investigation Department (de Rijksrecherche) will research the case and eventually will offer recommendations to the Public Prosecutor (Openbaar Ministerie). Finally, The PP will decide if the recommendations are credible enough for criminal prosecution.

Edit: The National Criminal Investigation Department is not in any way aligned with the police. It is part of the national justice system and thus considered as a neutral arbiter in cases that involves the (mis)behavior of officers and the police in general.

 

[Christiaan]

This video worries me. It's a video of Kyle Rittenhouse punching a teenage girl (this is completely unrelated to the protests). Rittenhouse was in training to become a cop.

People like Kyle Rittenhouse feel legitimized in their behavior by people like Trump unfortunately. And there's a lot of people like Rittenhouse who are very susceptible to authority and are more likely to act if they feel they have something to lose. This will unfortunately not stop if people with authority & media as their mouth piece keep telling everyone that America is under attack by ''left wing terrorists'' & people who ''hate'' their country or that women are (sexual) ''objects''.

 

[Christiaan]

I personally think Trump will get re-elected whether you like him, hate him, or are indifferent. He has done some positive things as he outlined in his RNC speech. I do understand that he has some bad traits as well.

If he gets reelected, we'll not end up in a well functioning democracy, but in an idiocracy movie: in a world where an energy drink is used for basically everything (as tooth paste, water farmland), where the cabinet members wear a big medal as a sign of high intelligence, where the president prefers to use a big motorcycle instead of an armored car, where people use their guns to convince others in a debate, and Fox News is... still being Fox News

 

[Luman]

If he gets reelected, we'll not end up in a well functioning democracy, but in an idiocracy movie: in a world where an energy drink is used for basically everything (as tooth paste, water farmland), where the cabinet members wear a big medal as a sign of high intelligence, where the president prefers to use a big motorcycle instead of an armored car, where people use their guns to convince others in a debate, and Fox News is... still being Fox News

View attachment 40434
View attachment 40435
View attachment 40436
View attachment 40437
View attachment 40438

Trump is not a far left liberal, nor is he extremely right wing. He's in the center. As president, he has kept us out of war, foreign and domestic terrorism has not been an issue in America for years, the unemployment rate was at a 50 year low before the pandemic, financial markets the highest in history, the "happiness" factor was high across all levels of society, and he did all this while the Democrats were trying their best to impeach him. They should have congratulated him, for the victory, and set about finding a great candidate that could beat him in 2020. Rather than do the smart thing, they acted like sore losers, wasted their time on an impeachment, and ended up choosing a man with dementia, and a marijuana cop, as their presidential, and vice-presidential, candidates. What kind of presidential hopeful hides in the basement, rather than go out and campaign, two months before the election? I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016, but in 2020, there's no question that for me, and many others, he and Pence are the better choice. And, it is predicted by some very smart people, some who not support Trump, that he will be victorious.

 

[just1morething]

@Christiaan, it shouldn't affect you too much being you are from the Netherlands. I really don't know much about your government at all. I'm not all that interested to be honest.

Maybe this is your reason?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38747646

 

[FGG]

If he gets reelected, we'll not end up in a well functioning democracy, but in an idiocracy movie: in a world where an energy drink is used for basically everything (as tooth paste, water farmland), where the cabinet members wear a big medal as a sign of high intelligence, where the president prefers to use a big motorcycle instead of an armored car, where people use their guns to convince others in a debate, and Fox News is... still being Fox News

View attachment 40434
View attachment 40435
View attachment 40436
View attachment 40437
View attachment 40438

He really is President Camacho.

 

[FGG]

Trump just retweeted a video of the NYC subway pusher from a year ago, who is black, pushing a white woman into the subway. This has zero to do with BLM and is just trying to paint black men as violent.

He's trying to create a race war.

It would be like someone posting a Ted Bundy video and saying "See! Religious white men are serial killers."

 

[Luman]

Trump just retweeted a video of the NYC subway pusher from a year ago, who is black, pushing a white woman into the subway. This has zero to do with BLM and is just trying to paint black men as violent.

He's trying to create a race war.

It would be like someone posting a Ted Bundy video and saying "See! Religious white men are serial killers."

I don't use Twitter, never have. What exactly was Trump's message, in tweeting this video? Did he mention BLM, in this tweet? I'd like to know, because I live in NYC and crime is up, due to the Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio, recently taking away the anti-crime units, in response to the idea of defunding the police, which is a very bad idea, for this city if not most.

 

[PeteJ]

I realize where you are coming from. In my post, when I talk about smearing, I mixed it in with some pro police language so I fully understand why I didn't convey my point clearly. I feel like this thread has a leftward skew (which I am a contributor of) so I was naturally a little careless with qualifiers. It's pretty clear, since I get baited into sparring with Pete every day, that I am not a right wing shill.

When I say smearing, what I really mean is smearing groups over the actions of individuals. This includes police, but it also includes racial groups. It frustrates me when we make systemic arguments based on individual injustices. In the link that you shared, none of that surprises me. And to be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't address systemic problems. I am just saying that the justification should be systemic data.

I can tell you this much. Maybe I have a biased set of experiences that formulate my opinions on police. I will acknowledge this. But for whatever reason, I view policing as an important, under appreciated job. These views transcend race. Whenever there's a video of a police encounter, I will typically look to see if the person was listening to the police officer and if there was anything they were doing that would make the police officer feel threatened (e.g. reaching for a weapon, trying to disarm the police officer). I think the left under estimates how difficult these scenarios are. And again, this has nothing to do with race. It just happens to be the case that the most viral videos are always involving a white police officer and a person of color. But I view it similarly when it's a white cop, white person. As an example, I recently watched the video involving Daniel Shaver. The entire time, I looked at the video carefully until I came to the conclusion that an injustice was served against him. I think of the perspective of both people involved in these shootings.

I am tired of having to choose a side. I side with good people. America is so divided and I am exhausted by it. Tucker Carlson will cherry pick and fear monger about the scary minorities every day. The MSM will cherry pick the worst cops. I am ready to judge people as individuals.

Edit: I am removing what I said. It's not fair how I am treated here. I am a punching bag. I am not replying to anyone in this thread but will collect comments mentioning me.

 

[FGG]

I don't use Twitter, never have. What exactly was Trump's message, in tweeting this video? Did he mention BLM, in this tweet? I'd like to know, because I live in NYC and crime is up, due to the Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio, recently taking away the anti-crime units, in response to the idea of defunding the police, which is a very bad idea, for this city if not most.

That's the weird part, he just retweeted the video with zero context (I can't find it anymore so he must have deleted it really quickly). There was no comment with it whatsoever.

It was the video seen in this article and elsewhere online but the account he retweeted just had the video up as well.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0191024-vtw5dkrwwnfdblfqbef26ufzu4-story.html

 

[DaveFromChicago]

ToZugzug:

Regarding Jastreboff, I asked myself the exact same question regarding Julian Cowan Hill.
Have they gone on this Forum and read the numerous comments about them?

I'm not the most morally blameless person in the World, but I wonder how they rationalize that so many seemingly educated, decent and good natured people have been very irritated by their pseudoscientific, useless methods (especially the ones who have actually paid for"treatment" sessions with them).

 

[Zugzug]

ToZugzug:

Regarding Jastreboff, I asked myself the exact same question regarding Julian Cowan Hill.
Have they gone on this Forum and read the numerous comments about them?

I'm not the most morally blameless person in the World, but I wonder how they rationalize that so many seemingly educated, decent and good natured people have been very irritated by their pseudoscientific, useless methods (especially the ones who have actually paid for"treatment" sessions with them).

I've struggled with this a lot. In one regard, hyperacusis is so rare that I am thankful that people are trying things -- so in that regard, I want to be thankful. I, at one point, saw a TRT specialist who was kind and not going after my money. It just didn't work.

The turning point for me was when I saw that it caused more victim blaming than net help. When I saw the youtube video of Jastreboff saying that it works for any cause and the only reason someone wouldn't improve is because of a financial incentive to be disabled or because they like the attention of being disabled....Yeah, that was when I stopped feeling bad. If you are the "pioneer" of a field, you have a moral obligation to not speak in that way. People (and their support systems) who are scared and desperate turn to experts for help. It's unbelievably narcissistic to speak in that way over a serious disability that no one really understands.

Anyways, back to our insufferably shitty political world.

 

[FGG]

@Luman, nevermind I found the account he retweeted from.

 

[Juan]

There are working police officers with 20, 30, 50 and more complaints against them. The best way to handle bad cops, is to fire them before they have a chance to do serious damage.

Then obviously something is wrong with the recruitment process. Don't candidates to work as police officers go through psychological screenings??

 

[Luman]

Then obviously something is wrong with the recruitment process. Don't candidates to work as police officers go through psychological screenings??

I don't know anything about how they recruit or screen people but obviously, it's impossible to do it perfectly, every time. The last thing we need, is the inability to get bad cops off the force, and this is exactly what is happening, in many police departments, due to unions and their supporters, which includes other unions, and politicians. As the saying goes, "The writing is on the wall."

 

[Christiaan]

Trump is not a far left liberal, nor is he extremely right wing. He's in the center. As president, he has kept us out of war, foreign and domestic terrorism has not been an issue in America for years, the unemployment rate was at a 50 year low before the pandemic, financial markets the highest in history, the "happiness" factor was high across all levels of society, and he did all this while the Democrats were trying their best to impeach him. They should have congratulated him, for the victory, and set about finding a great candidate that could beat him in 2020. Rather than do the smart thing, they acted like sore losers, wasted their time on an impeachment, and ended up choosing a man with dementia, and a marijuana cop, as their presidential, and vice-presidential, candidates. What kind of presidential hopeful hides in the basement, rather than go out and campaign, two months before the election? I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016, but in 2020, there's no question that for me, and many others, he and Pence are the better choice. And, it is predicted by some very smart people, some who not support Trump, that he will be victorious.

Do you think Trump is the middle of the road guy? I need to digest that thought for a second. I wouldn't certainly call him a centrist or moderate, at least not in European standards. I would rather say he's a rightwing nationalist with protofascist tendencies. Let's take foreign policy for instance. Granted, he may not be a war hawk like the neocons before him and he has a good point about fair contributions to NATO, but he certainly has a fair share in destabilising the safety of countries for political gain, like Israel. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and thus recognising the city as Israel's capital (+ supporting Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories) has made the talks for a two-state solution practically impossible for years and decades to come, as Palestinians want to retain their territories with East Jerusalem as their capital. It would be practically unimaginable to bring the Palestinian back at the table after what Trump has done (which was a gift for his GOP Christian electorate). As long as Palestine is not recognized and respected as a nation-state, civil unrest will continue and there's always a risk that it will escalate in a war, as it has happened before. It was certainly not a moderate way of Trump to handle this situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-wish-list-of-evangelical-base-idUSKBN1XT2UT

Another example is the Trump's administration stance on the Iran Nuclear deal. They belief that Iran is not really building nuclear power plants to generate nuclear energy, but to use uranium for nuclear weapons. There are no sources to back that claim, while the International Atomic Energy Agency has said in a report that Iran complied to the guidelines of the agreement. Trump's decision to withdraw from this multilateral agreement, denying its legal status and reimposing sanctions, makes it hard, even impossible to send inspectors to Iran to check if the country is keeping its word. It also confirms the Iran leadership's opinion about the US that the country cannot be trusted, that agreements with them are not possible and thus undermines a the healthy & peaceful relations between US-Iran. This unilateral stance of depriving Iran of a relative cost-efficient energy source has fuelled the country's antagonism towards the US and it's allies, and thus further contributing to instability in the Middle East (presence of Iranian special forces in Syria and Iraq and missile attacks on nearby Israeli bases). I'm not using the example as a way that I support the Iranian cause (which I don't), but I only want to show that we need to understand why Iran's behaviour is aggravated by the US stance and what the geopolitical consequences are of this dynamic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint...Deterring_Iran_from_obtaining_nuclear_weapons

It's getting more interesting why the US is not imposing more sanctions against Russia after the Trump administration learned of Russian interference in military operations, such as the CIA assessment on Russian bounties of US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump denies it all by calling it a hoax, and Mike Pompeo only warned the Russian foreign minister, without really talking about what the US would do in retaliation. Apparently, the Trump administration is more concerned with the baseless suspicion of Iran's nuclear weapon production than with the affair in which the Taliban is encourages to kill US soldiers, which can be substantiated with a rapport by a central intelligence organisation. Not only is this hypocritical, it shows that the Trump administration is more lead by suspicions and assumptions than by more credible sources (CIA) in their geopolitical decision making.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/russian-bounties-pompeo.html

When it comes to domestic policy, I would rather say that Trump has done more bad than good. Let's focus on the recent protests. By denying IMO BLM's rightful claim that the justice system needs to be addresses (For instance, America represents 5 % of the world population, yet the US is also home to 25 % of the world's prison population, more than China BTW!), Trump and his allies are only continuing to add fuel to the protests that are going on in the streets of many US cities. I'm not saying that Trump is the sole reason for this injustice that is going on in the country (e.g. the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act imposed by the Clinton administration in 1994, which led to mass incarceration of people of color and there were also less incentives in terms of social-economic policy to help people on the right track), but his unwillingness to listen to listen and talk with leaders of Black emancipation movements & his hate speech about domestic 'terrorists'', excessive use of police force against peaceful protesters (tear gas, unmarked vans) will only make people more angry and will only serve his divide and conquer strategy. Suppressing protests and calling protesters ''terrorists'' are a tactic that only serves autocrats (e.g. which we have seen in Putin's Russia), not democrats. If he was really a moderate, he would be open for dialogue, allow people to be heard, maybe seek compromise and possibly seek policies that address the problems that people of color have to deal with. It's one of those ways to relax the tensions. And only great leaders step out of their shadows and pull that off; addressing the problem, not making it bigger. But most of us know that Trump is not that kind of leader we need to turn things around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tion-and-one-quarter-of-the-worlds-prisoners/

Despite the widespread societal pain, the economy remains a strong selling point for Trump. I give you that. The stock market is all rosy but that doesn't tell the whole story (let alone the fact that owning stocks doesn't determine GDP growth, but that's another story). What we see behind the current statistics is that a handful of families (e.g. Walton family) and CEO's of big business (e.g. Jeff Bezos) have earned half a trillion, while the working class is being evicted, losing healthcare coverage during a pandemic, getting cut off from jobless benefits, which to me doesn't sound like a well-balanced, moderate economic policy that works for all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-net-worth-increases-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-7
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/what-its-like-to-be-evicted-during-the-coivd-19-pandemic.htm

Biden is perhaps not the ideal candidate. Some of his gaffes baffles me, but he has shown in the past that he has the capacity to change his mind, learn from mistakes and open for dialogue with other people who do not share his views. His initiative for a joint-platform for moderates and progressives is just one example. And like @Zugzug said once before, some of Biden's shortcomings will be offset by a team of competent people that will make America great again. He's not the leader that the USA ought to have, but he's the kind of leader that the country needs right NOW.

 

[Christiaan]

@Christiaan, it shouldn't affect you too much being you are from the Netherlands. I really don't know much about your government at all. I'm not all that interested to be honest.

Maybe this is your reason?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38747646

Well, don't underestimate your country @just1morething. E.g. Your president decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as he really 'digs' coal and calls global warming a hoax, fabricated by the Chinese. A decision made in one country can have global effects elsewhere. And if some countries like the US and Brazil continue to invest in & consume fossil fuels, countries like the Netherlands & Bangladesh, states like Louisiana and cities like Rio de Janeiro will eventually be sleeping with the fishes in 100 years or so. So yeah, what's happening in the US is also my business

Ah ok, I actually forgot that the Netherlands helped set up a fund for family planning assistance in the US, as Trump may not be very fond (& financially supportive) of the idea that women remain in control of their own bodies (my senses are telling me he does a lot of things to please his Christian base). It's not primarily the reason for me to dive in political discussions on Tinnitus Talk, but I do support the idea that women have the right to have an abortion.

 

[PeteJ]

I realize where you are coming from. In my post, when I talk about smearing, I mixed it in with some pro police language so I fully understand why I didn't convey my point clearly. I feel like this thread has a leftward skew (which I am a contributor of) so I was naturally a little careless with qualifiers. It's pretty clear, since I get baited into sparring with Pete every day, that I am not a right wing shill.

When I say smearing, what I really mean is smearing groups over the actions of individuals. This includes police, but it also includes racial groups. It frustrates me when we make systemic arguments based on individual injustices. In the link that you shared, none of that surprises me. And to be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't address systemic problems. I am just saying that the justification should be systemic data.

I can tell you this much. Maybe I have a biased set of experiences that formulate my opinions on police. I will acknowledge this. But for whatever reason, I view policing as an important, under appreciated job. These views transcend race. Whenever there's a video of a police encounter, I will typically look to see if the person was listening to the police officer and if there was anything they were doing that would make the police officer feel threatened (e.g. reaching for a weapon, trying to disarm the police officer). I think the left under estimates how difficult these scenarios are. And again, this has nothing to do with race. It just happens to be the case that the most viral videos are always involving a white police officer and a person of color. But I view it similarly when it's a white cop, white person. As an example, I recently watched the video involving Daniel Shaver. The entire time, I looked at the video carefully until I came to the conclusion that an injustice was served against him. I think of the perspective of both people involved in these shootings.

I am tired of having to choose a side. I side with good people. America is so divided and I am exhausted by it. Tucker Carlson will cherry pick and fear monger about the scary minorities every day. The MSM will cherry pick the worst cops. I am ready to judge people as individuals.

This thread has a leftward skew, you think?

I know I shouldn't post but maybe 2 people other than me presented some *different* perspectives. My guess is most of the posters here are under 30, probably under 25 even.

I think most people don't think for themselves. The MSM is presenting a leftist narrative and cultivating a far left slant. I read all kinds of sources.

The MSM's anti-white narrative is ignored and accepted. I can find any number of videos that poke holes in your assumptions. But, many here ignored the facts - BLM is a Marxist organization and some of you mocked that or shrugged it off. I suspect many are Marxists yourselves or don't care. It's sad that the only opposition is what I believe is a kind of puppet in Trump but he can say valid things on occasion.

I think Tucker on Fox is at least better than the Communist News Network. The political spin in the US and Western nations is pathetic. "Leftist skew.." no s***....

I shouldn't post here, right? Sorry. If anyone has a problem with, please tell me and I will edit/delete it. I was hoping that most don't care because my perspective is hated.

 

[Luman]

Do you think Trump is the middle of the road guy? I need to digest that thought for a second. I wouldn't certainly call him a centrist or moderate, at least not in European standards. I would rather say he's a rightwing nationalist with protofascist tendencies. Let's take foreign policy for instance. Granted, he may not be a war hawk like the neocons before him and he has a good point about fair contributions to NATO, but he certainly has a fair share in destabilising the safety of countries for political gain, like Israel. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and thus recognising the city as Israel's capital (+ supporting Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories) has made the talks for a two-state solution practically impossible for years and decades to come, as Palestinians want to retain their territories with East Jerusalem as their capital. It would be practically unimaginable to bring the Palestinian back at the table after what Trump has done (which was a gift for his GOP Christian electorate). As long as Palestine is not recognized and respected as a nation-state, civil unrest will continue and there's always a risk that it will escalate in a war, as it has happened before. It was certainly not a moderate way of Trump to handle this situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-wish-list-of-evangelical-base-idUSKBN1XT2UT

Another example is the Trump's administration stance on the Iran Nuclear deal. They belief that Iran is not really building nuclear power plants to generate nuclear energy, but to use uranium for nuclear weapons. There are no sources to back that claim, while the International Atomic Energy Agency has said in a report that Iran complied to the guidelines of the agreement. Trump's decision to withdraw from this multilateral agreement, denying its legal status and reimposing sanctions, makes it hard, even impossible to send inspectors to Iran to check if the country is keeping its word. It also confirms the Iran leadership's opinion about the US that the country cannot be trusted, that agreements with them are not possible and thus undermines a the healthy & peaceful relations between US-Iran. This unilateral stance of depriving Iran of a relative cost-efficient energy source has fuelled the country's antagonism towards the US and it's allies, and thus further contributing to instability in the Middle East (presence of Iranian special forces in Syria and Iraq and missile attacks on nearby Israeli bases). I'm not using the example as a way that I support the Iranian cause (which I don't), but I only want to show that we need to understand why Iran's behaviour is aggravated by the US stance and what the geopolitical consequences are of this dynamic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint...Deterring_Iran_from_obtaining_nuclear_weapons

It's getting more interesting why the US is not imposing more sanctions against Russia after the Trump administration learned of Russian interference in military operations, such as the CIA assessment on Russian bounties of US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump denies it all by calling it a hoax, and Mike Pompeo only warned the Russian foreign minister, without really talking about what the US would do in retaliation. Apparently, the Trump administration is more concerned with the baseless suspicion of Iran's nuclear weapon production than with the affair in which the Taliban is encourages to kill US soldiers, which can be substantiated with a rapport by a central intelligence organisation. Not only is this hypocritical, it shows that the Trump administration is more lead by suspicions and assumptions than by more credible sources (CIA) in their geopolitical decision making.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/russian-bounties-pompeo.html

When it comes to domestic policy, I would rather say that Trump has done more bad than good. Let's focus on the recent protests. By denying IMO BLM's rightful claim that the justice system needs to be addresses (For instance, America represents 5 % of the world population, yet the US is also home to 25 % of the world's prison population, more than China BTW!), Trump and his allies are only continuing to add fuel to the protests that are going on in the streets of many US cities. I'm not saying that Trump is the sole reason for this injustice that is going on in the country (e.g. the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act imposed by the Clinton administration in 1994, which led to mass incarceration of people of color and there were also less incentives in terms of social-economic policy to help people on the right track), but his unwillingness to listen to listen and talk with leaders of Black emancipation movements & his hate speech about domestic 'terrorists'', excessive use of police force against peaceful protesters (tear gas, unmarked vans) will only make people more angry and will only serve his divide and conquer strategy. Suppressing protests and calling protesters ''terrorists'' are a tactic that only serves autocrats (e.g. which we have seen in Putin's Russia), not democrats. If he was really a moderate, he would be open for dialogue, allow people to be heard, maybe seek compromise and possibly seek policies that address the problems that people of color have to deal with. It's one of those ways to relax the tensions. And only great leaders step out of their shadows and pull that off; addressing the problem, not making it bigger. But most of us know that Trump is not that kind of leader we need to turn things around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tion-and-one-quarter-of-the-worlds-prisoners/

Despite the widespread societal pain, the economy remains a strong selling point for Trump. I give you that. The stock market is all rosy but that doesn't tell the whole story (let alone the fact that owning stocks doesn't determine GDP growth, but that's another story). What we see behind the current statistics is that a handful of families (e.g. Walton family) and CEO's of big business (e.g. Jeff Bezos) have earned half a trillion, while the working class is being evicted, losing healthcare coverage during a pandemic, getting cut off from jobless benefits, which to me doesn't sound like a well-balanced, moderate economic policy that works for all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-net-worth-increases-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-7
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/what-its-like-to-be-evicted-during-the-coivd-19-pandemic.htm

Biden is perhaps not the ideal candidate. Some of his gaffes baffles me, but he has shown in the past that he has the capacity to change his mind, learn from mistakes and open for dialogue with other people who do not share his views. His initiative for a joint-platform for moderates and progressives is just one example. And like @Zugzug said once before, some of Biden's shortcomings will be offset by a team of competent people that will make America great again. He's not the leader that the USA ought to have, but he's the kind of leader that the country needs right NOW.

You have written a very well thought out, informed reply. I fully agree that there are problems, and I am not pleased with some of Trump's foreign policy, but I doubt that I would be fully satisfied, with any presidents policies. President Trump has kept us out of war, and the rest of the world seems to be making an effort to do the same, with exceptions, and disputes, as there always have been and always will be.

With freedom, and capitalism, there are caveats, and the potential for crime is one of them. This is one of the reasons, along with bad drug policies, why we have a very high prison population. It's too complex a subject to reduce to explaining in a few paragraphs. I will simply state that this prison situation is not new, and has increased over the years and not going away anytime soon, no matter who is in office. Overall, though, crime was down, before the pandemic, and will return to the former status, in time.

The BLM movement is not relevant, they are a small, group of mostly white, trust fund kids who are attempting to have their fifteen minutes of fame by opposing Mr. Man, before settling down with corporate jobs and upscale suburban lifestyles, exactly as their parents did, before them. The are immature, and have no understanding of, or empathy with, anyone other than themselves.

The "jobless benefits" have actually been very generous under Trump. In face, there are studies which show how employers are having difficulty finding potential job candidates, because many would rather collect their bigger-than-average Unemployment Insurance checks, than go back to work. If I were in this position, and could afford it, I would do the same.

America is very resilient and is going to rise from the ashes of this pandemic, which has been the root cause of the economic problems, not just here but all over the world, when Covid is under control with medicines and a vaccine, which will be available, in the near future. Democrats would rather see anarchy, strife, and sickness prevail, than stability and hope, so that they can obtain a victory in November, but this isn't going to happen - at least that's the way it's beginning to appear.

Thank you once again for your participation, it's always good to hear others' views, from outside the USA.

 

[just1morething]

It's not primarily the reason for me to dive in political discussions on Tinnitus Talk, but I do support the idea that women have the right to have an abortion.

Just how many times do you visit the Red Light District in Amsterdam? I read that that area is being hurt by COVID-19. I'm not sure on the global warming. I have seen the film by Al Gore a few years ago and it appears to be real.

Why should the US support abortions in the Netherlands? That's your countries responsibility if they see it that way.

 

[all to gain]

This thread has a leftward skew, you think?

I know I shouldn't post but maybe 2 people other than me presented some *different* perspectives. My guess is most of the posters here are under 30, probably under 25 even.

I think most people don't think for themselves. The MSM is presenting a leftist narrative and cultivating a far left slant. I read all kinds of sources.

The MSM's anti-white narrative is ignored and accepted. I can find any number of videos that poke holes in your assumptions. But, many here ignored the facts - BLM is a Marxist organization and some of you mocked that or shrugged it off. I suspect many are Marxists yourselves or don't care. It's sad that the only opposition is what I believe is a kind of puppet in Trump but he can say valid things on occasion.

I think Tucker on Fox is at least better than the Communist News Network. The political spin in the US and Western nations is pathetic. "Leftist skew.." no s***....

I shouldn't post here, right? Sorry. If anyone has a problem with, please tell me and I will edit/delete it. I was hoping that most don't care because my perspective is hated.

I would say that, yes, this thread has a leftward skew. And this comes from somebody who sees himself as neither on the left or right.

Unfortunately, people more right leaning tend to get shouted down or told that their views are simply wrong by those who see themselves as holding some type of moral high ground. Of course when it comes to extremes on both the left and the right this shouting down is somewhat understandable, but not when it it comes to simply disagreeing about the most basic of things.

 

[FGG]

You have written a very well thought out, informed reply. I fully agree that there are problems, and I am not pleased with some of Trump's foreign policy, but I doubt that I would be fully satisfied, with any presidents policies. President Trump has kept us out of war, and the rest of the world seems to be making an effort to do the same, with exceptions, and disputes, as there always have been and always will be.

With freedom, and capitalism, there are caveats, and the potential for crime is one of them. This is one of the reasons, along with bad drug policies, why we have a very high prison population. It's too complex a subject to reduce to explaining in a few paragraphs. I will simply state that this prison situation is not new, and has increased over the years and not going away anytime soon, no matter who is in office. Overall, though, crime was down, before the pandemic, and will return to the former status, in time.

The BLM movement is not relevant, they are a small, group of mostly white, trust fund kids who are attempting to have their fifteen minutes of fame by opposing Mr. Man, before settling down with corporate jobs and upscale suburban lifestyles, exactly as their parents did, before them. The are immature, and have no understanding of, or empathy with, anyone other than themselves.

The "jobless benefits" have actually been very generous under Trump. In face, there are studies which show how employers are having difficulty finding potential job candidates, because many would rather collect their bigger-than-average Unemployment Insurance checks, than go back to work. If I were in this position, and could afford it, I would do the same.

America is very resilient and is going to rise from the ashes of this pandemic, which has been the root cause of the economic problems, not just here but all over the world, when Covid is under control with medicines and a vaccine, which will be available, in the near future. Democrats would rather see anarchy, strife, and sickness prevail, than stability and hope, so that they can obtain a victory in November, but this isn't going to happen - at least that's the way it's beginning to appear.

Thank you once again for your participation, it's always good to hear others' views, from outside the USA.

I would argue that Trump has way more politically to gain from anarchy and strife than democrats and wants to be seen as the "strong man" in that situation.

As far as Covid, that definitely makes Trump look worse but if democrats wanted "sickness to prevail" why are the democrats the ones encouraging mask use and public health measures?

 

[Juan]

As far as Covid, that definitely makes Trump look worse but if democrats wanted "sickness to prevail" why are the democrats the ones encouraging mask use and public health measures?

"Sickness to prevail" haha... that's so twisted... so far fetched...

 

[Luman]

I would argue that Trump has way more politically to gain from anarchy and strife than democrats and wants to be seen as the "strong man" in that situation.

As far as Covid, that definitely makes Trump look worse but if democrats wanted "sickness to prevail" why are the democrats the ones encouraging mask use and public health measures?

In NYC, the rate of infection is below one percent. The Covid deaths have virtually stopped, yet the governor, Andrew Cuomo, who is responsible for thousands of nursing home deaths by allowing them to take Covid-infected residents, is still keeping the City under a lock down that is completely unnecessary, even by the most conservative doctors' opinions.

The Democrats won't allow church services, or indoor restaurant dining, yet they approve of, and fully cooperate with, demonstrations by BLM, and others, which are violent, and responsible for spreading disease. This is what people in Europe do not get.

If Trump runs a Law and Order campaign, he is perfectly justified in doing so. He would have won, had there been no virus pandemic, due to the country having been in excellent shape, and he is going to win again, when we're in less than great shape, because he seems to have a handle on how to keep the majority safe, and secure, as best as possible under these very difficult, and trying circumstances.

Those that feel that we should have had far fewer Covid deaths, are living in a fantasy world. This disease started in China, Trump then blocked them from coming here, but we didn't stop the Europeans, and they infected us, with New York bearing the greatest brunt of the damage. Blaming Trump for the spread of this is pointless, because the Democrats opposed the barring of Chinese visitors, and we certainly would have had a lot more cases of this disease, had they had their way.

 

[PeteJ]

I would say that, yes, this thread has a leftward skew. And this comes from somebody who sees himself as neither on the left or right.

Unfortunately, people more right leaning tend to get shouted down or told that their views are simply wrong by those who see themselves as holding some type of moral high ground. Of course when it comes to extremes on both the left and the right this shouting down is somewhat understandable, but not when it it comes to simply disagreeing about the most basic of things.

Imho, it's more than that. Social Media censor and ban 'right-wing' voices. I don't subscribe to the mainstream "right-wing" and although my posts might sound like I am impassioned, my tinnitus really takes over in importance (at the end of the day).

But, I think I can still make an argument based on principle and as a pragmatist looking at the reality of it. Imho, it's not debatable. I see it on any platform you care to name. Your average person won't accept certain sources or sites which are considered "right wing" or "extreme" but everything else is supported, allowed and accepted (maybe even promoted - as fact).

This hypocrisy is overlooked and ignored. Neutral and objective people have no choice but to acknowledge it. Not that it changes anything.

 

[Zugzug]

Democrats would rather see anarchy, strife, and sickness prevail, than stability and hope

I respect your perspective and am glad you are adding to this thread. I have learned things from your perspective, which is valuable. But how do you work with that? You really think Democrats wanted COVID? Do you know how delusional that is?

Let's just take the boogeyman liberal colleges as an example, which is the source of biased, left wing education according to the right. These institutions are wildly inconvenienced, financially stressed for enrollment, disrupted, stressed as hell trying to figure this out. How does that help the liberal agenda?

Parents (which includes Democrats) have to balance home schooling, their jobs (which they are losing), their mortgage/rent payments, their child care, their health insurance, etc. Mental health problems are at an all time high.

On a personal note, I held out on immunosuppressants for at least 3-4 months of agonizing suffering because doctors were scrambling to learn more about COVID during its peak. My diagnostic test was cancelled on me because of a major outbreak in a city. That's not necessarily all Trump's fault, but it's not like I was sitting at home thinking..."Yes! Suffering, torture, suicidal thoughts. Anything to own Trump!"

But if someone criticizes the most immoral, selfish, racist scum bag on the planet, they love seeing people get sick. This is a world so deep in Stockholm Syndrome. It will be all over the history books someday.

EDIT: I want to be clear that there is a good-faith argument about opening the economy. Honestly, if you said Democrats were wrong about COVID, that wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as saying they want the world to be a mess. The former is an intellectual disagreement; the latter is an unworkable smear.

 

[FGG]

In NYC, the rate of infection is below one percent. The Covid deaths have virtually stopped, yet the governor, Andrew Cuomo, who is responsible for thousands of nursing home deaths by allowing them to take Covid-infected residents, is still keeping the City under a lock down that is completely unnecessary, even by the most conservative doctors' opinions.

The Democrats won't allow church services, or indoor restaurant dining, yet they approve of, and fully cooperate with, demonstrations by BLM, and others, which are violent, and responsible for spreading disease. This is what people in Europe do not get.

If Trump runs a Law and Order campaign, he is perfectly justified in doing so. He would have won, had there been no virus pandemic, due to the country having been in excellent shape, and he is going to win again, when we're in less than great shape, because he seems to have a handle on how to keep the majority safe, and secure, as best as possible under these very difficult, and trying circumstances.

Those that feel that we should have had far fewer Covid deaths, are living in a fantasy world. This disease started in China, Trump then blocked them from coming here, but we didn't stop the Europeans, and they infected us, with New York bearing the greatest brunt of the damage. Blaming Trump for the spread of this is pointless, because the Democrats opposed the barring of Chinese visitors, and we certainly would have had a lot more cases of this disease, had they had their way.

I will agree Cuomo should have handled nursing homes way differently. No argument there. But I don't think that fits with your earlier sentiment that Democrats want rampant disease to make Trump look bad (that would be such an "Own Goal" anyway if he let New York worsen to make Trump look bad since it would reflect on him, too), I just think he made a mistake.

I also agree that it was good Trump restricted travel from China when he did, however he didn't fully restrict it, just very much reduced it but it still probably bought him some time. However, he didn't at all use that time to contact trace effectively, start educating the public on social distancing and mask wearing (which he resisted time and time and time again) and he put people like Kushner in charge who did crap like this:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/video/jared-kushner-made-deal-russia-204509157.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rus-strategy-democrat-governors-a9648831.html

He told people repeatedly not to worry about the virus, that it would disappear by the "beautiful month of April" and initially even called it a hoax before eventually suggesting all kinds of unproven treatments (including saying they were interested in investigating Oleandrin because the MyPillow dude suggested it). Literally the ONLY thing he did that made any sense was to reduce travel from China, that's why he repeats it in every speech ad nauseum.

As far as church services, after phase 1 lifted, my state (Democratic governor) allowed indoor church services with appropriate social distancing and mask guidelines.

In my city, the protesters were wearing masks for the most part too, though they could have distanced a bit better at times (but my city doesn't make the news much and footage isn't shown much nationally). There hasn't been a uniform democratic lock down strategy just like there is a gulf of difference in the response of the Republican Governors of Ohio (who did a good job imo) and Oklahoma (terrible job imo).

I would say that, yes, this thread has a leftward skew. And this comes from somebody who sees himself as neither on the left or right.

Unfortunately, people more right leaning tend to get shouted down or told that their views are simply wrong by those who see themselves as holding some type of moral high ground. Of course when it comes to extremes on both the left and the right this shouting down is somewhat understandable, but not when it it comes to simply disagreeing about the most basic of things.

From my perspective a lot of push back on this thread comes as a results of some sweeping generalizations that just sound unbelievable, far fetched and straight up conspiracy theory territory.

eg.

- All liberals are Marxists (even if literally no one on this thread wants authoritarian leftism like China and would prefer, in the case of the left leaners here, more social programs akin to Scandinavia).

- Democrats support Joe Biden because they love Pedophilia.

- Everything democrats do has only one purpose and that's either secret Marxism, a plot to descend this country into anarchy and destroy the foundation of the US or just to destroy Trump at all cost, and any criticism of him is just to accomplish one of the above.

In all seriousness, how do you hear things like that and not respond with disbelief? For the record, I realize not everyone does that ( @Luman and @Emgee, your posts are both interesting and I'm glad you are contributing).

 

[Luman]

I respect your perspective and am glad you are adding to this thread. I have learned things from your perspective, which is valuable. But how do you work with that? You really think Democrats wanted COVID? Do you know how delusional that is?

Let's just take the boogeyman liberal colleges as an example, which is the source of biased, left wing education according to the right. These institutions are wildly inconvenienced, financially stressed for enrollment, disrupted, stressed as hell trying to figure this out. How does that help the liberal agenda?

Parents (which includes Democrats) have to balance home schooling, their jobs (which they are losing), their mortgage/rent payments, their child care, their health insurance, etc. Mental health problems are at an all time high.

On a personal note, I held out on immunosuppressants for at least 3-4 months of agonizing suffering because doctors were scrambling to learn more about COVID during its peak. My diagnostic test was cancelled on me because of a major outbreak in a city. That's not necessarily all Trump's fault, but it's not like I was sitting at home thinking..."Yes! Suffering, torture, suicidal thoughts. Anything to own Trump!"

But if someone criticizes the most immoral, selfish, racist scum bag on the planet, they love seeing people get sick. This is a world so deep in Stockholm Syndrome. It will be all over the history books someday.

EDIT: I want to be clear that there is a good-faith argument about opening the economy. Honestly, if you said Democrats were wrong about COVID, that wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as saying they want the world to be a mess. The former is an intellectual disagreement; the latter is an unworkable smear.

The proof is in the pudding. NYC is not sick, yet they will not open up.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. The Democrats have called Trump supporters many names, since before the 2016 election, starting with Hillary Clinton's famous "Deplorables." They continue with: Racist, Inbred, Trailer Park Trash, Rednecks, Fascists, Misogynists, Re-thug-licans, and many more. Several people that I know, personally, for many years, have joked but in a very serious way, that the "wrong" Trump died, when his brother passed away. They do not want to invite Trump supporters to perhaps change their minds and vote Democratic, but Trump has done the opposite and asked Democrats to join in voting for him

I have no doubt that wishing the man dead is common among Trump supporters. He is nowhere near the worst president we've ever had, but those with TDS, insist that he is. They truly are mentally ill, and many are very capable of wishing that the vaccine will not come out until the election is long over, so that their candidate has a better chance of winning.

I'd rather spend time with bible toting, conservative Republicans any time, over the Democratic anti-Trump, Social Reform, ultra-liberal fanatics.

Yes, it IS that bad.