Jump to content

U.S. Politics


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, villakram said:

Trump banned flights from China

He didn’t. He put some restrictions on non-US nationals who had been in China for the previous 2 weeks. He claims he did what you say, but he didn’t ban flights from anywhere. Flight restrictions, with a load of work rounds is what he actually did. To look like he was doing something, without taking it seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, blandy said:

He didn’t. He put some restrictions on non-US nationals who had been in China for the previous 2 weeks. He claims he did what you say, but he didn’t ban flights from anywhere. Flight restrictions, with a load of work rounds is what he actually did. To look like he was doing something, without taking it seriously.

Sure, I wasn't intending to say anything about the quality or usefulness of the "ban", only to point out the poor response from many political animals over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, villakram said:

Meanwhile Pelosi wanted people to go shop and eat in Chinatown,

In response to the racism people of Chinese descent were recieving due to Trumps China Virus comments. Her comments didn't relate to the pandemic, she was showing support for a community more than anything

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, villakram said:

Trump banned flights from China, and the usual crowd came out and played the racism/xeno card. Plenty of blame to around regarding the US response to this virus.

Meanwhile Pelosi wanted people to go shop and eat in Chinatown, while de Blasio wanted people in bars for paddies day (in mid fooking march!).

Seriously. Your response to this is "but the Democrats". **** hell. You claim not to support Trump, but it's so predictable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could post about the sky being blue and some of you lot would say I was taking a shot at the Dems.

Try not interpreting everything as Red vs Blue. They are not on our side!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blandy said:

Absolutely - so at the time, when no one knew what was going to happen, it was in essence, just another of many examples of Trump not taking it seriously. The importance/impact back then was less than now. Woodward said that at the time he didn't even know if what Trump was telling him was true.

The telling aspect, for me is like back then it was (as you say) a big issue that Trump wasn't taking the Virus seriously - all that "it'll just disappear" stuff and saying it was a made up thing by the Dems and so on - there was a wealth of examples of his idiocy, and people were infuriated with all of them.

But the impact now is that "here's Trump from February, on tape, saying "it's a really serious". So the impact is not only that he was told by the experts it was serious, but that this information had been absorbed by Trump who then decided to act in a particular way which resulted in all the deaths. IF Woodward had released the tapes back in March, they'd have been less impactful and had less effect  - just lost in the noise - it's the timing that makes them so, now. And Woodward knows that, and knew that (IMO). He's smart.

I mean, I think they'll be lost in the noise anyway, but I think the counter to your argument there is that at least in theory, it could have been a point of pressure for Trump to actually do something about the virus, back at the point in time before 200,000 people were dead.

As I say, I think it's largely academic anyway, because the people whose issue is 'Trump's handling of the pandemic' are probably not going to be voting for Trump, and the people who are voting for Trump care about Supreme Court justices and tax cuts and the ability to dump larger quantities of pollutants in streams or whatever it is that they love about the Republican party so much, and so aren't going to be listening anyway. But in the end, I just disagree that Woodward releasing notable facts as part of his book tour rather than when he gathers them six months earlier is how anything should work. He works for a newspaper, and newspapers are supposed to print the news in the days after it happens, not sit on it for six months and then allow a publishing company to profit off it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, villakram said:

I could post about the sky being blue and some of you lot would say I was taking a shot at the Dems.

 

Of course I would. You never talk about lava being red, you partisan shill. ;) 

In all seriousness though, you kind of have to treat it as red vs blue. It's a two party system. It'd be much healthier if it wasn't, but as it stands if you don't oppose Trump, you essentially support him. This is an election that isn't just two sides of the same coin, the incumbent President is a threat to the future of the US, and it's the first time that could ever really be said. I couldn't give a shit about the democrats, I don't like their politics, but 4 more years of Trump would be disastrous. 

If it was Romney vs Biden, or McCain vs Biden, or even Bush vs Biden, I wouldn't really care. But if it's anyone vs Trump, anyone has to be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, villakram said:

Trump banned flights from China, and the usual crowd came out and played the racism/xeno card. Plenty of blame to around regarding the US response to this virus.

Meanwhile Pelosi wanted people to go shop and eat in Chinatown, while de Blasio wanted people in bars for paddies day (in mid fooking march!).

True, Dems - particularly in New York - also did a horrible job at the start of the pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

He works for a newspaper, and newspapers are supposed to print the news in the days after it happens, not sit on it for six months and then allow a publishing company to profit off it.

He’s an editor, not a reporter. He’s got 2 jobs - author and newspaper editor. This stuff is his author stuff. He didn’t obtain it for or on behalf of the newspaper. He obtained it as part of his writing a book on Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

He works for a newspaper, and newspapers are supposed to print the news in the days after it happens, not sit on it for six months and then allow a publishing company to profit off it.

Are they? Is that really the reality? Has it ever been?  Newspapers very often sit on stories, particularly big investigations and release the story when they deem the time to be right and quite often in conjunction with a publishing house releasing the book.

I don't think that claim is remotely true now and if it ever was, it was a long time ago

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, villakram said:

I could post about the sky being blue and some of you lot would say I was taking a shot at the Dems.

Try not interpreting everything as Red vs Blue. They are not on our side!

However both parts of your statement were red propaganda. Trump banning flights from China and the Pelosi stuff is Republican go to bs. Half truths and whataboutism that serves only Trump. If you don't want to be accused of supporting him you would be well served to stop parroting his propaganda.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Davkaus said:

In all seriousness though, you kind of have to treat it as red vs blue. It's a two party system.

Perhaps if you are a US voter you do, but if you're a Brit with no vote, then discussing things without picking a side seems fine to me. Trump is abhorrent, Biden is far from an ideal candidate. Less non ideal that HRC was, but still not great.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't quite come up with a quip that does this justice!

https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/man-who-pooped-on-pelosis-driveway-calls-it-peaceful-protest/

"The YouTube star who filmed himself defecating on the driveway of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco residence said he did so as a “peaceful protest” — but admitted it was a “joke that got out of hand.”"

Whose driveway would you like to take a dump on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

 

And he's still blaming the Democratic governor for poor management of forests that are 57% federal land, 3% state land and the remainder privately owned.  Not that that matters anyway.   We've had a tremendous die-off of trees from a beetle infestation in California over the past 5 years or so.   How would he propose anybody manage to get into the millions of acres of remote forest and cut down all the dead trees and remove them.  And rake up the leaves?   The fires around us were started on steep terrain inaccessible to trucks.  The guy is utterly clueless and yet thinks he knows more about it than the people who have spent their lives and careers dealing with it.   Of course, you could say that about pretty much any topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â