Music Banter

Music Banter (
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (
-   -   What Did President Trump Do Now? (

Lucem Ferre 04-29-2017 04:37 PM


Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1829628)
You're too quick to take things to a personal level Chula my hippy friend

I have the same problem too sometimes.

DwnWthVwls 04-29-2017 04:40 PM

I leave and he finds someone new to bicker with? Slut.

Chula Vista 04-29-2017 11:53 PM

DWV, I come at you very rarely. Can only think of maybe a few times. Frowny is a constant target - dude just loves picking at my scabs and it really pisses me off.

I'll take slut as a compliment at this time of the day (almost 11:00 PST).

In other news:


"A large group of Hollywood actors and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom in our nation's capital right now," Trump told the crowd. "They are gathered together for the White House Correspondents' dinner -- without the President. And I could not possibly be more thrilled than to be more than 100 miles away from Washington's swamp, spending my evening with all of you and with a much, much larger crowd and much better people."

Trump held that divisive tone throughout the speech, prompting former presidential adviser and senior CNN political analyst David Gergen to call the remarks "deeply disturbing" in a special prime-time edition of "CNN Newsroom" with John Berman and Poppy Harlow.

"This was the most divisive speech I have ever heard from a sitting American president," Gergen said. "Others may disagree about that. He played to his base and he treated his other listeners, the rest of the people who have been disturbed about him or opposed him, he treated them basically as, 'I don't give a damn what you think because you're frankly like the enemy.' I thought it was a deeply disturbing speech."
Making America Great Again!

elphenor 04-30-2017 06:46 AM

Remember to Republicans the "swamp" is ****ing Hollywood and CNN

"oh no the gays and jews and their propaganda"

They embrace gov by Goldman Sachs

Isbjørn 04-30-2017 07:12 AM


Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1829601)
I just hate when that stigma finds a way to influence government to pass laws that **** people who honestly need it. Ever been behind someone in a supermarket line who looks absolutely disgusted and appalled having to pay for their food with food stamps? I've never seen people look so defleated. Don't lump them in with any of your narrative.


Anyway, since someone brought up "the leechers", let's just suppose that "leeches" are, indeed, a signifigant problem that's worth solving. Cutting in welfare all across the board to "incentivize" people to find work is a typical neoliberal solution that negatively impacts everyone, so let's just dismiss it out of irrelevance. Here we're talking about ways to find and deal with the "leeches", specifically. If that even is to be possible, a couple of questions appear that need answering:

Who are to decide who "leeches" and who doesn't? Follow-up question, how do we prevent this from becoming a bureaucratic and costly nightmare?

What do we do if people are incorrectly classified as freeloaders? Taking away someone's benefits when they actually need them borders on violence. We need to prevent situations where people who genuinely need benefits lose them due to bureaucratic mismanagement. There are already many instances of this happening - people being deemed "fit to work" when they actually have chronic diseases that keep them from working, and who need public money to afford medicine/implants/protheses etc.

Considering these things, is targeting "leeches" even worth the effort? I don't think so. Being a welfare recipient is already a very undesirable scenario, and signing up for benefits is a bureaucratic and discouraging process in most places. Furthermore, most places require unemployed welfare recipients to actively look for work (in Norway, you're not even registered as "unemployed" until you sign up at the Labour and Welfare Administration and agree to look for work. You have to agree to accept just about any job offer you get). If anything, we should be looking for solutions that make welfare less bureaucratic and less demotivating. Some people have proposed implementing a universal basic income (subsistence wage) that one receives regardless of their work situation. If you want people to get employed, fund job training and reeducation programs. Publicly invest in infrastructure - this will boost the economy and create jobs for many people who are unemployed but fit to work. And so on. These are totally realistic and feasible solutions, even for people who aren't anti-establishment.

Socialists (here represented by Elphenor and me) would argue that unemployment is a natural occurence under capitalism that serves to keep down wages and create competition between workers for the jobs. To permanently fix unemployment issues, we need a planned economy that takes care of the interests of the collective rather than the interests of corporations. By allowing workers influence over their workplace and democratic input on the economy as a whole, people will see work as more than just a means of subsistence, but work to better themselves and their community. But that's another discussion.

elphenor 04-30-2017 07:27 AM

And let's be honest the "welfare queen" archetype was Republican propaganda to stir class resentment between middle and poor

Also in its inception it was incredibly racist meant to conjure images of black women in ghettos taking the white man's money

Isbjørn 04-30-2017 07:40 AM


Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1829864)
And let's be honest the "welfare queen" archetype was Republican propaganda to stir class resentment between middle and poor

Also in its inception it was incredibly racist meant to conjure images of black women in ghettos taking the white man's money

Yeah, it was campaigning lie by Ronald Reagan that has just stuck around. Not the only time a president fabricates ridiculous stories to legitimize their equally ridiculous policies

elphenor 04-30-2017 07:46 AM

I really want to believe Trump couldn't be stupid enough to launch an attack on N Korea

But if he he's putting those weapons in strike range as a bluff they will call that bluff

And then what?

Isbjørn 04-30-2017 08:04 AM

The anti-war movement should step up against US aggression towards North Korea like it has done before. The last time the US actually bombed North Korea, a third of their population died. All their cities were levelled. The Koreans have not forgotten that, and this makes US aggression towards them frightening to say the least. Bombing the Koreans would be a mindless decision and an act of evil.

I must admit that for a while I believed that Donald Trump had the potential to be a candidate for peace, who would seek friendly relations with Russia and bring a temporary halt to US interventionism. Now I'm just hoping for as little human suffering as possible and that a third world war doesn't break out in the next couple of years.

elphenor 04-30-2017 08:15 AM

I can't believe some liberals bought that facade

Product of this "democrats are the same" mentality taken to the extreme

Maybe young people just didn't recall what a Republican presidency looks like or don't know history

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 PM.

© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.