• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

On Trump Era Politics...

Status
Not open for further replies.

HaventGotALife

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
The 2016 Presidential Elections had a profound impact on this individual. Often, my reactions in politics are visceral, but the W. Bush and Trump Administrations have crystallized many truths behind my reactions. The short of this message board post is that I am frustrated and searching for relief, in 2020, and must express this to stop my head from exploding.

First, the amount of sexism, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia expressed in 2016 was jaw-dropping, especially considering the 44th President, and Donald Trump's 62.8 million votes. Multiculturalism has been studied and the mixing of cultures creates new ideas and prosperity, but it as creates a backlash; nationalism. It is often 30-35% of a culture's populous that embrace the fear of change, and become ideologues.

While this is true of Great Britain in the era of Brexit, Donald Trump's election seems to have inspired a wave of nationalism across the developed world, which puts freedom and Democracy at-risk, at a time when Russia and North Korea threaten the world, and China remains a superpower rising as a militaristic old-world Communist power. This is the challenge globally.

A host of issues--including the existential threat of Climate Change, Infrastructure in the US, social issues and reforms, human rights and the refugee crises that seems at a peak since World War II (Syria, Myanmar, Yemen, Sudan, etc.)--are pushed away for a trade war in China, a wall along the Mexican-American Border, saber-rattling with Iran and China, and cheap negotiations with North Korea. This is incredibly frustrating to watch as an American citizen, as a member of this increasingly global community.

19 intelligence agencies, our own in the US, and Bob Mueller, have been insulted by Donal Trump's insistence of no collusion with Russia, nor Obstruction of Justice in covering up collusion, or any investigation into collusion. Our head of the Executive Branch continues to fight with the FBI, the intelligence agencies, as he compliments Russian, North Korean leaders as "strong." He mouths the words of Russian and Saudi Arabian leaders who committed crimes, and threatened the National Security, of the United States.

He never "drained the swamp." He became the swamp. Goldman Sachs officials run the Treasury. The revolving door of lobbyists continue to serve in our government. Negligence in Congress has been documented recently by the Center for Public Integrity, as special interests and corporate entities write laws rubber-stamped by the American legislative bodies.

We engage in a fake fix to our fourth estate problems. Napster taught the world a booming industry can be destroyed by the internet. Since that time, we have paid advertisers and news agencies by click-bait. So, popular news tries to make money, not inform the American citizens. This is why a trash television star, not serving a day in government, can lead the most powerful nation in the world.

A higher sense of purpose--God, the Enlightenment, Country--is passe and narcissistic, in America. It is laughed at, as anti-heroes achieve their objectives, become the strongest to survive, on television show after television show. But, what would George Washington think of not reading a bill in Congress, or deciding not to vote, on a rainy day?

We check our brains at the door, never challenging ourselves to learn outside of the classroom, and in the classroom, the spoonful of sugar to wash down the medicine of learning, has become a 2-liter of pop to wash down a single serving of vegetables.

Questions do not have immediate answers. Social media encourages comparisons, and depression. The internet is for expression, not learning. We are all Jon Stewart's hacks--jaded and stupid--trying to thumb our nose at society without the tonnage of knowledge, and wisdom, to do it. We ball at any information that doesn't fit on a Triscuit.

The short of it? We are wasting the best of this gift--the liberation from disease, poverty, destruction, violence--by the Enlightenment. We need to reform elections, and hold moral standards. The science produced in the next century will make the Manhattan Project look like another day in the park. We need to stop it with moral actions, or we face destruction.

2020 is my hope for the future and the chance to correct course. I feel strongly we face extinction without a change in leadership.

End of my rant. For now.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
:p
 
Nationalism to various degrees has always been there all it needs is the right set of circumstances/persons to bring it out the most negative aspects of it. People often look for someone or something to blame if things aren't how they want them to be. There is no magic wand that can be waived to make everything "right" no matter how much people might say vote for me and I'll fix it.

Take Brexit for example, I don't think it's in the best interests of the UK to leave the EU. Does that mean I think everything about the EU is great, no. Lets say we leave with a no deal and go to WTO rules and prices increase as a result of tariffs, it's the consumer that pays in the end, if a free trade treaty is signed in the future I highly doubt prices will go back down rather companies will simply keep any extra monies. It's looking increasingly likely we'll get Boris as our next PM not exactly my preference. People are deluding themselves if they thing they'll be much change to the deal offered the UK by the EU regardless of who the PM. If Parliament can't decide then give us the people the choice in a preferential referendum, Leave with the Deal, Leave without a Deal or Remain in the EU. That gives the Leavers two options to get over the 50%. Sure the Brexit party had the largest percentage of the votes in the recent EU elections but the pro-EU parties had even more.

As for the USA as an outside observer it's seems like each day is worse than before when it comes to the US Government esp. the executive branch.
 
My change in leadership has more to do than with Donald Trump, the man, to be clear. He highlights that I want experience of pulling the levers of government. He highlights that you cannot govern by Executive Order because the next time the other party is in control, they simply overturn the EOs, no matter what issue, and how old the precedent may be (DACA, integrating transgender soldiers, etc.). Moving to comprehensive Immigration laws through Congress is difficult, for a myriad of reasons (polarization of opinions between the two parties, gridlock as they fight for more seats, short terms in both Houses, gerrymandered districts and the appellate courts stacked to keep it legal, the fourth estate not giving us basic facts upon which to agree, rather opinions that will get someone elected and keep eyeballs on their respective screens, people not caring or comprehending a single issue important to policy, overworking with low wages, so people are too tired, even if they do care, a lack of education and the certainty that they know all from running a household, inheritance of political ideology, taking the system for granted, feeling their vote, and time don't matter, and there's no difference from one person to the next, one party to the next. I could go forward with more reasons why Washington is broken, but I digress). Congress's approval is in single-digits, as a governing body. No one wants to take on an issue because they are worried they will lose money, which means losing power. Egos are huge, as stories of how the Grand Bargain on National Debt fell apart. Joe Biden, Vice President under Barack Obama, negotiated for nine months, in secret. The number two man, Eric Cantor, of Republican leadership hit the roof because Boehner, Speaker at the time, and Obama scheduled a photo-op and vowed to hammer a deal. Cantor wanted credit to raise his profile. So, no grand bargain. The sequester, which was to force debt relief to the President's desk, began hacking Federal spending with no plan--1 percent here, 3 percent, there. This is according to Bob Woodward.

Over a bloody photo-op and someone else takes credit. Who cares? History will remember you! Either way!

This feels like the end. And I am hopeful it can change, if, we, as Americans, participate.
 
While this is true of Great Britain in the era of Brexit, Donald Trump's election seems to have inspired a wave of nationalism across the developed world, which puts freedom and Democracy at-risk

The idea that nationalism is adverse to democracy seems pretty perplexing or extreme-it seems fairly typical and at least natural for politicians to say we've got to focus on home (especially after having been in a war for over a decade). It is, I guess, interesting that nationalism can lead to either wanting militaristic expansion or to wanting to withdraw troops although those are so different they seem like really different phenomena. Nationalism can be exclusivist, xenophobic or otherwise but ...

First, the amount of sexism, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia expressed in 2016 was jaw-dropping, especially considering the 44th President, and Donald Trump's 62.8 million votes. Multiculturalism has been studied and the mixing of cultures creates new ideas and prosperity, but it as creates a backlash; nationalism.

While Trump has been willing to opportunistically appeal to prejudiced voters, he and his nationalism doesn't seem particularly exclusivist, xenophobic or otherwise, when he's got a converted-to-Judaism daughter and obviously was able to work with his businesses internationally.

He never "drained the swamp." He became the swamp. Goldman Sachs officials run the Treasury. The revolving door of lobbyists continue to serve in our government.

Well at least you admit it isn't new. There can be reforms but there will always be disproportionate and questionable influence, especially of the powerful doing the regulating and governing.

Social media encourages comparisons, and depression. The internet is for expression, not learning. We are all Jon Stewart's hacks--jaded and stupid--trying to thumb our nose at society without the tonnage of knowledge, and wisdom, to do it. We ball at any information that doesn't fit on a Triscuit.

I think that's much too negative a view, although interesting in that Stewart got his own popularity largely from being against the mainstream media (although with the caveat that, of course, Fox News was worse). Now we are able to express ourselves much rather than have opinions at us through only a few channels (Al Gore ca 2007 actually loved that the Internet would allow interaction rather than the masses just be passive viewers). But I don't think the mainstream media was that bad and it still is valuable, it shouldn't have a monopoly position, it's good that there are other voices including with obvious ideological alignments, but it can and does play a good role. I think that, in addition to public radio and TV, the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN in particular provide reasonable and balanced news and perspectives for those who want them, they're definitely still available.
 
I find the noise of opinions on any outlet--Youtube to CNN--are weighed as facts. Because news outlets have studied their consumers, and know how to keep eyeballs on their channels, and make money for advertisers, we cannot agree on basic facts.

Example: There's a war on Christmas, and therefore, Christians are persucuted.

Fox News (Conservative rag): Absolutely! Look at this school in Colorado where Christmas carols are banned, because they are offensive to non-Christians.

MSNBC (Liberal Rag): We won't even address this issue, while 200,000 viewers of Fox News turn on the channel to see their take. 60% of these 200,000 convinced Christians will be voting on this issue in 2020. It must be true because of the authority of seeing it on television.

Go buy a newspaper and count, on the by-line, the articles that include information from Reuters and the Associated Press. Of those reprinted stories, how many are international stories. Of those international stories, how many are puff pieces, slice of life, with no larger context. That's your homework.

We cannot separate fact from an authoritative source, from an opinion from someone who has no background in the information. We expect all the information we need to be contained in one article, but the shorter, the better.

Two Reuters reporters were charged, convicted, and released 500 days later, for telling us about a mass grave in Myanmar, and being entrapped by the authorities by being handed state secrets in a restaurant. The 1938 Secrets Act led to a seven-year prison term for telling us the truth about a potential genocide. When released, one met his child for the first time.

That's a muckraker. And did you see that story on CNN? If you did, how much time was spent on Myanmar, and how much was spent on Donald Trump.

SE Cupp and Tomi Lahren position themselves as courageous. They are not. Australia is raiding newsrooms. Do you care? There was an alt-right movement in Italy that led to a three-month standoff in their elections. This is what I am talking about. Freedoms are being curtailed around the world. Led by a wave of militaristic nationalism, and the US had 932 incidents between election, and inauguration, 60% used Trump slogans or rhetoric, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center--of violence and destruction of property--of immigrants and minorities. 932. Those are the reported incidents. We had someone inspired to try and take out key Democrats, by Trump's rhetoric. We had a shooting of Steve Scalise, someone wanting to kill Republicans.

Without information, with no education, without getting sources, we are toast. That was my point.
 
Progress often looks like two steps forward and one step back. And what is "progress" anyway? That's part of the problem - everyone agrees they want it, but they have different definitions of it. What feels like progress to one person (finally ridding of the country of illegals) may feel like regression to others (racist and exclusionary policies).

Being a student of history, it's difficult for me not to view current events in light of the historical timeline of our country and the world. It leaves me feeling both disappointed and hopeful. Disappointed because the same mistakes are being repeated again and again. The parallels between certain situations seem so obvious to me, but I guess others don't see it. Or they do, but don't care. Trump's MO is so transparent. If you wrote down the story of Trump's presidency, changed his name, said that it happened 150 years ago and published it in a history textbook, most people would be appalled. They'd read it and say, "What a terrible person! How could those Americans from 150 years ago be so stupid? Why did they let this happen? That would never happen today. What idiots. I'm glad we're so much smarter and more enlightened now."

But of course, we're not. How do we prevent repeating mistakes like this? Is more education the answer? I don't really know. There are of course exceptions, but the vast majority of historians seem to be against Trump. That says something to me. If more people studied history, they might realize what's going on. The statement "reality has a well known liberal bias" may have been meant as a joke, but it struck me as being one of the truest things I'd ever heard.

I do still have hope though. Another true statement: "This too shall pass." Spend some time with young people and you will see that just as Trump was a backlash to progress/multiculturalism/whatever you want to call it, there will be a backlash to Trump as well, and I think it will be longer lasting than his presidency, even if he is re-elected in 2020.
 
Nationalism doesn’t have to be racist but it inherently suggests that moral consequences of actions you take only matter inside your own borders.

And what people call Nationalism is often over the line into Jingoism.

I assume a mod is going to move this to TNZ?
 
One thing is for sure. It's certainly affecting people more. Today, I'm standing at the store checkout line. The cashiers are randomly talking about the weather with each other, & the lady behind me mentions that it's supposed to start raining soon. Apt as I am to make with the small talk, & shirk my general uneasiness being around strangers, I added that it was actually clouding up, when I came in the store.

She responds to me by bringing up how unusually unpredictable the weather has been (Which it has) by saying "It's really been weird. There's no way to know what's going on anymore... with Trump too. I swear, it's the worst it's ever been (She just keeps going)

Everybody there gets the deer in the headlights look, like "Did that lady just go from zero to Trump in one weather sentence?". She actually kind of spiraled into a blithering toward the guy behind her, as I rapidly cashed out & left.

This stuff is making sane people crazy & crazy people crazier. I was half tempted to mention the connection of the weird unpredictable weather could be half due to Trump being unwilling to recognize global climate change, but I didn't want to get everybody in the store murdered lol
 
But where do you get impartial information? News outlets have (seemingly) all chosen one political faction or another.

It is difficult, but much of the information contained in these message posts comes from Reuters TV. It is not perfect, but the app is free. AP also has one. Podcasts like Left, Right, and Center are easily available on Spotify and public radio. Still, it is opinion, and corruptible through being public media, but that just means caution, not stop.

The goal is to be skeptical of all information until a second and third credible source can verify it. I let the news choose a topic--say Myanmar or Sri Lanka--and I Google search the hell out of it. I go back two weeks; you can identify sources before clicking on the article. I sometimes cross-reference to find if a source of information comes from a legitimate source. I look at headlines, and if they are similar, it's usually from AP or Reuters.

I listen to all, accept nothing until the truth is exposed and is undeniable. I don't often regurgitate opinions just to name them as facts, and sound intelligent through a conversation. I am able to say "I don't know." I let time pass in drawing conclusions. Skepticism without cynicism.

But the short of it is AP and Reuters. If it bored you, leaves you unable to draw an immediate conclusion, causes more questions than answers, it is usually a fact, not opinion. If you are curious, indulge it.

As basic as I have gone?
Where is Burma?
Why do they call it Brexit?

Find out information that is credible. In Great Britain, that's The Guardian and to a lesser extent, the BBC. In America, the Washington Post and the aforementioned sources. Anywhere else? Google. Keep the algorithm clean by indulging your curiosity on politics in one search engine, and how to hard-boil an egg and what Beyonce wore to the Grammys, in another.

I hope that helps.
 
It is difficult, but much of the information contained in these message posts comes from Reuters TV. It is not perfect, but the app is free. AP also has one. Podcasts like Left, Right, and Center are easily available on Spotify and public radio. Still, it is opinion, and corruptible through being public media, but that just means caution, not stop.

The goal is to be skeptical of all information until a second and third credible source can verify it. I let the news choose a topic--say Myanmar or Sri Lanka--and I Google search the hell out of it. I go back two weeks; you can identify sources before clicking on the article. I sometimes cross-reference to find if a source of information comes from a legitimate source. I look at headlines, and if they are similar, it's usually from AP or Reuters.

I listen to all, accept nothing until the truth is exposed and is undeniable. I don't often regurgitate opinions just to name them as facts, and sound intelligent through a conversation. I am able to say "I don't know." I let time pass in drawing conclusions. Skepticism without cynicism.

But the short of it is AP and Reuters. If it bored you, leaves you unable to draw an immediate conclusion, causes more questions than answers, it is usually a fact, not opinion. If you are curious, indulge it.

As basic as I have gone?
Where is Burma?
Why do they call it Brexit?

Find out information that is credible. In Great Britain, that's The Guardian and to a lesser extent, the BBC. In America, the Washington Post and the aforementioned sources. Anywhere else? Google. Keep the algorithm clean by indulging your curiosity on politics in one search engine, and how to hard-boil an egg and what Beyonce wore to the Grammys, in another.

I hope that helps.

Unfortunately most people work 40 hours or more per 7 day week, not including hours per day commuting, we go home to time constraints of children, other family or friends needs, pets, home chores, such as shopping, cooking, cleaning,yard work, etc,
Researching for hours upon hours, a country that might as well be on a different planet is far from something most of us have the time or desire to do.
In the interim of doing the research , 4,816 other insecents have happened, which one could research.
I tried for several years to pay attention and be concerned, but I've come to my senses now. I pretty much ignore everything, unless it's occurring within say my current surroundings.
Sad but true.

Someone may think this or that about, as above, something in Colorado or at the US/Mexico border or Sweden or France or China, but unless you live there, you are only getting 1/623th of the story. (Or less)
Even with research then possibly you might be at 1/250th of the story.
You watch any of the stupid "news" channels and they want to present the issue in 1 minute 17 seconds before the commercial break. That's not enough time for anything.
I don't think it's ever fair to spout off about an issue that 'you' have minimal to almost zero knowledge of.
 
Unfortunately most people work 40 hours or more per 7 day week, not including hours per day commuting, we go home to time constraints of children, other family or friends needs, pets, home chores, such as shopping, cooking, cleaning,yard work, etc,
If you have ten or fifteen minutes for the news, yeah hours of research is out of the question.
 
Unfortunately most people work 40 hours or more per 7 day week, not including hours per day commuting, we go home to time constraints of children, other family or friends needs, pets, home chores, such as shopping, cooking, cleaning,yard work, etc,
Researching for hours upon hours, a country that might as well be on a different planet is far from something most of us have the time or desire to do.
In the interim of doing the research , 4,816 other insecents have happened, which one could research.
I tried for several years to pay attention and be concerned, but I've come to my senses now. I pretty much ignore everything, unless it's occurring within say my current surroundings.
Sad but true.

Someone may think this or that about, as above, something in Colorado or at the US/Mexico border or Sweden or France or China, but unless you live there, you are only getting 1/623th of the story. (Or less)
Even with research then possibly you might be at 1/250th of the story.
You watch any of the stupid "news" channels and they want to present the issue in 1 minute 17 seconds before the commercial break. That's not enough time for anything.
I don't think it's ever fair to spout off about an issue that 'you' have minimal to almost zero knowledge of.

It takes an hour, in the mornings, before my day starts. The app does 30 minutes of news followed by 30 minutes of research. In that time, about two hours before my day begins, I have roommates and cats to consider, I do a to-do list, I write, and read. My current reading material is Ted Steinberg's Down to Earth about natural history and its influence on America. I am reading a ten-year old book on the Afghanistan war called "The Forever War." I deal with four mental disorders. I workout, for about fifteen minutes. I caffeinate and smoke.

I don't spend hours on it. If there is a documentary, a little more, or if I get into my books. But, all in all, getting up at 6-8 am, not having to be out the door before ten, I work it in.
 
It takes an hour, in the mornings, before my day starts. The app does 30 minutes of news followed by 30 minutes of research. In that time, about two hours before my day begins, I have roommates and cats to consider, I do a to-do list, I write, and read. My current reading material is Ted Steinberg's Down to Earth about natural history and its influence on America. I am reading a ten-year old book on the Afghanistan war called "The Forever War." I deal with four mental disorders. I workout, for about fifteen minutes. I caffeinate and smoke.

I don't spend hours on it. If there is a documentary, a little more, or if I get into my books. But, all in all, getting up at 6-8 am, not having to be out the door before ten, I work it in.
Sounds like it's something you enjoy doing.
So you work it in very well.
For me it sounds like work.:)
I try to Just try to keep with information I have experience with or from where I live or lived. I don't mind hearing or seeing about the other information but unless I minored in it college at the very least, I don't feel informed enough to really feel I know what the issues are.
 
But where do you get impartial information? News outlets have (seemingly) all chosen to align with one political faction or another.

Some of them have chosen to align with one political faction. Others get accused of it because reporting objectively inherently favors one party or another.

Even CNN which is by no means objective (They are the worst offender of both-sides-ism), but they aren't biased against Trump, they are biased in favor of the political gossip and easily digestible dramatic narratives.

If somebody does something objectively bad, and the news criticizes it, it's read as bias against that person, which is really dangerous.
 
Others get accused of it because reporting objectively inherently favors one party or another.
Tends (for me) to come off as bias when no proof is ever given. Big reason I now completely discount the whole Trump - Russia thing is months and years go by and still it's supposition and could be and "well, everyone knows."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top