Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Aug 24, 2020.
I find it much easier to agree that Trump is not a good man than to agree that Biden is a good man.
I think the ideological differences between the red and the blue are great, some think they are too great for us to remain together, I think they are not but very strained.
Is there’s going to be violence and it’s gonna continue and it’s gonna get worse? The drums are heard on CNN, MSNBC, and others.
As to Hayden, I take his criticism seriously. Its good for a democracy.
Did he endorse Biden for wrong reasons because he hates Trump? Hayden says.
“I absolutely disagree with some of Biden’s policies, but that’s not important,”
His critics say:
"He served his country well until Trump became the Republican presidential nominee, but once that happened, he completely lost it. The guy is clearly blinded by hate and no longer able to sit back and calmly analyze what’s happening
To imply that Trump — all by himself — will somehow destroy America is downright fantastical. The U.S. may very well have the strongest foundation of any nation on earth. This system survived a lot. It’s insane to suggest that it can’t survive one single president you happen to hate."
A true American perspective - from a British lord and a convicted felon. Can't pick a better icon for a Trump cult.
On statues - I applaud people (some quite radical) for tearing down Lenin idols in Eastern Europe. Similarly, I see no reason, no reason at all, for many Confederate statues that sparked this controversy to continue existing. Also, the Right refuses to even have a conversation about renaming military bases that happened to be named after Confederate generals (who were, let me remind you, military leaders of the ENEMY of the bloodiest by far conflict in American history. In many cases, traitors too). What's up with that?
Same with history. Lerner supports protecting the privileged position that he believes, in his delusion, that he belongs to. Because he explored joining the Navy Reserve. While a guy who shares our background, Lt. Col. Vyndman, won a Purple Heart and still got savaged by the magaheads as an OUTSIDER.
Yes, the ideological divide between the Red and the Blue is great. That's because Dems run all the sane political spectrum of a western country, in Canadian terms - from slight right of Conservatives all the way to the left of NDP. The GOP, on the other hand, went off the rails and is now a radical Supply Side cult with a racist recruiting pitch. The one consistent principle the Reds have is "eat the weak"; their policies are unpopular; they stay in power by eroding democracy, piece by piece by piece, for decades. Trump just highlights these things.
"President Donald Trump brings COVID-19 stimulus negotiations to a halt"
I had multiple people explain to me how much more better Canada is because "we're not a melting pot, we're a MOSAIC". Which is, quite frankly, bullsh1t. Also, Pakistan elected a woman PM once, but Canada never did (don't say "Kim Campbell" to me, you know it's not the same). What's up with that?
Mr. Justin "Sunny Ways" Trudeau gets props for posturing in all the right ways, sure. I also appreciate a radical idea that an immigrant can be the Minister of Immigration, at long last. But he keeps stepping in entirely avoidable ethical doodoo, while dumping all the real work on my homegirl Chrystia. He risks losing to whatever forgettable android PCs will run next time, and when he does, I won't be voting either way.
This foundation is the principles and standards American people believe in. And Trump already made his base abandon them for him. One of the latest examples is how the entire GOP openly laughs at the Hatch Act - "LOL, we can break it and you can't do nothing, boohoo, liberal tears, hahaha". Seriously, dump this man, dump him right now.
Same here. History without the unflattering bits is just propaganda. However, since you mentioned it specifically, that doesn't mean that the 1619 Project is perfect, and some of its more scholarly critics make legitimate points about inaccuracies in its constituent essays, especially Matthew Desmond's.
Same. I prefer P.J. O'Rourke's formulation of this from 2016, when he said that Hillary Clinton was better because at least she was "wrong within normal parameters".
"What's up with that?" Benazir Bhutto was daughter of a Pakistani PM, who was from an immensely rich family. And she was groomed for the job since girlhood. Perhaps if Pierre Trudeau had had daughters instead of sons, one of them might be PM now - or not. And Benazir was assassinated. Does her election somehow make Pakistan more virtuous than Canada? I think women's rights - excluding perhaps, some from fabulously rich families, are generally in better shape here.
Woman PM? - I'd have your homegirl Chrystia in an instant! But her boss still wants his job. But no matter, I think we've made progress on racial/ethnic matters and will continue to do so. And that's the only issue that I was pointing to. We're not perfect by a long shot, but I believe some sincere people are working hard on this -and by and large, the people realize the importance.
I'm sorry you left us and don't like us (except Chrystia) any more. I think we lost a very good man - who did things in a way that would make Canada better. Too bad he despises us. Our loss.
Dominica had a woman Prime Minister in the '80s, Dame Eugenia Charles. She was often compared with Margaret Thatcher, and referred to as the "Iron Lady of the Caribbean". But every party leader before or since has been a man, so I wouldn't say that means it's not advantageous to be a man in Dominican society.
That's, very nearly, the most Canadian thing to say. "Our women's rights are in better shape than Pakistan". Why yes, yes they are - compared to Pakistan. Don't you have ambition higher than that?
I submit that there's better chance things will change in US, where a loud minority exists that keeps shouting "we are falling behind, this is terrible, reforms now !!!1111oneone". In Canada, way too many people are complacent; desiring real change and suggesting things are fundamentally wrong (beyond "small groups of white supremacists" - guess what, open Nazis are a small minority in US as well) is unCanadian, and is met with hostility. I tried that.
Having said that - good job figuring out healthcare when you had a chance. People here who never had OHIP don't even know what they're missing; it's even hard to explain to well-read people like Steve here.
Oh relax, at least you're still better than Pakistan. Canada is a good country; just needs to believe less in its own bumper stickers. And you accuse Americans of jingoism!
Of course we do. You brought up Pakistan - so I kept the comparison to that country. According to this, there are only eight countries in the world where women have 100% equal rights under the law by legislation. Canada is one of them. US is not. And we're better than Yemen, too. They came in last. So there.
BTW - I went through a couple of other surveys that I've lost the links for. Canada was around 11th on them, US around 19th and Pakistan -- somewhere around 190, I think.
US has more kinks in their legislation because they devised their blueprint for democracy way back before Canada even existed (Canada, I remind you, is a monarchy with a Windsor/Mountbatten royal family). Charter of Rights is way more modern document than bot US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - because it took you over 200 years to get the Queen's permission to write one. The problem, of course, is with how the Bill is applied given all the unspoken understandings that defines Canadian governance. Like when Justin fired Jody Wilson-Raybould (a woman in his gender-balanced Cabinet, and a First Nations member) for not being a good sport and not letting the PMO mess with prosecutorial independence. Not a team player, see.
"We have healthcare, too!" LOL. They have no idea.
I lied - slightly. Rechecked - Pakistan was 164th. Yemen was dead last at 167th place.
Lousy thing to do, I agree. But if a man had done the same thing - same result. Jody Wilson-Raybould's firing would have happened regardless of her gender or First Nations status. So why are you bringing this to the table - has nothing to do with Women's Rights.
It reflects poorly on Justin - but not for reasons of rights. That's what we were discussing.
You've apparently confused disagreeing with you for not understanding you.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." - William F. Buckley, Jr.
@Stanislav And all that demagoguery about "blueprints for democracy" to "explain" US ranking lower on women's rights. Just accept the fact - we're doing a bit better than the US in that regard - and we BOTH have more work to do.
We're NOT a "Windsor/Mountbatten monarchy" as you so scathingly accuse. They haven't "owned" us for many years... but we still respect them. Try using that line of yours on Australians, Indians, Caribbean countries etc. Call them a Monarchy and see what it gets you. Some of them have more liberal gun laws than we do...
Johann and I are the ones who actually tried OHIP, a form of universal coverage. What you have ain't it; level of security it provides can't be bought for any kind of money in US. No, it's not about waiting times; has nothing to do with waiting times. I can feel this additional layer of anxiety coming back to me, despite a decent coverage TAMUS provides. You also have this anxiety, but don't have anything to compare it with.
Oh but you ARE. Your Head of State is HM Elisabeth the Second, By Grace of God Queen of Canada, and Her Other Realms. It's not even necessarily a bad thing, just... quaint...
On the rights of women, and minorities - good job pardoning Viola Davis ("Canadian Rosa Parks", which is not entirely accurate. She was convicted of tax evasion on 1 cent, because the white section of the theatre was 10 cents more expensive). In 2010, posthumously. With apology, of course, it won't be Canadian otherwise.
@SteveFoerster He's right, Steve. Seriously so. I know.
We (Canadians past and present) have done terrible things. No secret. What else can we do besides reverse wrongful convictions, pay for our sins wherever possible, apologize completely and sincerely - and do better now? As you know, Viola Davis is now on our $10 bill - commemorated for what she did - her resistance that made Canada do better. How is the US faring in this regard?
I'm not convinced that young people are monolithic in their views. I'm starting to sense that some of the more avant garde young people are tilting conservative, in some large part because it's something their parents and teachers oppose. There's no better way for them to "scare the straights" than to sport a MAGA hat. It's reminisccnt of how many white kids adopted black countercultural style because it was so outre in their parents World War II generation world. Today black counterculture is mainstream and kids need a new way to rebel and overturn the apple cart.
Kids do tend more towards political views that are expressive of alienation. That's often the case with adolescents who are alienated by their very nature. And the left is the coalition of the alienated and always has been. It generates, feeds and stokes alienation as long as they think that it's of use to them.
But even if we discount the idea of Trump having any counterculture trendiness, I don't think that one can count on people remaining alienated all their lives. In a few cases it's true, as we see in all the old burned out hippies infesting Berkeley's poorer neighborhoods. But for most people there's a natural tendency towards social responsibility as they get jobs, get married, have families and so on. (All the social institutions that not so coincidently are under attack today.) Remember that today's older Trump voters were once the former "youth movement" of the 1960's. People tend to slide rightwards as they mature.
Not entirely. Universities are simply one aspect of the left-takeover of all of Western civilization's organs of opinion management and thought-control, extending from journalism, entertainment and even sports, through K-12 and higher education. Even social media and biased web searches with Google. None of that is "liberal" in any traditional sense of that word. More like 1984 'Ministry of Truth'-style totalitarian. Freedom of thought and opinion clearly aren't welcome or even tolerated in the 'Brave New World' utopia that "liberals" hope to replace America and its traditions with.
I assume that you mean racial and ethnic diversity. There's a bit of self-contradiction in the assumptions hidden in that.
The idea seems to be that non-whites will identify first and foremost with their own race and ethnicity as opposed to identifying with the nation, its history and its more general ideals and symbols. And we do seem to be seeing that happening. (The opinion shaping organs are certainly trying to promote it.) But keep in mind that many immigrants come here because they like the United States and what it stands for. They aren't all merely looking for a way to get richer while destroying the golden goose that made it possible. (Though some clearly are.)
We seem to have reached a cusp in this country.
1. Do we identify first-and-foremost with the nation, with the wider community that embraces people from all parts of the world with many complexions and skin colors? If that's the ideal, then what we need to do is emphasize things that we all share in common, rather than obsessing on all the things that divide us. Unity isn't going to be achieved by attacking all the symbols of our belonging to a wider community.
2. Or are we going to descend into the sewer of racial identity politics, identifying first-and-foremost with our own personal race and ethnicity? That's where the contradiction arises, since the left seems to prescribe hard angry identity politics for all non-whites, while assuming that whites can be shamed with accusations of "racism" into embracing the politics of inclusivity.
What's much more likely is that if identity politics continues being institutionalized, then white Americans are going to embrace it too. If they find themselves and everything they identify with vilified too many times, then they will start to join everyone else in identifying first-and-foremost with their own race and ethnicity and with whatever they perceive to be in the interest of their white race. That's where we are headed and I sense that we are approaching the final offramp from the road leading to that future.
Separate names with a comma.