-
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback there is a good reason, he is actually a pretty nasty person. He mocks the disabled, he is a bully, he is absolutely misogynist and pretty clearly sexist . He is an egomaniac and narcissist.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I've personally gone from hating him thinking he was evil/stupid to realising a lot of what I hated about him was misrepresented, to thinking he's a asshole who might actually be doing not too bad of a job..to now actually finding him kind of funny, certainly rough around the edges, a character unlike we've ever seen in office and quite frankly a bit of a genius to achieve what he has achieved and still have people think he is absolute moron. @Baron-Silas-Greenback played a part in that transformation harshly calling myself and others out on posts where we just repeated completely discredited stories on him. Some react by going off the handle maybe throwing a bit of personal abuse and doubling down without evidence and ultimately leaving the politics forum.
I thought I'd be the super smart guy that beats Baron at his own game and provide irrefutable evidence that Trump and his associates were in fact the corrupt, mysogynist, white ethnonationalist morons that everyone I knew in life and every media outlet I watched believed...The problem was this meant I had to carefully investigate both sides of every story, something I had never really done because why the hell would I? Everyone I knew already had the same opinion.
The bitter horrible pill was when I realised that in most instances I was wrong. In fact if you look through this thread you'll actually find out Baron isn't even really a Trump supporter, he just doesn't hate him which in my previous anti-Trump mindset somehow meant that if you don't hate him then you must love everything he's ever done..which is now the position I find myself in frequently to the point of threats of violence even from family members just for pointing out that maybe he isn't actually that bad, he has some good points..and maybe many of these stories against him are misrepresented or fabrications. I now know dozens of people personally who have gone through a similar versions of this story, there's a whole #walkaway movement of where thousands of people around the world have also gone through this. Sometimes all it has taken is debunking or casting doubt over a story previously believed to be 100% true.
I'm going to take a guess and assume 'Trump mocks the disabled' refers to the wall-to-wall world-wide headlines about him knowingly mocking a disabled reporter, which was then followed up by Meryl Streeps' breathless golden globe speech where she slammed the president for such an attrocity.
Looks pretty cut and dried alright. I mean what sort of monster would do this?
Thing is, Trump is a showman, he does extremely entertaining colourful speeches which often include lots of impressions. What if this particular impression wasn't 'an impression of a disabled person' but rather an impression of someone caught out for doing wrong and being flustered about it (perhaps for writing an article back in 2001 which backed up Trump's claims and now claiming he doesn't remember it). That explanation would sound weak except there is enough video evidence showing that the same 'mocking' impression has also been deployed against folk who don't have a disability.
If anything Trump was treating this reporter like he would anyone disabled or not, which I understand from my disabled friends is exactly how they would like to be treated, as though they are just a regular person. Maybe this isn't enough evidence to completely put him in the clear but it certainly casts doubt on the accusation.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback there is a good reason, he is actually a pretty nasty person. He mocks the disabled, he is a bully, he is absolutely misogynist and pretty clearly sexist . He is an egomaniac and narcissist.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I've personally gone from hating him thinking he was evil/stupid to realising a lot of what I hated about him was misrepresented, to thinking he's a asshole who might actually be doing not too bad of a job..to now actually finding him kind of funny, certainly rough around the edges, a character unlike we've ever seen in office and quite frankly a bit of a genius to achieve what he has achieved and still have people think he is absolute moron. @Baron-Silas-Greenback played a part in that transformation harshly calling myself and others out on posts where we just repeated completely discredited stories on him. Some react by going off the handle maybe throwing a bit of personal abuse and doubling down without evidence and ultimately leaving the politics forum.
I thought I'd be the super smart guy that beats Baron at his own game and provide irrefutable evidence that Trump and his associates were in fact the corrupt, mysogynist, white ethnonationalist morons that everyone I knew in life and every media outlet I watched believed...The problem was this meant I had to carefully investigate both sides of every story, something I had never really done because why the hell would I? Everyone I knew already had the same opinion.
The bitter horrible pill was when I realised that in most instances I was wrong. In fact if you look through this thread you'll actually find out Baron isn't even really a Trump supporter, he just doesn't hate him which in my previous anti-Trump mindset somehow meant that if you don't hate him then you must love everything he's ever done..which is now the position I find myself in frequently to the point of threats of violence even from family members just for pointing out that maybe he isn't actually that bad, he has some good points..and maybe many of these stories against him are misrepresented or fabrications. I now know dozens of people personally who have gone through a similar versions of this story, there's a whole #walkaway movement of where thousands of people around the world have also gone through this. Sometimes all it has taken is debunking or casting doubt over a story previously believed to be 100% true.
I'm going to take a guess and assume 'Trump mocks the disabled' refers to the wall-to-wall world-wide headlines about him knowingly mocking a disabled reporter, which was then followed up by Meryl Streeps' breathless golden globe speech where she slammed the president for such an attrocity.
Looks pretty cut and dried alright. I mean what sort of monster would do this?
Thing is, Trump is a showman, he does extremely entertaining colourful speeches which often include lots of impressions. What if this particular impression wasn't 'an impression of a disabled person' but rather an impression of someone caught out for doing wrong and being flustered about it (perhaps for writing an article back in 2001 which backed up Trump's claims and now claiming he doesn't remember it). That explanation would sound weak except there is enough video evidence showing that the same 'mocking' impression has also been deployed against folk who don't have a disability.
If anything Trump was treating this reporter like he would anyone disabled or not, which I understand from my disabled friends is exactly how they would like to be treated, as though they are just a regular person. Maybe this isn't enough evidence to completely put him in the clear but it certainly casts doubt on the accusation.
This is a great post, and I've sort of been through the same thing over the past 4 years, prompted by a few friends IRL and by @Baron-Silas-Greenback on the politics forum generally.
The politics forum, and this thread in particular, cop a lot of shit on the Fern. Personally it's been the most interesting part of the site since 2016 as it's made me reevaluate what I think and why I think it. Being "intellectually flexible" about Trump or anything else is important.
As @Rembrandt said, you definitely get people very fired up when venturing any other opinion apart from "Trump is appalling" in casual conversation, even amongst family and friends.
-
I have family in America that are card carrying Democrats and Hillary supporters. I can actually chart their blood pressure if you even hint something positive about Trump or equate CNN with Fox News.
Pretty much the main common ground I can get to is that they have to get money out of politics and consolidation of ownership of the media, and the 24 hour news cycle, is ruining politics in their country.
-
@reprobate WHO have been discussed often on the coronovirus threads. Their mishandling of the crisis, weird behaviour (hanging up on reporters) if they mention Taiwan, and now their support of China opening the wet markets that causes this pandemic is a huge problem IMO.
They have come in for criticism from scientists for the last one, not just from Trump.
Are they corrupt or just incompetent?
Probably the later from my opinon. I think they are summed up by their asertion that more people will be harmed from calling it WuFlu than from the actual virus. That's the level they are operating at.
Oh, and they are still saying not to wear masks.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
So Trump defunds the WHO during a glocal pandemic so he can have a scapegoat for his own incompetence.
Bit strange that that doesn't warrant a mention in here no?No he defunded them because they are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback if that were the criteria, he'd have to defund himself.
The timing of it is telling. -
@Kirwan I would actually say they are option 3. Naive.
I certainly don't think they are incompetent & corrupt is a colossal accusation.
They should simply keep their nose out of politics. Which they (inadvertently, or on purpose - I shall not speculate), haven't.
-
I think it was totally the right call by Trump (and I'm no fan). WHO's entire point of existence is to take leadership during the early stages of a (potential) pandemic, and they bottled it.
As @Kirwan says, being weirdly obsessed with what people call it in case racism vs actually getting the advice/science right shows they are more interested in playing politics:
WHO:
Jan 14: No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of coronavirus
Feb 7: Masks don't necessarily protect you
Feb 22: No benefit to stopping international travelWhen they made those statements they would have had access to better scientific knowledge about the virus than any other organisation globally. Yet they continued to downplay it, just as the Chinese govt did. If they would rather suppress science to curry favour with China then that's fine. The US gives more than twice the funding to WHO than China does. They made their bed and can now lie in it.
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/usa_en.pdf?ua=1
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/chn_en.pdf
-
-
@TeWaio said in US Politics:
I think it was totally the right call by Trump (and I'm no fan). WHO's entire point of existence is to take leadership during the early stages of a (potential) pandemic, and they bottled it.
As @Kirwan says, being weirdly obsessed with what people call it in case racism vs actually getting the advice/science right shows they are more interested in playing politics:
WHO:
Jan 14: No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of coronavirus
Feb 7: Masks don't necessarily protect you
Feb 22: No benefit to stopping international travelWhen they made those statements they would have had access to better scientific knowledge about the virus than any other organisation globally. Yet they continued to downplay it, just as the Chinese govt did. If they would rather suppress science to curry favour with China then that's fine. The US gives more than twice the funding to WHO than China does. They made their bed and can now lie in it.
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/usa_en.pdf?ua=1
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/chn_en.pdf
How is that corruption?
There is an argument to be made that currying favour with China in that situation is necessary, otherwise you get the boot and can no longer actually collect any information to pass on to the rest of the world.
Trump did a fair bit of downplaying it too.
There was plenty of evidence available to countries who still delayed acting, including the states.
Regardless of their performance, surely that is something to look at after the event, not during? I don't know when he's cutting the funding, but to undermine them when they are most needed in poor countries is morally reprehensible. The only reason he's doing it now, or at least announcing it now, is so that he has someone else to blame as his own failings kill people in his country. -
@reprobate said in US Politics:
There is an argument to be made that currying favour with China in that situation is necessary, otherwise you get the boot and can no longer actually collect any information to pass on to the rest of the world.
So not much they are corrupt, but they are corrupted because they have to curry favor with an authoritarian regime that will cut them off unless they lie to the rest of the world about the danger of this virus and make China look good.
Okaaaaaaaaay.............
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
There is an argument to be made that currying favour with China in that situation is necessary, otherwise you get the boot and can no longer actually collect any information to pass on to the rest of the world.
So not much they are corrupt, but they are corrupted because they have to curry favor with a authoritarian regime that will cut them off unless they lie to the rest of the world about the danger of this virus and make China look good.
Okaaaaaaaaay.............
no Frank, it is not about not downplaying the danger of the virus, it is about not being damning about China's actions on it.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
If the Democrats win the White House, we all better hope Biden makes a good running mate selection.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@TeWaio said in US Politics:
I think it was totally the right call by Trump (and I'm no fan). WHO's entire point of existence is to take leadership during the early stages of a (potential) pandemic, and they bottled it.
As @Kirwan says, being weirdly obsessed with what people call it in case racism vs actually getting the advice/science right shows they are more interested in playing politics:
WHO:
Jan 14: No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of coronavirus
Feb 7: Masks don't necessarily protect you
Feb 22: No benefit to stopping international travelWhen they made those statements they would have had access to better scientific knowledge about the virus than any other organisation globally. Yet they continued to downplay it, just as the Chinese govt did. If they would rather suppress science to curry favour with China then that's fine. The US gives more than twice the funding to WHO than China does. They made their bed and can now lie in it.
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/usa_en.pdf?ua=1
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/revised-2019-invoice/chn_en.pdf
How is that corruption?
There is an argument to be made that currying favour with China in that situation is necessary, otherwise you get the boot and can no longer actually collect any information to pass on to the rest of the world.
Trump did a fair bit of downplaying it too.
There was plenty of evidence available to countries who still delayed acting, including the states.
Regardless of their performance, surely that is something to look at after the event, not during? I don't know when he's cutting the funding, but to undermine them when they are most needed in poor countries is morally reprehensible. The only reason he's doing it now, or at least announcing it now, is so that he has someone else to blame as his own failings kill people in his country.That is a ludicrous post. A world body having to accept lies because they are scared of being denied access?
Why weren't they currying favor with every other country on the planet by actually doing their job. They have one job.... protect the world form diseases, and they failed in that.
I find it interesting that you are so quick to raise Trumps supposed failings. What exactly are those failings? Specifically, not just vague talking points from the left wing media and politicians.
3.5 Billion dollars has gone from the US to WHO, that is the largest contribtion form any country by a mile... and what does the WHO do? Cower before a communist regime and tank the world economy. and cost tens of thousands of lives. The head of the WHO is lucky he hasnt been out up against a wall and shot.Read this article from 2 years ago...
200 million a year in first class flights and 5 start hotels?
"more than what it doles out to fight some of the biggest problems in public health, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.”"
And now they are also confirmed as Chinas little bitch?They are definitely corrupt... and useless.. totally and utterly useless.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@reprobate wouldn't it be lovely if it was about the truth? 🤔
Of course it would, but you're holding the WHO to a very different standard to Mr Trump there.
US Politics