A Political Thread

[TRF_Olyy]

Fisheries - Well we actually can't be arsed over that one and most of the rules are about making sure the fishermen don't fish themselves out of existence in 20 years time.

This one always seemed so crazy - mildly strengthening a reasonably minor industry at the risk (and now reality) of harming multiple others.
Is it because fishing is...nostalgic? Though shalt have a fishy when the boat comes in?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

UK trying to hold on to fisheries be like:

 

[ncurd]

This one always seemed so crazy - mildly strengthening a reasonably minor industry at the risk (and now reality) of harming multiple others.
Is it because fishing is...nostalgic? Though shalt have a fishy when the boat comes in?

Seaside communities that aren't predominantly tourism driven and even those are its a major source of their industry and thus rest of their underlying economy through supporting businesses of having people located in an area. The harsh reality is the EU directives make it hard to make it a viable business (I really don't understand the full complexities just the brief notes) and fishermen quite sensibly want to see change. However successive governments haven't helped them out and Farage was appointed to the commission and barely turned up. There is no doubt they are being failed but they are being failed by their representatives (and will likely be sold out by Johnson to get his deal) not by the EU itself.


Like alot of things the EU makes a useful bogeyman but when you dig a bit deeper it usually turns out its your own government.

 

[Reiser99]

Spend money on our own - yes we put more money than we get out but thats just kinda how these things work. Same with taxation people at the top put more in than they get out. the idea being a trading block where we don't have worry red tape in trade makes us richer and it certainly appeared to work.

While logically we'll have more money, we'll probably be poorer based on how it's used. The E.U has funded many parts of Britain that are not going to get anywhere near the same level of support from the U.K government. Cornwall is a perfect example, they actually voted to make themselves poorer, because of the funding they no longer get from the E.U.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

While logically we'll have more money, we'll probably be poorer based on how it's used. The E.U has funded many parts of Britain that are not going to get anywhere near the same level of support from the U.K government. Cornwall is a perfect example, they actually voted to make themselves poorer, because of the funding they no longer get from the E.U.

Reminds me of a program in Wales I saw where they were talking about how their lives would improve since Brexit and asking what the EU had ever funded. The person interviewing them pointed at a multi-million euro regeneration scheme that had been built literally right behind them and the interviewee was like "oh..."

There was so much ignorance in the Brexit referendum, so much ignorance in general. People as a whole just simply do not bother to actually keep themselves informed.

 

[Al Bangor]

 

[Al Bangor]

 

[McTallshort]

View attachment 8477

As long as Biden follows that advise too...

 

[TRF_heineken]

Isn't Trump the only President in 37 years not to start a war?

Reagan- Antiga, Libya (bombing and attacking of Naval assets), Iran (attacking of Navel assets) and Panama
Bush - Iraq 1
Clinton - Somalia, Bosnia (bombing), Kosovo (bombing), Sudan (bombing), Afghanistan (bombing)
Bush jr - Afghanistan, Iraq 2.
Obama - Libya, Syria, Iraq 3 Uganda and Yemen
Trump - ?
(H Clinton - Iran)

I have not included any UN missions only military action led by the US. Trump did actually try and pull troops out of Syria and most people including many democrat's lost their minds. I have added Hilary Clinton at the end because she was pushing hard for a confrontation with Iran. In fact democrat's are more likely to go to war than republicans.

Regardless of how Trump speaks, and his wording perhaps not as well trained as his predecessors (bar Bush). It does seem like Trump has been able to diffuse more potential wars than start them. Take North Korea as an example, It was North Korea that was doing ballistic missile tests, and it seemed like the missiles were intended for the US, but not only did Trump prevent a war from happening, he even managed to get a more diplomatic and meaningful discussion going with the North Korean Government. Something none of his predecessors managed to do.

And perhaps for the first time, in a very long time there isn't this big unknown fear factor connected to the North Koreans.

It's strange though, I always had this idea that Republicans are the ones always pushing for a war, while democrats rather want world peace. It does seem though that Trump is mixing up that perspective. But then again, it could just be the funding, and that the US doesn't have such a big budget for their military as they used to. I could be wrong though.

 

[McTallshort]

Regardless of how Trump speaks, and his wording perhaps not as well trained as his predecessors (bar Bush). It does seem like Trump has been able to diffuse more potential wars than start them. Take North Korea as an example, It was North Korea that was doing ballistic missile tests, and it seemed like the missiles were intended for the US, but not only did Trump prevent a war from happening, he even managed to get a more diplomatic and meaningful discussion going with the North Korean Government. Something none of his predecessors managed to do.

And perhaps for the first time, in a very long time there isn't this big unknown fear factor connected to the North Koreans.

It's strange though, I always had this idea that Republicans are the ones always pushing for a war, while democrats rather want world peace. It does seem though that Trump is mixing up that perspective. But then again, it could just be the funding, and that the US doesn't have such a big budget for their military as they used to. I could be wrong though.

The US still has a massive military budget. They spend 60% of their annual budget on defence. They spend more on defence than the next 25 counties combined. The reason the Democrats are more war is because they are more involved in the Military Complex than they used to be. Trump was never signed up to it and often criticised the regime change wars the US took part which didn't make him popular in many areas. Its all a big con and its a reason why many Americans dont vote for either party. During the Flint water crisis, the Obama administration dropped so many bombs on Syria they ran out of bombs. 1000s of people have been ruined by Covid yet the Democrats just agreed a several 100 billion dollar increase to the defence budget to fight enemies America doesn't have.

And they wonder how a game show host becomes President.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Regardless of how Trump speaks, and his wording perhaps not as well trained as his predecessors (bar Bush). It does seem like Trump has been able to diffuse more potential wars than start them. Take North Korea as an example, It was North Korea that was doing ballistic missile tests, and it seemed like the missiles were intended for the US, but not only did Trump prevent a war from happening, he even managed to get a more diplomatic and meaningful discussion going with the North Korean Government. Something none of his predecessors managed to do.

And perhaps for the first time, in a very long time there isn't this big unknown fear factor connected to the North Koreans.

It's strange though, I always had this idea that Republicans are the ones always pushing for a war, while democrats rather want world peace. It does seem though that Trump is mixing up that perspective. But then again, it could just be the funding, and that the US doesn't have such a big budget for their military as they used to. I could be wrong though.

It's a perception that lots of people have actually but when you look at it it starts to make sense.

Republicans tend to me more inward looking and "realist", only entering conflicts when it's absolutely necessary and will take any means to win whilst Dems seem to be largely more interventionist, but less aggressively, if that makes sense?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Regardless of how Trump speaks, and his wording perhaps not as well trained as his predecessors (bar Bush). It does seem like Trump has been able to diffuse more potential wars than start them. Take North Korea as an example, It was North Korea that was doing ballistic missile tests, and it seemed like the missiles were intended for the US, but not only did Trump prevent a war from happening, he even managed to get a more diplomatic and meaningful discussion going with the North Korean Government. Something none of his predecessors managed to do.

And perhaps for the first time, in a very long time there isn't this big unknown fear factor connected to the North Koreans.

It's strange though, I always had this idea that Republicans are the ones always pushing for a war, while democrats rather want world peace. It does seem though that Trump is mixing up that perspective. But then again, it could just be the funding, and that the US doesn't have such a big budget for their military as they used to. I could be wrong though.

Sorry but you are pointing to the bits that you like whilst disregarding what you don't. North Korea always does ballistic tests every few years, it is their way of trying to stay relevant and get some concessions on the world stage. There is normally next to no risk of it escalating because the North Korean regime likely realises if an all out war begins, it will not survive. When N.Korea decided to do it under Trump, he massively escalated the situation and later de-escalated it. You don't get to just pick the de-escalation and say that was all he did, he had to do that largely because he had made it much worse. Also for all his touted performance, he actually achieved nothing in N.Korea except showing his idea of "diplomacy" was childish name calling and showing how he was much more likely to cosy up to dictators. He praised Kim Jong Un and even said he wants the American people to look at him like "his people" look at him. That is NOT something you say about the leader of one of the most tyrannical regimes on the planet.

Trump may not have started wars but diplomatically he has been a complete trainwreck. Beyond Israel, name a US ally that now has better ties with the USA than before Trump. How many democratic leaders has he praised compared to dictators? He shies away from wars but he also shies away from all international obligations, he is an isolationist who sees the whole world as a market for American goods, nothing more.

 

[ncurd]

Plus what have been the flashpoints for Western wars in the past 30 years?

In the 90's most wars are to do do with the breakup of the Soviet Union, the only real trigger point in recent years was the Russian annexation of Crimea which nobody wanted to do anything about.
In the 2000's your mainly looking at the war on terror and reality is directly attributed terror attacks to a nation state that sponsored them are virtually non existent now.
In 2010's your mainly looking at ISIL which the the war on terror virtually created and its an ongoing operation. There's the arab spring but the fallout from that has virtually died down.

In only thing in the past 4 years that might of warrented international intervention they may have normally done so is the Rohingya genocide and nobody seams that interested.


The reality is Trump has not faced any internal or external pressure to start a new war. I don't think its a success that can be attributed to himself and just a sign of the times. The west went through two major campaigns that are still not really over and Iraq in particular killed most public support for any country to start a new war. I know Libya was highly controversial in most countries regardless of the leaders. Even if he did want to start a war (I don't think he does as noted hes an isolationist only interested in America) he'd have to demonstrate an attack on the US itself.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sorry but you are pointing to the bits that you like whilst disregarding what you don't. North Korea always does ballistic tests every few years, it is their way of trying to stay relevant and get some concessions on the world stage. There is normally next to no risk of it escalating because the North Korean regime likely realises if an all out war begins, it will not survive. When N.Korea decided to do it under Trump, he massively escalated the situation and later de-escalated it. You don't get to just pick the de-escalation and say that was all he did, he had to do that largely because he had made it much worse. Also for all his touted performance, he actually achieved nothing in N.Korea except showing his idea of "diplomacy" was childish name calling and showing how he was much more likely to cosy up to dictators. He praised Kim Jong Un and even said he wants the American people to look at him like "his people" look at him. That is NOT something you say about the leader of one of the most tyrannical regimes on the planet.

Trump may not have started wars but diplomatically he has been a complete trainwreck. Beyond Israel, name a US ally that now has better ties with the USA than before Trump. How many democratic leaders has he praised compared to dictators? He shies away from wars but he also shies away from all international obligations, he is an isolationist who sees the whole world as a market for American goods, nothing more.

That may be the case. But it's not like it's all sunshine and roses with the other allies of the US. And it's not like the Allies nations have better politicians serving their country, Seems more and more like some nations' politicians are dumbing down and being absolute knobheads. I'm not saying Trump is the best president to ever be in the oval office, far from it. I compare my obesrvations based on what I see here from the third world african country. Our leaders are absolutely crap compared to Trump and Bojo and maybe even more corrupt than that of Brazil.

So maybe, my lenses are looking at things a lot differently than yours, so I'm not perhaps in a position to debate these issues with you looking at it from a completely different perspective. All I'm saying is, things could have been a lot worse, and it isn't.

And why is it a bad thing to cosy up to Dictators, and being more harshly towards Allies? Getting Dictators to come to the party, and maybe change their ways, should be a good thing globally. While being a bit more harsh with allies, for the benefit of your own country, shouldn't always be percieved as a bad thing. I for one think his tough stance against South African exports in the agricultural sector, was just what we needed to get our government to wake up and take note that they shouldn't see the agricultural sector as a cash cow for taxes, while farm murders continue to escalate. For Trump to send a delegation here, just to investigate what's going on in the agriculture sector, including the farm murders, just shows that he's taking things seriously abroad, in perhaps countries that aren't as evolved as other allied nations, but still a big contributor to the global market.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That may be the case. But it's not like it's all sunshine and roses with the other allies of the US. And it's not like the Allies nations have better politicians serving their country, Seems more and more like some nations' politicians are dumbing down and being absolute knobheads. I'm not saying Trump is the best president to ever be in the oval office, far from it. I compare my obesrvations based on what I see here from the third world african country. Our leaders are absolutely crap compared to Trump and Bojo and maybe even more corrupt than that of Brazil.

So maybe, my lenses are looking at things a lot differently than yours, so I'm not perhaps in a position to debate these issues with you looking at it from a completely different perspective. All I'm saying is, things could have been a lot worse, and it isn't.

And why is it a bad thing to cosy up to Dictators, and being more harshly towards Allies? Getting Dictators to come to the party, and maybe change their ways, should be a good thing globally. While being a bit more harsh with allies, for the benefit of your own country, shouldn't always be percieved as a bad thing. I for one think his tough stance against South African exports in the agricultural sector, was just what we needed to get our government to wake up and take note that they shouldn't see the agricultural sector as a cash cow for taxes, while farm murders continue to escalate. For Trump to send a delegation here, just to investigate what's going on in the agriculture sector, including the farm murders, just shows that he's taking things seriously abroad, in perhaps countries that aren't as evolved as other allied nations, but still a big contributor to the global market.

That's sort of besides the point, the US likes to style itself as the leader of the free world and the most developed nation on the planet. If you compare their president to that you'd find in the 3rd world, in most people's books that would be deemed a huge failure.

Yes things could be worse. Imagine what worse would look like and then imagine Trump has 4 more years. given the damage he has done in 4 already, that is a real possibility. The USA may still be in a better place but the rate at which Trump and his administration are destroying the system is unprecedented, even Nixon didn't cause that much damage. Do you propose Trump is given a free rein until he is literally the worst president on the entire planet or do you think he should be held to a higher standards as befitting his position?

And why is it a bad thing to cosy up to Dictators, and being more harshly towards Allies?

Seriously? You are right, you really do look at this through a different lens. There is an argument for treating dictators better to change their ways, Trump isn't doing that. If anything he is doing the opposite, he is trying to adopt their ways and has openly stated so. There is also an argument to be made for ensuring allies pull their weight, for example Trump is correct in saying Europe has not been pulling its weight when it has come to military spending and has relied on the USA to do the military work whilst sitting on the sidelines tutting. However Trump isn't doing that, he has attacked allied leaders personally, he has weighed in on domestic affairs that are none of his business, he has been petty and he has sabotaged the actions of allied nations. He treats America's traditional enemies better than he treats Americas traditional allies. That's sort of the whole point of having allies...

For Trump to send a delegation here, just to investigate what's going on in the agriculture sector, including the farm murders, just shows that he's taking things seriously abroad

White people potentially being murdered by black people, can't see why that might be a pet project of his... Notice the consistent themes in what he does and doesn't decide to investigate? Clue, it is NOTHING to do with the relative merits or any sense of justice, it is about stroking his ego and proving to himself what he already believes.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Notice the consistent themes in what he does and doesn't decide to investigate?

Refused to condemn Russia for the Salisbury poisonings, and then had a go at May for publicly chastising Putin.

Funny that.

 

[Yulia]

and then had a go at May for publicly chastising Putin.

What do you mean?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What do you mean?

Trump's furious call with May over Skripal attack 'doubts' exposed

THE SALISBURY POISONINGS drama aired last night on the BBC in the first of a three-part series based on the 2018 assassination attempt on former Russian military officer Sergei Skripal, but unearthed reports show how US President Donald Trump "harangued" former Prime Minister Theresa May over...

www.express.co.uk

 

[Al Bangor]

 

[Al Bangor]