News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Deleted member 45988]

God bless Trump. Finally someone is looking after the interests of US steelworkers and the US steel i...

Financial markets trade 24 hours a day. A funny thing happened in the 24 hours following the evening/night of Election Day, when it started becoming clear trump was going to be elected. The S&P 500 (500 largest us companies, though I think like Honda and Toyota, etc are included in the index) futures market plummeted on news of Trumps election in overnight hours which are dominated by first Asia paying attention, but then especially Europe paying attention. Like overseas people saw trump as a complete disaster and that he might drive us economy into the ground. But then us futures opened, stock market prices totally skyrocketed, not only undoing the overnight plummet but quickly raising far above levels before election results were clear.

I'd maybe call the above a media effect where overseas people get their ideas about trump from media which is largely dominated by people who not only dislike trump, but view his supporters as dangerous, racist, homophobic, etc, etc, etc. Like there is a tendency for them to be super intolerant and hate mongering by non-stop accusing those other people who do not have power and control and who tend to be their political enemies of being intolerant and hate mongering. Anyway, when us markets saw what had happened they was optimism and hope that trump being elected might be good for us industry and the economy in general.

I am not really sure if higher tariffs are a good idea or not, but it's clear to me that media people are not affected in the same way that US workers are and it's also clear that they just do to not like trump or his supporters very much.

But china is coming in every way. India is getting on track somewhat and there are a lot of English speakers there plus they have a very strong film industry. The Muslim world already has a competing news service. I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone figures out how do news, film, etc cheaper with inevitably a different slant and then become a real competitor to us media, possibly putting many media jobs at risk. I suspect that when this happens and media people become concerned, they will support a candidate who wants to revitalize us media and raise the hopes of us media workers possibly with protectionistic inclinations for US media. I also suspect that when this happens they will not endlessly accuse themselves of being horrible hate mongering terrible racists who are motivated by hate of Chinese because Chinese media is a threat and they cannot accept globalization and media people are lashing out and being racist over misplaced frustration....or whatever.

Like I think it's easy to sit and judge and place blame when one isn't being affected, especially when those being judged are political enemies.

 

[Neverthesame]

Lmao!

Smooth?.....Smooth?
I've heard Trudeau called alot of things that start with the letter "S" but smooth isn't one of them.
Same with his daddy.
25% tariff on steel? Wow.
This will indeed be interesting to see how it resolves.

 

[Deleted member 45988]

@scout86 said: "Personally, I think an evil dictator, by any name, is still an evil dictator. And I think people who aspire to the title of evil dictator are a big part of the reason we have a second amendment. I don't think the founders envisioned a standing army, much less the huge military we have, but they were pretty aware that governments don't always look out for the people. They'd just fought a war over that very thing."

In European history the church was a big power player, even at certain times and places Muslim interests with things like moorish Spain and slave trade of Europeans to Muslim world, etc.

Like I think it used to be that if one wanted to figure out politics one had to look at nation states, church motivations, interests of nobles and especially ruling families and maybe more. I think it wasn't just individuals who could be dictatorial, it was also popes, noble families, etc.

I think things changed in the 20th century with nobles and the Vatican gradually losing almost all real power, but then ideas like fascism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and media become major power players also becoming somehow capable of being something like dictatorial.

I think I mention media so much and trump mentions it so much because I see media as an active participant in politics rather than a disinterested observer, maybe sort of like the pope wasn't really just a spiritual leader in the Middle Ages but he also had real power and could even start conflicts (the crusades).

Maybe I, or trump, exaggerate relative misuse of power by the media, but I think actual power is there. Like I think if I was trying to figure out what was going on in medieval Europe I might look at power and interests of a king and look at power and interests of the church. Now it's like the two main forces are Trump and the media.

This only sort of fits in with what I quoted, just scout86's comments started a chain of thought.

 

[Deleted member 541]

I seriously doubt that Trump will follow through with his 25% tariff threat. IMO it’s nothing more that him just taking the news away from bigger issues. He has already backed off taking guns away without due process as he had dinner with the top 3 from the NRA. He’s nothing more than a BIGMOUTH that doesn’t know what the f*ck he’s talking about.

He spouts off this shit to speak to his base, then the people that KNOW government, sit down with him and explain shit and he backs off.

A 25% tariff will have the US in financial shit. The stock market showed that yesterday.....

He also spoke yesterday of “The ultimate punishment” for drug dealers. UMMMMMMMM. He was referring to other countries that KILL them.

OH, how awesome, now he wants to follow suit of autocratic societies......

 

[Justmehere]

God bless Trump. Finally someone is looking after the interests of US steelworkers and the US steel industry.

What these tariffs will do:

Trump tariffs will mean fewer goods will be made in America
Plus, per the article above, this has been tried before and we already know what it will do:

A similar policy rolled out by the George W. Bush administration in 2002 resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the Rust Belt.

Dead Link Removed

Race to the bottom, trade war: Call it what you will, the spiral will eventually harm everyone, the United States and its metal industries very much included.

Trump is claiming this is being done in the name of national security, even against our allies. Our allies could do the same to us. Canada, China, so many other nations are likely to strike back. It could quickly become harder for many companies in the US to export goods to other nations. Including steel.

Dead Link Removed

The traditional response is to make a formal complaint at the World Trade Organization, but that can take years to get a ruling. China, Canada and others could decide to retaliate right away by putting tariffs on some U.S. goods coming into their countries.

Get ready for everything with steel and aluminum to cost more, including cars and beer, as well as groceries. Including the groceries for steel workers.

Many Republicans are urging Trump to change this to just a tariff against China. He’s going isolationist instead. That’s never worked out well for the US before.

Plus, it’s unlikely to last. Similar Bush tariffs were deemed illegal by the WTO and ended. These tariffs will not help steel workers, but they will create more chaos.

 

[LuckiLee]

Another school shooting at a college in my state. Not sure of the details but there are casualties.

 

[Deleted member 541]

@LuckiLee 2 dead from what I read. But we don’t need new gun laws or anything like that to protect us. Just let the shootings continue....

 

[Deleted member 45988]

@LuckiLee 2 dead from what I read. But we don’t need new gun laws or anything li...

From initial reports it looks like black kid shot his parents in dorm of a gun free campus. I would be surprised if an automatic weapon was used. I think banning all guns in the us might have stopped this, but I think another solution would have been for the media to simply stop talking about shootings and giving people ideas. And I think confronting racism and hate of shooters and how possibly trump drives this is not going to help in any way, since I find it unlikely that shooter was a trump supporter encouraged by intolerant conservative beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 541]

You have no clue as to this kids political stance, so please don’t guess and bring Trump into this. I have way to many other things to blame on him.

 

[Deleted member 45988]

Another school shooting at a college in my state. Not sure of the details but there are casualties.[/Q...

I looked into info about parkland shooter (I might get details wrong, working from memory) and it looks like maybe he had attempted suicide, he was likely autism spectrum, he had depression, his mother had fairly recently died (leaving him parent less because his father had already died) and maybe he had been kicked out of place he was living soon after his mom died for being dangerous. He isn't particularly good looking, he disliked antifa intensely and he had racial ideas like white woman who procreate with black men are traitors or some such.

I strongly suspect that all these things together viewed through dominent frameworks tend to be seen as proofs of dangers of racism and dangers of guns and maybe even dangers of trump and how some young men just can't be helped by the psychological system because they are too deeply troubled.

But I have been sort of been through things that were not entirely dissimilar as well as I have known at least one other person with problems who might have been able to relate.

It's like I don't disagree with liberal ideas from media and social science, but I also that I think that people miss things.

I was harassed in school, sometimes violently, which was ignored, then I went to college and was sexually assaulted by gays I was trying to be nice to and this was blamed on me or ignored because it did not seem to fit in with liberal belief systems that gays could behave like this or a straight could simply be an entirely innocent victim. And all of the negative effects of these things on my psychology seemed to make me uninteresting to women. I am fairly certain this is the biggest problem with young men who do crazy violent things. Like I think if you just give troubled young men loving and supportive girlfriends you do away with the large majority of shootings. It's sort of the same with muslim terrorists, they are promised access in virgins in the afterlife. It's not difficult to look at the animal kingdom and see how males who are beat down and ostracized tend to be rejected by female animals and males who violently defeat other males tend to become alpha leaders who gain access to many females. And it's pretty obvious that girls tend to like boys who are the football quarterback or who are rich celebrities, etc. But all this is somehow politically incorrect, or at least escapes the comprehension of psychological professionals who tend towards being liberal females. It's like there is some real biological and social motivation to be violent to be interesting to females, but it's like it's inappropriate to notice this and noticing this might even result in accusations of how dangerous the male is or proof of derangement or hatred towards women. Like I absolutely, totally, think that any young male who seems to be arriving at a conclusion that violence is the answer because girls don't like him should be aggressively told that this is wrong and he should be watched carefully, but I also think it should be taken into account that the conclusion is coming from a place that is not nonsensical, and blaming and accusing young male for having incorrect beliefs and hatred towards women, etc should be minimalized.

Another problem is that troubled young heterosexual men tend to get blamed or viewed with suspicion, especially if they are angry, especially if they are so angry that they tend towards expressing violent inclinations. Or at the least I think similar issues tend to be viewed differently between young females and young males. Like parkland shooter had been suicidal, was depressed, had somewhat recently lost his only surviving parent, had autism spectrum issues, etc. I think if he was young female he maybe could have talked to any number of people and all these issues might have been treated with sympathy and support, but I just don't think things work quite the same with young males. Like I think young female dealing with all these issues can cry and get support, but young male crying might be seen as weak by other males and something to be made fun of for, and crying and admitting hurt might be seen as proof of weakness and low social status to young females.

An additional problem is that some beliefs tend to be viewed as hate, or at least politically incorrect, by social support people and media, while this is not necessarily so. The parkland shooter intensely dislikes antifa and probably liberal media, but this is because there actually is a huge hypocracy going on. Virtually all alt right violence involves protestors with politically incorrect or racist views showing up and probably being nonviolent without outside involvement, but then antifa also shows up, tending to be very violent themselves and the two sides are violent to each other. In many cases, alt right cancel events and antifa shows up anyway, setting fire to things and sometimes being violent towards and attacking people who have no conservative beliefs. But media tends to ignore antifa violence, misconduct and hypocracies while they do actually exist.

So, anyway, I think there are large number of things going on which are highly complicated and require an extremely open mind to understand.

 

[scout86]

So, anyway, I think there are large number of things going on which are highly complicated and require an extremely open mind to understand.

That's the one thing you said that I actually agree with. Other than that, I'm not sure you could have included more sweeping generalizations if you were trying. Maybe you were trying?

You've mentioned the things that happened to you before. You might want to start a thread or two and address some of that. I suspect it isn't getting addressed here because the topic of this thread.is US politics.

It's not been my experience that females are universally attracted to the high school football quarterback, or that they find violence appealing. It's also not been my experience that a girl can just cry and get sympathy. You find some of that, sure, but I really don't think it has much of a relationship to mass shootings.

Actually, my T suggested that the "problem" is testosterone and that there's a cure for that. (He's a guy.)

 

[Deleted member 45988]

@scout86 said: "Actually, my T suggested that the "problem" is testosterone and that there's a cure for that. (He's a guy.)"

I made a mistake in wording about quarterbacks (was trying to get post finished and missed error) and it's possible that I used intuition based on my experiences to make assumptions that were not always completely correct, but the above is screwed up on so many levels that I find it troubling.