• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually support his pullout of the Nuclear deal with Russia. China wasn't in the deal at the time, 1986(?), and therefore are not bound by it. Therefore, China has been free to develop short-medium range nukes essentially. If they can do it, so should Russia and the U.S.

So good on Trump for that.

Supporting the Saudis in their wars is something every president since (before?) Reagan has done, so no surprise that he's just continuing the trend. They have oil/money we want so the president always bends our morals and I really can't get on board with that.

So he was an ass there, simply continuing the 'swamp' trend.

I support Ukraine's sovereignty, so even if it leads to conflict with Russia in the region, I think it's a morally sound move. I don't believe in pure isolationism.

So good move there, Trump.

Now Betsy Devos, she's inept. Her policies either don't help or harm students, both present and future. She tries to dismantle protections for student loans and encourages using public funds for private school educations, and that's wrong. Most people can't go to private school, and weakening public education financing isn't going to solve the education gap there.
 
The Russia thing I'm waiting to pass judgement. And I don't believe in supporting wars even if there's been a tradition of it.
I criticized Obama for only thinking about the money when it came to arming the Sauds so I must hold Trump to the same standard.
Then there's Israel but that's a whole nother story. But it seems that there's pretty unanimous support for the state.

It's also interesting that Trump was accused of being a Russian puppet, yet he's doing all these things that actively hurt Russia.

Regarding those education policies, are there any positive intentions or outcomes?
 
I honestly believe Devos is inept and unintelligent (yes, I know, ad hom) and none of her policies will be positive. I believe she sees what she's doing as right because it encourages the wealthy to be wealthier and creates less opportunities for the 'unworthy' to become wealthy too. I believe she has some sort of superiority complex stemming from perhaps her upbringing, I don't know, that makes her believe if you can't be born into wealth, you don't deserve it.

The only reason I was afforded a debt free college education is because my parents planned for it. Betsy Devos wants to ensure that anyone whose parents don't do the same are fucked, and I cannot support that.

What she needs to be doing is working towards the lowering of tuition costs, not the increasing of student loan interest.
 
Last edited:
Cream Gravy? said:
I believe she has some sort of superiority complex stemming from perhaps her upbringing, I don't know, that makes her believe if you can't be born into wealth, you don't deserve it.
.
Click to expand...

I believe it's Social Dominance Orientation. People who have this personality trait tend to see hierarchy as inevitable, natural, or the way things should be and tend to exert dominance on social groups they see as lesser, such as poor and minority groups.

People high in SDO also prefer hierarchical group orientations. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world.
Click to expand...
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Society is supposed to have a hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Some people are inevitably going to be smarter, faster, stronger. But Devos seems to adhere to the theory that intelligence and worth are born into. I personally believe in tabula rasa and that goes against everything she stands for. I think that where someone is going in life starts in childhood via education and exposure, versus simply being born into a rich family, or being born of intelligent parents.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Society is supposed to have a hierarchy.
Click to expand...

citation needed. what you're suggesting is that some people are inherently superior, and others inherently inferior

Cream Gravy? said:
Yes, it is. Some people are inevitably going to be smarter, faster, stronger.
Click to expand...

having talents, strengths, and skillsets that differ from others isnt a superiority/inferiority thing, its just diversity, and its a net benefit
 
So, let's pick a policy and give our views on it - what's the motivation, the impact, etc. Rather than a steady stream of hate/praise, let's actually point to a specific decision or action of his and talk about how it is good or bad.
Click to expand...


It doesn't make sense for me to pick the policy, because I don't have a problem with his policies so I wouldn't know which one to pick. I'm more than happy to discuss whatever anyone has an issue with. I've been saying this for weeks, now... But people just keep going off on tangents. :\
 
^Dude people don't come here to argue. It's not a site dedicated to politics, this CE&P forum (at least in my mind) is here to give us a place to talk about things other than drugs with people we like and have met due to our other primary interest. The average user probably doesn't put in 300+ posts in a month. I (and probably most BL'ers) appreciate that you come to our community and contribute to it, but debates/arguments are not why people come here. If you truly want to debate these topics with people I'm sure there are a myriad of sites with that purpose. I like to scroll through and read the posts, have my own opinions on them and then move on. The average user doesn't come back to change minds, but to talk with other people who happen to be interested in or have experiences with drugs.
 
Um, I was directly responding to TLB who asked me to pick a policy to discuss.

I agree with you: it's clear people don't want to discuss policies. But, if that's the case, maybe they should just say so rather than pretending like they do want to have a discussion only to turn around and insult / patronise / mock everybody who disagrees with them...? :\

Also people clearly do want to discuss lots of things on here. They just don't want to discuss Trump's policies, because then they'd have to admit that he's not so bad. So, instead they resort to character assassination stuff and other childish behaviours.

This is the same outside this forum. All Trump haters do this.
 
i posted this in the meme thread but it's more appropriate here.

here's a good example: ‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.
Click to expand...

compare this to the rhetoric of candidate trump:

in a tweet from june 14 2016 he said: "Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."

can somebody help me understand how this latest move is an example of trump fighting for the lgtb community (and how it's not a serious threat to freedoms)?

it was clearly pandering and yet another egregious hypocritcal lie.

alasdair
 
People want to discuss policy in passing, it's like a break room conversation and there's nothing wrong with that. If someone is rude to you (I've seen it) you should report the post. There are a lot of mods and people here and they all are great even if we disagree at times. I don't know the inner-workings of Bluelight, but they are people, they make mistakes and I feel they are pretty transparent.

Don't take things personally. We are polarized and we react poorly sometimes, but that's human nature. All we can do is call out what we see and hope things change for the better.

If you are looking for a lengthy discussion of these topics I would look elsewhere because you probably will not be satisfied here.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
No. Having more doesn't imply superiority.

All organizations, big or small, private or public, legal or illegal, have a hierarchy. Why do you think hierarchies exist even in DPRK?
Click to expand...

hierarchies require inferiority/superiority, or servant/master, relationships. thats kinda the whole concept.

SheWasLvL18 said:
^Dude people don't come here to argue.
Click to expand...

speak for yourself ;) bl has always been a "come for the drugs, stay for the community/family" kinda place tho
 
tathra said:
bl has always been a "come for the drugs, stay for the community/family" kinda place tho
Click to expand...


From how you were behaving in the 1% thread last night, it doesn't have much of a community / family feel to it. Unless your idea of community is to mock people with unpopular opinions and your idea of family is to disown your gay / republican / drug-addict / insert-other-thing-here child. :\
 
Regarding gender definition discussion, as pointed out, it's off topic and unrelated to Trumps presidency except where in regards to his policies for transgender people. I've moved the discussion specific to gender identification here.
 
Last edited:
No I am not entertained. I have to live with this idiot in chief of my country. I didn't vote for him, and he did not win the popular vote. Old news. Our govt is very corrupt and run chiefly by GREED.
 
alasdairm said:
during the campaign, he said he was a different kind of republican - he came from a more liberal background in new york and he was the candidate who would finally make some changes in the republican party with regard to lgtb issues and that he would be a friend to the lgtb community. how refreshing! he even flew the flag:

2QTCMYWUCQ4HNFG7RNS43MQF4M.png


it was all going to be different. well, how does his administration stack up on this?


it's been an absolute disaster. among other things:


he tried to reinstate a ban on transgender people in the military. that ended up in court now and he tried to stall by withholding information
he appointed neil gorsuch to the bench (see: Neil Gorsuch is everything liberals feared and more.)
he nominated numerous people with anti-lgtb records to courts and other positions
in a spectacularly petty move, he refused to recognize pride month
he rescinded obama-admin guidelines on K-12 schools that receive federal funding (that trans students are protected under federal civil rights law and, therefore, schools should respect trans students' rights). see: Trump just made it official: transgender students no longer have an ally in the White House
he rescinded an obama memo on trans workers protection under civil rights law. see: Trump?s Justice Department just rescinded a memo protecting transgender workers. that effectively signaled the position that anti-trans discrimination isn't illegal under federal law.
his justice department argued that anti-trans discrimination is legal. in an amicus brief (see: It's not only the military. Trump's administration just took another big anti-LGBTQ step.), they claimed the federal civil rights act doesn't protect gay and bisexual workers.
he now seeks to so narrowly define gender - to eradicate the very concept of transgenderism - and roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.




i don't want to assume your response... he said he'd be a friend to the community - does anything about his actions in office say anything other than the exact opposite?


this isn't aren't-politicians-a-bit-slimy-business-as-usual political campaigning. he pandered and told people exactly what they wanted to hear and then got elected when they believed him and did the exact opposite


alasdair
Click to expand...

from the gender thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top