• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Danishfurniturelover said:
:eek: i liked obama but the left wing media let him off scott free on unmanned drone missiles and middle eastern issues compared with bush.
Click to expand...

You are right, but so is @braineclipse.

Maybe part of the problem is the fact that the majority of the population need a 'team to support', and therefore can't look at things objectively. And subsequently thats what we are being fed more and more by the media
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
:eek: i liked obama but the left wing media let him off scott free on unmanned drone missiles and middle eastern issues compared with bush.
Click to expand...

This is such an important issue. Him being eloquent and a democrat really did get liberals pretending he wasn't a war mongering bastard. I despise Trump but my parents home country of Pakistan is a lot less fudged under him than it was under Obama when innocents were being droned to death on a regular. Also see Libya and Somalia. And guess what, less western intervention gives the death cult less ammo to radicalise idiots to harm innocents over here.
 
DTA said:
You are right, but so is @braineclipse.

Maybe part of the problem is the fact that the majority of the population need a 'team to support', and therefore can't look at things objectively. And subsequently thats what we are being fed more and more by the media
Click to expand...
Nor are they required to in the US since the fairness doctrine was abolished. From what I have read it had its flaws but enforced some element of balance for publishers. It's abolition has accelerated the polarisation in media reporting to the point where we are at now.

Another biggie is that social media is where a significant portion of people get their news from. They promote themselves as platforms rather than publishers which allow them to mostly abdicate their responsibility on content. Facebook do moderate some content but how this is done, where the line is, etc is a complicated topic and can be abused easily. I think the whole thing needs a fresh look as these companies have too much power over the horde mind.
 
DTA said:
You are right, but so is @braineclipse.

Maybe part of the problem is the fact that the majority of the population need a 'team to support', and therefore can't look at things objectively. And subsequently thats what we are being fed more and more by the media
Click to expand...
Absolutely in agreement there.

Although I don't think the media are leading the charge to partisanship, I think they're following the trend of social media and trying to hold on to a share of the attention.
 
Last edited:
DTA said:
You are right, but so is @braineclipse.

Maybe part of the problem is the fact that the majority of the population need a 'team to support', and therefore can't look at things objectively. And subsequently thats what we are being fed more and more by the media
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

My only team is Tottenham and Upper Bedding every other team can fcuk off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
LutonSpurs said:
This is such an important issue. Him being eloquent and a democrat really did get liberals pretending he wasn't a war mongering bastard. I despise Trump but my parents home country of Pakistan is a lot less fudged under him than it was under Obama when innocents were being droned to death on a regular. Also see Libya and Somalia. And guess what, less western intervention gives the death cult less ammo to radicalise idiots to harm innocents over here.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I really think he was the best president in recent history but he was far from perfect and made some huge mistakes.
 
Rorschach said:
Another biggie is that social media is where a significant portion of people get their news from. They promote themselves as platforms rather than publishers which allow them to mostly abdicate their responsibility on content. Facebook do moderate some content but how this is done, where the line is, etc is a complicated topic and can be abused easily. I think the whole thing needs a fresh look as these companies have too much power over the horde mind.
Click to expand...


That is a good point regarding social media.
 
braineclipse said:
There were presidents who deserved to be picked on, like Bush. Yet they got relatively little compared to what Obama got from the right wing media.
Click to expand...

Presidencies are strange for me for the reason you mention. There is a huge disparity on Judgement based on real atrocities. Bush and his invasion on Iraq and the deaths of thousands for what was an illegal war makes him the worse of the worse, Trump despite being a fool and idiot does not even come close.

I don’t agree about Obama getting a free ride, a lot of what he did was terrible and it largely goes under the radar. Including his handling of Libya.
 
scaramanga said:
I think he was the best person to be US President in a long time. I don't think he was as good a president.
Click to expand...
He wasn't allowed to be a good president, as the reps had both the Congress and the Senate, and blocked EVERYTHING he tried to do, even bills that the reps actually supported. But they where adamant that they'd fudge it up for Obama.
 
Kandi1977 said:
He wasn't allowed to be a good president, as the reps had both the Congress and the Senate, and blocked EVERYTHING he tried to do, even bills that the reps actually supported. But they where adamant that they'd fudge it up for Obama.
Click to expand...
Good presidents bridge that divide.

All political discussion is give and take, Obama didn't have the experience to know how to convince people by knowing what they wanted.
 
Kandi1977 said:
He wasn't allowed to be a good president, as the reps had both the Congress and the Senate, and blocked EVERYTHING he tried to do, even bills that the reps actually supported. But they where adamant that they'd fudge it up for Obama.
Click to expand...
McConnell was actively working against him from the off. As was all of the dark money cabal - De Vos, Poch's,etc.

In saying that Trump seems to roll back some Obama policy every week, so it would appear that he got more done than people remember.
 
Rorschach said:
McConnell was actively working against him from the off. As was all of the dark money cabal - De Vos, Poch's,etc.

In saying that Trump seems to roll back some Obama policy every week, so it would appear that he got more done than people remember.
Click to expand...
That's just how politics works. The opposition has to be won over.

Same happened over here when Corbyn was in charge.
 
scaramanga said:
That's just how politics works. The opposition has to be won over.

Same happened over here when Corbyn was in charge.
Click to expand...
There is no working together across the aisle on anything nontrivial now, in the US at least. Those days ended with Gingrich. It has been one side fudging the other for decades.
 
Last edited:
Kandi1977 said:
He wasn't allowed to be a good president, as the reps had both the Congress and the Senate, and blocked EVERYTHING he tried to do, even bills that the reps actually supported. But they where adamant that they'd fudge it up for Obama.
Click to expand...

That's not actually true, for the first 2 years he had a majority in both houses before a huge swing (largest in 70 years) in the house of reps (retaliation against his presidency?) and even after that he had a slender majority in the senate for 6 of his 8 years.
 
Jordinho said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1287880895051907072
Click to expand...
Illegal? The president of the United States just called the speech of an American company illegal.

Looking forward to the investigations and court cases regarding this illegal activity. Surely the president isn't so utterly impotent that illegal speech against him isn't investigated?

Alternatively it's a blatant attack on free speech by someone with immense political power. Of course all the people who keep defending free speech will now cry out in unison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back