The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result, I especially like that he's already speaking about keeping parts of the Affordable Care act instead of just trashing the whole thing. Also I'm really excited by the renewed emphasis on military spending, the military spending in the last few years has not been where it should be considering the rapidly ageing fleet of aircraft in the Navy and Air Force. Also his comittment to grow the size of the Navy fleet, especially submarines.


I'm also really excited about the emphasis on infrastructure.

Let's see how much he can actually change of all the promises he made. I do however agree, that all NATO members should live up to their obligation instead of getting a free ride by the US.

STT757 wrote:

The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result, I especially like that he's already speaking about keeping parts of the Affordable Care act instead of just trashing the whole thing. Also I'm really excited by the renewed emphasis on military spending, the military spending in the last few years has not been where it should be considering the rapidly ageing fleet of aircraft in the Navy and Air Force. Also his comittment to grow the size of the Navy fleet, especially submarines.


I'm also really excited about the emphasis on infrastructure.

Really more military spanding? And what is he going to do with the military?! I thought he was going to spend money on the infrastructure which is a really good idea and badly needed in the US.

I was talking with a friend last night about this very subject. He was not a Trump supporter, but said he was excited about some of the change because he isn't intertwined in traditional Republican politics. A lot of the Republican establishment isn't a fan of Trump and that is a good thing.

I have a few friends that were Sanders supporters and voted for Sanders in the primary, but voted for Trump in the general election because they saw it as a giving the middle finger to both the Democrat and Republican elites.

In yesterday's Detroit Free Press there was a front page article about how the UAW was excited to work with Trump to repeal NAFTA and on any policies that would shift jobs back to the US. The UAW said that all of the manufacturers are shifting jobs to Mexico but most of those vehicles are being shipped back to the US and Canada. They want to work with Trump to stop that. The UAW didn't support Trump officially, but it looks like they are ready to work with him. I drive by region 1A UAW headquarters everyday on my way to work and they always have political signs out front around elections. In the past they always had a huge sign for whoever the Democrat candidate for president is. This year they had a small Hillary sign and I thought that was very interesting. I know there was a fair amount of support for Trump by rank and file UAW members.

Repeal NAFTA, I heard of this before...ah yes it was in 2010. Didn't happen, of course.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Let's see how much he can actually change of all the promises he made. I do however agree, that all NATO members should live up to their obligation instead of getting a free ride by the US.

If that happens there is no need for the US to spend more, it should spend less.

I'm excited that Trump might help Syria to regain peace.

https://www.rt.com/news/366647-trump-sy ... relations/

US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that he will most likely abandon the Obama administration policy on Syria to seek a possible rapprochement with Russia on the issue of Assad.

Assad is clearly the least bad of all realistic options Syrians have, so the west should definitely stop supporting anti-Assad Islamists and instead help him to regain the control of areas currently held by Sunni militants in Syria.

Aesma wrote:

If that happens there is no need for the US to spend more, it should spend less.

True. Donald Trump should spend the money he can save on military spending on the education system

I'm actually a little more relaxed now regarding the relations with Russia. It would be great to work together in the future instead of threatening each other.

STT757 wrote:

The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result

What happened is the loud, arrogant, condescending, accusatory liberal group-think bullies that intimidated you into not voting for the candidate that deep down excited you were defeated and America is now headed in a completely different direction.

afcjets wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result

What happened is the loud, arrogant, condescending, accusatory liberal group-think bullies that intimidated you into not voting for the candidate that deep down excited you were defeated and America is now headed in a completely different direction.

Basically this. Ironically, by electing an orange buffoon with authoritarian tendencies, fascism lost on November 8.

Excited about LGBT folks their hard fought rights??? Hmmmmm?

Women losing their reproductive rights????? Hmmmmmm?


WE SHALL SEE

Exciting isn't the word I'd use, but whatever.

As for infrastructure, don't bet on that going through. By the time Trump and the GOP give another round of massive tax breaks to the rich and corporations, there won't be money for things like infrastructure. It's the Sam Brownback Kansas Model: give to the rich, take from everyone else, and that includes letting infrastructure rot. There simply won't be the money.

afcjets wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result

What happened is the loud, arrogant, condescending, accusatory liberal group-think bullies that intimidated you into not voting for the candidate that deep down excited you were defeated and America is now headed in a completely different direction.

Who the hell do you think you are? Remember, you have the KKK on your side, and bunch of uneducated, backwards hicks who never met a minority they didn't hate. You're a smug idiot for thinking someone bullied him. I didn't read that anywhere. Your side is the one that has people beating up gays and slurring them since the election, you have the high school students ripping the Hijab off a girl's head; your side has the high schoolers going down the hall yelling "White Power!" at the top of their lungs. That isn't coming from the left. You smug arrogance is going end up getting your ass kicked sooner than later.

Pyrex wrote:

afcjets wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result

What happened is the loud, arrogant, condescending, accusatory liberal group-think bullies that intimidated you into not voting for the candidate that deep down excited you were defeated and America is now headed in a completely different direction.

Basically this. Ironically, by electing an orange buffoon with authoritarian tendencies, fascism lost on November 8.

Uh, Fascism is what won. The GOP is pushing further to the right each passing day. And further right is towards Fascism. You can't have it both ways, Pyrex. You can't claim the left are both Communists and Fascists. Doesn't work that way.

only white, heterosexual, christian America has the privilege to "excited" about this instead of "terrified"...

Hillis wrote:

Your side is the one that has people beating up gays and slurring them since the election, you have the high school students ripping the Hijab off a girl's head;

And then on the left there are people like you, defending religious double standards which make women wear hijab but allows males to wear whatever they want.

Not that I would care though, after all I'm a male so the rights of women has little impact to my life. But I do find your lack of logic entertaining.

I almost did vote for Trump. I knew there's too much distrust toward Hillary for her to be effective, and in the end I voted for Gary Johnson. I didn't vote for Trump because he's adamant about getting more involved in Syria, but since he wants to warm relations with the russians, I'm a little more at ease.

For all the stuff he said and did on the campaign trail, keep in mind he's a New York businessman. Speaking with tact and grace isn't a New Yorkers strong suit compared to the rest of the country.

I do hope he lives throughout his entire Presidency. The thought of Mike Pence with actual power is scarey...

TWA772LR wrote:

I voted for Gary Johnson

You actually voted for Trump, you just don't know it.

pvjin wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Your side is the one that has people beating up gays and slurring them since the election, you have the high school students ripping the Hijab off a girl's head;

And then on the left there are people like you, defending religious double standards which make women wear hijab but allows males to wear whatever they want.

Not that I would care though, after all I'm a male so the rights of women has little impact to my life. But I do find your lack of logic entertaining.

It's called religious freedom, pvjin. They have the right to wear a Hijab.

And that view about women's rights isn't a surprise, you are the quintessential Male Chauvinist Pig. You only care about what affects only you to begin with.

Hillis wrote:

afcjets wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The team I voted for didn't win Tuesday night, but the strangest thing has happened. I feel kind of excited by the election result

What happened is the loud, arrogant, condescending, accusatory liberal group-think bullies that intimidated you into not voting for the candidate that deep down excited you were defeated and America is now headed in a completely different direction.

Who the hell do you think you are? .... You're a smug idiot .... You smug arrogance is going end up getting your ass kicked sooner than later.

You did an outstanding job of proving my point.

STT757 wrote:

Also I'm really excited by the renewed emphasis on military spending, the military spending in the last few years has not been where it should be considering the rapidly ageing fleet of aircraft in the Navy and Air Force.

This is wrong as long as Trump isn't an idiot about it, which I have doubts about. He's talked about cancelling the F-35 and while the JSF was a rotten program from the very start thanks to budget hawks, cancelling it would be devastating to American military capability. The American military is sorely in need of a refresh, but I doubt Trump has a clue on how to do it.

His attitude towards Russia which oscillates between indifference and admiration combined with his comments about NATO are a major signal of how clueless he is.

STT757 wrote:

I'm also really excited about the emphasis on infrastructure.

Sure, but it should be built with some thought and economic rigor rather than throwing money at bridges to nowhere. To me there should be two major rules for new infrastructure spending: 1) Everything that can be privatized should be and 2) Local funding sources should make a significant contribution to all projects per Milton Friedman's maxim.

Dutchy wrote:

Really more military spanding? And what is he going to do with the military?!

A decade of war, paying off the Peace Dividend, damage incurred by gaunt budgets in recent years and emerging threats in terms of both actors and technology mean the military will have to do a lot of work to get back to where they should be.

falstaff wrote:

A lot of the Republican establishment isn't a fan of Trump and that is a good thing.

My worry at this point is that Republicans interpret Trump's victory as a mandate and swing towards him. I'm happy with the results of the election in that the GOP retained both houses (and my city will be building a new police station) but they need to be a Republican majority rather than a Trumpist one.

falstaff wrote:

n yesterday's Detroit Free Press there was a front page article about how the UAW was excited to work with Trump to repeal NAFTA and on any policies that would shift jobs back to the US. The UAW said that all of the manufacturers are shifting jobs to Mexico but most of those vehicles are being shipped back to the US and Canada. They want to work with Trump to stop that. The UAW didn't support Trump officially, but it looks like they are ready to work with him. I drive by region 1A UAW headquarters everyday on my way to work and they always have political signs out front around elections. In the past they always had a huge sign for whoever the Democrat candidate for president is. This year they had a small Hillary sign and I thought that was very interesting. I know there was a fair amount of support for Trump by rank and file UAW members.

That's just one of the ways in which Trump is in no way a conservative.

Hillis wrote:

Remember, you have the KKK on your side,

And Democrats have the communists on their side. What's your point?

Hillis wrote:

and bunch of uneducated, backwards hicks who never met a minority they didn't hate.

That is a group that Trump hijacked from the Democrats, because he is as liberal as any of them.

Hillis wrote:

You smug arrogance is going end up getting your ass kicked sooner than later.

I think smug arrogance would also apply to expecting voters to look at their skin color and vote for Democratic candidates without thinking.

Hillis wrote:

You can't claim the left are both Communists and Fascists. Doesn't work that way.

Only if you don't actually look at what Communists and Fascists do. Despite the somewhat arbitrary placement on the political spectrum, ultimately fascism, socialism and Communism are clustered right together in the pantheon of disgusting ideas. The differences between them are in the details that are, for a decent person anyway, mostly unimportant. It is much the same as how the small fraction of DNA that is different between various ape species could not be less important when the smell of the monkey house hits you.

pvjin wrote:

And then on the left there are people like you, defending religious double standards which make women wear hijab but allows males to wear whatever they want.

A religion can have whatever double standards they want as long as they don't use the government to enforce them.

pvjin wrote:

I'm excited that Trump might help Syria to regain peace.

https://www.rt.com/news/366647-trump-sy ... relations/

US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that he will most likely abandon the Obama administration policy on Syria to seek a possible rapprochement with Russia on the issue of Assad.

Assad is clearly the least bad of all realistic options Syrians have, so the west should definitely stop supporting anti-Assad Islamists and instead help him to regain the control of areas currently held by Sunni militants in Syria.

As you probably know, RT or Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda channel and you want to Syrians to be handed back to the Assad regime, the regime people protested against with which the civil war began. But it is in line with what the Kremlin wants, so the man in the picture would be proud of you.

Hillis wrote:

It's called religious freedom, pvjin. They have the right to wear a Hijab.

But in many families they don't have the right NOT to wear a hijab, and no liberal legislation can change that.

Hillis wrote:

And that view about women's rights isn't a surprise, you are the quintessential Male Chauvinist Pig. You only care about what affects only you to begin with.

At least I'm not a hypocrite like you, a person who cares about women's rights only when it comes to certain population groups. If I converted to Wahhabi sect of Islam you wouldn't dare to say a word against me having three slave wives.

BMI727 wrote:

A religion can have whatever double standards they want as long as they don't use the government to enforce them.

I like that idea, at least it makes some sense unlike the double standards followed by Hillis where certain religions can have whatever double standards they want, while others can't.

Dutchy wrote:

As you probably know, RT or Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda channel and you want to Syrians to be handed back to the Assad regime, the regime people protested against with which the civil war began. But it is in line with what the Kremlin wants, so the man in the picture would be proud of you.

What I know is that the rebels opposing Assad are 99% Islamists who don't give a crap about any form of real democracy, and the chances of Syria becoming a successful democratic nation are zero no matter who wins. Thus it's best that the war ends as soon as possible, and Assad has the best chances of ending it as the rebels would just continue to keep each other like in Libya.

If you had an ability to think and do research for yourself you would also know that Assad has been more tolerant towards religious minorities than the Sunni Islamists fighting against him.

If RT is a Kremlin propaganda channel then nearly all western mainstream media is a Washington Democrat democrat propaganda channel when it comes to the situation in Syria. Only an absolutely ignorant person can still believe that the US approach is really doing any good to Syrians.

pvjin wrote:

I'm excited that Trump might help Syria to regain peace.

https://www.rt.com/news/366647-trump-sy ... relations/

US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that he will most likely abandon the Obama administration policy on Syria to seek a possible rapprochement with Russia on the issue of Assad.

Assad is clearly the least bad of all realistic options Syrians have, so the west should definitely stop supporting anti-Assad Islamists and instead help him to regain the control of areas currently held by Sunni militants in Syria.

There might be a shift but I doubt Trump will openly support Assad. Assad has killed countless of his citizens and will continue to do so as long as he's in power.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As you probably know, RT or Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda channel and you want to Syrians to be handed back to the Assad regime, the regime people protested against with which the civil war began. But it is in line with what the Kremlin wants, so the man in the picture would be proud of you.

What I know is that the rebels opposing Assad are 99% Islamists who don't give a crap about any form of real democracy, and the chances of Syria becoming a successful democratic nation are zero no matter who wins. Thus it's best that the war ends as soon as possible, and Assad has the best chances of ending it as the rebels would just continue to keep each other like in Libya.

If you had an ability to think and do research for yourself you would also know that Assad has been more tolerant towards religious minorities than the Sunni Islamists fighting against him.

If RT is a Kremlin propaganda channel then nearly all western mainstream media is a Washington Democrat democrat propaganda channel when it comes to the situation in Syria. Only an absolutely ignorant person can still believe that the US approach is really doing any good to Syrians.

Oh come on please, are you being naive or are you spreading disinformation. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Criticism

RT is funded by the Kremlin and there is no real free press in Russia. So now you are informed about RT, so you never can claim again you didn't know.

Yes, there was religious freedom under the Assad regime, I know that. Assad is a member of the minority religion himself. But the Assad regime was a harsh dictatorship, evidenced by the reaction to some protest against this. It is a good fit with Putin though.

Russia is blocking any solution in Syria in the UN. Russia wants to keep its friends in power in Syria over the back of the Syrians. So claiming America has a shitty Syrian strategy, I would say you are right, but only because Obama's America is more integrated in world politics and Russia is placing itself outside it.

Aesma wrote:

There might be a shift but I doubt Trump will openly support Assad. Assad has killed countless of his citizens and will continue to do so as long as he's in power.

Assad hasn't killed that many civilians during peace time, during peace time he has done no mass killings like those committed by Saddam against Kurds.

Dutchy wrote:

Oh come on please, are you being naive or are you spreading disinformation. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Criticism

RT is funded by the Kremlin and there is no real free press in Russia. So now you are informed about RT, so you never can claim again you didn't know.

I'm fully aware who funds RT, and I don't really think it's relevant for this discussion. I'm educated enough to judge the validity of information myself no matter the source. I don't trust any single source, let it be RT or some western media house. I find the truth by following many different sources and creating my own big picture from them.

Dutchy wrote:

Assad is a member of the minority religion himself. But the Assad regime was a harsh dictatorship, evidenced by the reaction to some protest against this.

Yeah, Assad regime was a harsh dictatorship. So are nearly all regimes in the Middle East, with just a couple of exceptions. Based on extremely strong historical evidence I highly believe that a country as ethnically and religiously divided as Syria, or Iraq for that matter, will never reach successful democracy. It's better to live under a dictatorship than get blown up or shot by Sunni or Shia extremists just because you happen to belong to different sect. And exactly that is happening in post-dictatorship Iraq, same would also happen in post-dictatorship Syria. Even in Libya which isn't so divided religiously democracy has failed to sustain itself.

Dutchy wrote:

Russia is blocking any solution in Syria in the UN. Russia wants to keep its friends in power in Syria over the back of the Syrians. So claiming America has a shitty Syrian strategy, I would say you are right, but only because Obama's America is more integrated in world politics and Russia is placing itself outside it.

Which solution Russia is blocking, a civil war that will continue for decades a'la Somalia, or an Islamic theocracy a'la Saudi-Arabia & ISIS? Democracy as a solution doesn't exist for most Syrians, I think the only group capable of that in the area are the Kurdish people, but AFAIK Obama administration wasn't supporting their independence because of their dear ally Caliph Erdogan.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, there was religious freedom under the Assad regime, I know that. Assad is a member of the minority religion himself. But the Assad regime was a harsh dictatorship, evidenced by the reaction to some protest against this. It is a good fit with Putin though.

Russia is blocking any solution in Syria in the UN. Russia wants to keep its friends in power in Syria over the back of the Syrians. So claiming America has a shitty Syrian strategy, I would say you are right, but only because Obama's America is more integrated in world politics and Russia is placing itself outside it.

Why does America have to fight this battle? It is utterly amazing, after all the Euro bleating about Iraq, that many Euros do not see the parallels with Libya and Syria. Syria and to some extent, Libya, were largely borne by Clinton/Obama. Nobody wants to admit it, but Putin was right, we are just handing another country over to Islamists.

If we need to do anything at this point, it is to set up Kurdistan with a Mediterranean port.

Dutchy wrote:

RT is funded by the Kremlin and there is no real free press in Russia. So now you are informed about RT, so you never can claim again you didn't know.

What is with this constant excuse of xyz media is funded by xyz source or is a blatant supporter of xyz political party? ALL media is a form of propaganda and a way to drill a certain mindset into a population. It would be naive to think that any source in the US is any better, every side is fighting for its own interests. Essentially any link out there would be funded by someone, who thinks somehow.

Putting the excuse aside, people need to indulge in reading many sources and have an actual interest in a topic to properly formulate their own educated opinion on a topic, regardless of the idiotic media source.

mham001 wrote:

Why does America have to fight this battle? It is utterly amazing, after all the Euro bleating about Iraq, that many Euros do not see the parallels with Libya and Syria. Syria and to some extent, Libya, were largely borne by Clinton/Obama. Nobody wants to admit it, but Putin was right, we are just handing another country over to Islamists.

If we need to do anything at this point, it is to set up Kurdistan with a Mediterranean port.

There is a big difference between Iraq and Syria. Bush's America wanted to attack Iraq on false pretenses, thereby getting Iraq into a war. Iraq WMD were under control, controlled by the world community, the UN.
Syria and Libya were uprising of the people, the government reacted by crushing the peaceful resistance and thereby unlocking a civil war. In that case the world community has an obligation to the people of these countries to protect them.

Putin isn't right, if Assad gains power again, nothing will change and the repression will start again. So nothing is solved after the death of tens of thousands of people. I don't subscribe to the world vision that people in the ME can only be ruled to by a dictator without some basic freedom. That is treating a population like little children that needs to be taken care of. Tunisia is a shinning light in the Arabic world.

A true democracy is a long way away, you need to have some basic in place: free press, educated people, in depended justice.

And it isn't America per se, but the world community.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

RT is funded by the Kremlin and there is no real free press in Russia. So now you are informed about RT, so you never can claim again you didn't know.

What is with this constant excuse of xyz media is funded by xyz source or is a blatant supporter of xyz political party? ALL media is a form of propaganda and a way to drill a certain mindset into a population. It would be naive to think that any source in the US is any better, every side is fighting for its own interests. Essentially any link out there would be funded by someone, who thinks somehow.

Putting the excuse aside, people need to indulge in reading many sources and have an actual interest in a topic to properly formulate their own educated opinion on a topic, regardless of the idiotic media source.

With all due respect, I think you are wrong. In Russia there is no free press, so a media source set up for a foreigners in the EU and elsewhere by the Russian government is propaganda. Per definition it can't be taken serious as a source. State funded media in the west is in depended. That is the difference, a big difference. The media should monitor and check the ruling class, not be part of it.
Russia Today can't be trusted (point)

Dutchy wrote:

With all due respect, I think you are wrong. In Russia there is no free press, so a media source set up for a foreigners in the EU and elsewhere by the Russian government is propaganda. Per definition it can't be taken serious as a source. State funded media in the west is in depended. That is the difference, a big difference. The media should monitor and check the ruling class, not be part of it.
Russia Today can't be trusted (point)

Western media has its own agenda too, and in certain topics simply can't be trusted at all. Here in Finland right now the vast majority of journalist students are leftist liberal women, and a couple of big media houses with connections to politicians (and the state funded media company YLE) run the entire mainstream media sector of this country. Do you think this will result in balanced and trustable reporting? Of course it doesn't.

If you want to find out the truth, the ONLY right thing to do is questioning every media source. I read RT, Finnish media, foreign Western mainstream media and even a Finnish alternative media site which would translate to "what the f'*ck-newspaper". All of them have propaganda and trash in them, and yet all of them also have some information that others won't report because of political motivations. For example, RT tends to report more objectively about Syria than western media, and then on the situation in Ukraine western media tends to be more useful, although still biased. Finnish media is good for most things about Finland, but on certain topics like migration and crimes committed by migrants that wtf newspaper can tell you things the mainstream media tries to downplay.

Here's a good video regarding the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-QIY7ys-k&l

Dutchy wrote:

Russia Today can't be trusted (point)

On the other hand, I don't know how anybody can say the western media can be trusted either.

Dutchy wrote:

Syria and Libya were uprising of the people, the government reacted by crushing the peaceful resistance and thereby unlocking a civil war. In that case the world community has an obligation to the people of these countries to protect them.

No, I do not have "obligation" to those people. "those people" generally hate everything about me and my lifestyle. "those people" are as vile examples of mankind I can imagine. Beyond that however, the parallels of losing the strong man cannot be denied. Libya was a colossal blunder as were Obama's Lines in the Syrian Sand.

pvjin wrote:

For example, RT tends to report more objectively about Syria than western media, and then on the situation in Ukraine western media tends to be more useful, although still biased.

Two topics where the Kremlin is heavily involved in. If you honestly say that on these two topics RT is more objective then western media, then I can't help you. Especially on these two topics Russia Today only brings you only propaganda, the Kremlin way. All reporting about these two subjects are biast, none are objective.

Russia Today has no critic on Russia and it's leaders, none, that should tell you everything. Western media, in the Netherlands at least and I am sure Finland is the same, follows the government critically as they should, that is there role in a democracy.

Finland ranks first on fee press, Russia 148 out of 180. That should say everything. https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Don't defend the indefensible.

mham001 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Russia Today can't be trusted (point)

On the other hand, I don't know how anybody can say the western media can be trusted either.

That is a sub target of the Kremlin, put out so much crap that the media can't be trusted, well no. Like I said before, western media, especially in north western Europe, can be trusted and to correct itself if necessary. Russia Today can't be trusted, that is the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, Russia is ranked 148 out of 180 countries when dealing with free press. That is totally different. And you have to get your information from somewhere.

Dutchy wrote:

pvjin wrote:

For example, RT tends to report more objectively about Syria than western media, and then on the situation in Ukraine western media tends to be more useful, although still biased.

Two topics where the Kremlin is heavily involved in. If you honestly say that on these two topics RT is more objective then western media, then I can't help you. Especially on these two topics Russia Today only brings you only propaganda, the Kremlin way. All reporting about these two subjects are biast, none are objective.

They are more objective on my view because Russia has no need to talk BS about rebels being pro democracy force as Russia isn't supporting them like the west does. And I said that western media tends to be better on the situation in Ukraine.

Western media, in the Netherlands at least and I am sure Finland is the same, follows the government critically as they should, that is there role in a democracy.

Depends from who is in the government at least in Finland. Yes, they criticize right wing and conservative parties and policies a lot, but then left wing liberals receive very little criticism.

Finland ranks first on fee press, Russia 148 out of 180. That should say everything. https://rsf.org/en/ranking

The press is free yes, but that doesn't mean the press delivers balanced and reliable information when 99% of journalists are heavily biased towards leftist liberalism and don't even try to be objective in their reporting.

mham001 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Syria and Libya were uprising of the people, the government reacted by crushing the peaceful resistance and thereby unlocking a civil war. In that case the world community has an obligation to the people of these countries to protect them.

No, I do not have "obligation" to those people. "those people" generally hate everything about me and my lifestyle. "those people" are as vile examples of mankind I can imagine. Beyond that however, the parallels of losing the strong man cannot be denied. Libya was a colossal blunder as were Obama's Lines in the Syrian Sand.

You too are a member of the world community. Countries have a responsibility to stop genocide for instance. The rest of your post is revealing that you think in we and they, instead of us. That is a shame. Generalization of "they" is apparent. Some people do, most people just want what you want as well, just a normal life.
We only have one planet on which we all live on, 7bn of us.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

pvjin wrote:

For example, RT tends to report more objectively about Syria than western media, and then on the situation in Ukraine western media tends to be more useful, although still biased.

Two topics where the Kremlin is heavily involved in. If you honestly say that on these two topics RT is more objective then western media, then I can't help you. Especially on these two topics Russia Today only brings you only propaganda, the Kremlin way. All reporting about these two subjects are biast, none are objective.

They are more objective on my view because Russia has no need to talk BS about rebels being pro democracy force as Russia isn't supporting them like the west does. And I said that western media tends to be better on the situation in Ukraine.

That's the point, Russia is heavily involved in Syria, they can't be objective, they are part of the war and since there is no distinction between Russia Today or the Kremlin, they just aren't. In the west there is a clear distinction between the government and the media and by definition the media is more balanced then the one sided RT/Kremlin.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Depends from who is in the government at least in Finland. Yes, they criticize right wing and conservative parties and policies a lot, but then left wing liberals receive very little criticism.

The press is free yes, but that doesn't mean the press delivers balanced and reliable information when 99% of journalists are heavily biased towards leftist liberalism and don't even try to be objective in their reporting.

That's a shame or is it your interpretation of it, because you are right winged? And you feel that the media is cracking down on your side of the electoral scale and leaves the left alone because you have hefty criticism on them? Generalization: people whom have had a higher education tend to be more leftish then others. Journalist tend to be more left then most with a higher education. True. But the most important thing, facts aren't left or right wing on the political landscapes, facts are just facts. Interpretation of the facts are of course.

And since your avatar is Putin, you can hardly be called objective, now can you

Dutchy wrote:

mham001 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Russia Today can't be trusted (point)

On the other hand, I don't know how anybody can say the western media can be trusted either.

That is a sub target of the Kremlin, put out so much crap that the media can't be trusted, well no. Like I said before, western media, especially in north western Europe, can be trusted and to correct itself if necessary. Russia Today can't be trusted, that is the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, Russia is ranked 148 out of 180 countries when dealing with free press. That is totally different. And you have to get your information from somewhere.

To dismiss it as just propaganda (as it is) is foolish. It is important to hear all sides if we want to make an informed decision and RT acts as the Kremlin's mouthpiece. Some of Russia's complaints have merit, if you were to look at it from their angle.

The western media? To claim they are any better, you must overlook the fact that the vast majority of the reporters and editors admit to liberal ideals. The obvious bias from the established east coast US media regarding what gets reported and how it is reported is repugnant. As I have also seen in Europe. You really believe all the tripe in your newspapers?

mham001 wrote:

You really believe all the tripe in your newspapers?

The scary thing is that it seems that he does. Post after post, it is mentioned that western press is "free", whatever that even means. A ranking of free press is entirely useless if reports and editorial is constantly spewing one side.

Look all I am saying that Russia Today aren't press, they aren't reporting, they are part of the propaganda machine, they are a televised spindoctor. Russia Today is at the same level as a Pentagon press briefing. If you use it like that, fine. If you use it as an objective source, then no.

The western media is better, far better, they present the acts and then give their liberal views on it, or right wing views, or left wing views, depend on what source you have. And they are independed.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

mham001 wrote:

You really believe all the tripe in your newspapers?

The scary thing is that it seems that he does. Post after post, it is mentioned that western press is "free", whatever that even means. A ranking of free press is entirely useless if reports and editorial is constantly spewing one side.

You are intelligent enough to distinguish between facts and the interpretations of those facts.

"western press is "free", whatever that even means." it means quite simple no government interference. Doesn't mean it isn't biased in any other way.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

Post after post, it is mentioned that western press is "free", whatever that even means.

It means it's not controlled by, nor interfered with by any government. It means it's independent of government control. I know for a Russian that's a difficult concept, what with your history of Pravda and Izvestia being lapdogs for the communists, and, later for other post-communist leaders, but there you are.

A while back, maybe a few months ago, there was a foreign leader in another nation, and, I apologize, but I can't remember which one, was complaining to President Obama about something an American newspaper was doing, and Obama basically told them "hey, we can't and don't interfere with the free press". It's a hard concept to understand in areas of the world that have always been under dictators.

I guess the Russian media isn't smart enough to think for themselves, and have to have the Government lead them by the nose. The only decent Journalist I ever heard of out of The USSR and/or Russia was Vladimir Posner. Yes, he was part of the propaganda, but was a very intelligent person. Spoke great English, and wasn't afraid to give his own take on things.

*deleted* - double post

Hillis wrote:

I know for a Russian that's a difficult concept, what with your history of Pravda and Izvestia being lapdogs for the communists, and, later for other post-communist leaders, but there you are.

Resort to personal attacks, as typical on A.net. Also, what do Soviet-era publications have to do with anything? Naturally, a communist country will control all media, internet and everything else in its reach, who is doubting that? For educated citizens in modern Russia, there are plenty of outlets on the www to reach out to for news available at any place and anytime on a handheld device, tablet, computer, should they not enjoy or choose to believe what is running on your so called lapdog networks. Those are "free" to Russians just like they are to anyone else living in any other uncensored nation.

Having been a resident of the US for over 20 years, I don't remember the last time I flipped to any of the Top 5 networks, tv or print, to get an unbiased news story. Everything that is politically related always has a spin. Read carefully, folks and make your own opinions. This applies to whether you live in Russia, the US, Belgium, Mars or anywhere else.

Dutchy wrote:

That's the point, Russia is heavily involved in Syria, they can't be objective, they are part of the war and since there is no distinction between Russia Today or the Kremlin, they just aren't. In the west there is a clear distinction between the government and the media and by definition the media is more balanced then the one sided RT/Kremlin.

The clear distinction between the media and government doesn't necessarily mean that the media is any balanced at all.

Dutchy wrote:

That's a shame or is it your interpretation of it, because you are right winged? And you feel that the media is cracking down on your side of the electoral scale and leaves the left alone because you have hefty criticism on them? Generalization: people whom have had a higher education tend to be more leftish then others. Journalist tend to be more left then most with a higher education. True. But the most important thing, facts aren't left or right wing on the political landscapes, facts are just facts. Interpretation of the facts are of course.

It's really not my interpretation, our journalists just aren't very good at hiding their bias when it comes to topics that a leftist liberal would feel strongly about, or perhaps they aren't even trying to.

Facts are facts, but the media can control the public opinion by choosing which facts to present and how to present them. That's where the political bias enters the scene. The media doesn't just present facts, it creates narratives, stories or whatever you like to call them. If you choose the right facts and leave others hidden you can make even Hitler or Stalin look like an angel, and a bit of lying makes it even easier.

And since your avatar is Putin, you can hardly be called objective, now can you

I guess so, but I strongly believe that Putin's Middle Eastern policy is good for world peace, especially if compared to the policy followed by the west.

I voted for neither Trump not Hillary but am glad that neither the Clintons nor the Bushes got elected.

Trump isn't much of a Republican, but this is the fist time since 1928 that a successful Republican ticket contained neither Nixon nor a Bush.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/jasonhopki ... e-n2245014

You didn't get Trump. You got Pence.

This is hilarious.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That's the point, Russia is heavily involved in Syria, they can't be objective, they are part of the war and since there is no distinction between Russia Today or the Kremlin, they just aren't. In the west there is a clear distinction between the government and the media and by definition the media is more balanced then the one sided RT/Kremlin.

The clear distinction between the media and government doesn't necessarily mean that the media is any balanced at all.

No, but without it the media isn't balanced, so you need to have a clear distinction between media and government in order to have some balanced media. And with RT that isn't the case, so that is no media, but propaganda.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That's a shame or is it your interpretation of it, because you are right winged? And you feel that the media is cracking down on your side of the electoral scale and leaves the left alone because you have hefty criticism on them? Generalization: people whom have had a higher education tend to be more leftish then others. Journalist tend to be more left then most with a higher education. True. But the most important thing, facts aren't left or right wing on the political landscapes, facts are just facts. Interpretation of the facts are of course.

It's really not my interpretation, our journalists just aren't very good at hiding their bias when it comes to topics that a leftist liberal would feel strongly about, or perhaps they aren't even trying to.

Don't know about the media in Finland, so I can't comment on that. In The Netherlands the media landscape is pretty divers, but still some Wilders-lovers complain about the leftish media, but that is because their views are extreem so they feel that their views aren't really covered. Don't know if that is the same in your case

pvjin wrote:

Facts are facts, but the media can control the public opinion by choosing which facts to present and how to present them. That's where the political bias enters the scene. The media doesn't just present facts, it creates narratives, stories or whatever you like to call them. If you choose the right facts and leave others hidden you can make even Hitler or Stalin look like an angel, and a bit of lying makes it even easier.

Sure, that is the role of the media, put facts in a framework and context. That's why you need to have more right winged media and more left winged media, then you have both perspectives. But now you sound like a conspiracy theorist, "all the media has a bond to present a certain kind of society" that notion is ridicule notion. Journalist are just to independed for that. In the west, in the Netherlands at least, they report on lots of things that the politicians would rather have swept under the carpet.

And since your avatar is Putin, you can hardly be called objective, now can you

I guess so, but I strongly believe that Putin's Middle Eastern policy is good for world peace, especially if compared to the policy followed by the west.[/quote]

And I simply don't get that. Putin is all about devision, confrontation with the rest of the world in order to gain in importance and power, how is that could for world peace. But we will never see I to I on that. I think Putin is a treat for world peace and to his own people.

I didn't vote at all, because I just can't as a Frenchman living in France
But if I could, I wouldn't have voted for Trump. And I was very scared and I barely could believe it when I heard he won.

But since then, I've seen that he's doing like any other professional of politics, he's just landing on earth and comes back to reality.
He already changed his mind about Obamacare, about his opinion about Obama and the Clintons, and so on ...
So I'm reassured, and feel indeed some excitement about the future.
And as I said in another thread, I suspect that hard-core conservatives will be very disappointed.
Actually, he already stated that he wanted to invest thousands of billions in the infrastructures of the country, which I think is a good thing, but is totally orthogonal to a massive tax reduction like he also promised. So the supporters of a weaker federal state could already have been more suspicious.

Deleted

falstaff wrote:

I have a few friends that were Sanders supporters and voted for Sanders in the primary, but voted for Trump in the general election because they saw it as a giving the middle finger to both the Democrat and Republican elites.

A very large portion of voters on the right were thinking the exact same thing. Additionally, regardless of how badly the media wants to scare everyone, I think Trump will prove to be a centrist. He'll probably piss both sides off quite a bit... but the media (and this forum) will make it out to be a crusade against liberalism. After all, they can't have a centrist (or center-right) candidate being successful.

sebolino wrote:

But since then, I've seen that he's doing like any other professional of politics, he's just landing on earth and comes back to reality.
He already changed his mind about Obamacare, about his opinion about Obama and the Clintons, and so on ...
So I'm reassured, and feel indeed some excitement about the future.
And as I said in another thread, I suspect that hard-core conservatives will be very disappointed.

The "hard-core conservatives" were most likely the "never-Trump" peeople who did not vote, or voted 3rd party. I don't think those who voted for him are disappointed.

Months ago when people on this forum were all upset about Trump calling for deporting all 12-20 million illegal immigrants, banning Muslims etc. that his supporters understood that he did not mean that literally. You see, we have something called "brains", and we understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. Trump is a businessman by nature. How do businessmen make deals? They start out by demanding everything they could possibly want and want to pay a ridiculously low cost. The businessman on the other side of the table will offer in return the minimum in terms of deliverables and a high price. The two will haggle, and eventually a compromise is reached. As someone once said, a good compromise is one where nobody got everything they asked for.

Deporting all illegal aliens is, without question, a reasonable thing to want to do. Every country in the world, even the most progressive ones, generally have a policy of deporting (or imprisoning) people who came into the country without permission - and most don't confer citizenship on children of illegals. Our problem in the US is that we've tolerated it for so long that we have close to 5% of the population shouldn't be here, and obviously rounding up and repatriating up to 20 million people who don't want to leave is physically and financially impossible. Trump knows that, so he will make a deal. The other side wants legalization and path to citizenship and continued open borders - an equally impossible to accept solution. A decent compromise can be found if both sides accept that they can't have everything they want. Perhaps the final deal will be a Constitutional Amendment that says that Birthright citizenship shall be restricted to children of a) citizens of the US, and b) those in the country legally at the time of birth. That's the standard in most of the world. And along with the deal will be 1-time amnesty with automatic green cards for those already here, and strong border enforcement going forward, and deporting those with violent crime records. Both sides get something, neither side gets everything.

The same compromises will be made for Obamacare and all other issues - IF Democrats don't stick to ideology and refuse to compromise.

Dutchy wrote:

Generalization: people whom have had a higher education tend to be more leftish then others.

Let's clear something else. Democrats love to repeat this snippet with their noses in the air, smug in their intellectual superiority. But a college education does not mean that you are smart. Firstly, In the US, if you can arrange the financing (easy to do with our college loan policy), ANYONE can find a college who will take them. Secondly, if you spent 6 figures getting a degree in Communications, Literature, Gender Studies or something equally useless that does not teach you an actual skill, I would say that makes you a lot more stupid than a guy with a High School education who opened his own little plumbing business and is making a nice living as a small business owner, or even a skilled machinist who works in someone else's shop. They did not spend $100K or more on something that is utterly useless.

I would bet that if the surveys you mention restricted themselves to STEM and other useful degree college grads (in other words, the smarter ones), the majority of them are NOT leftists.