EU official used colorful, simplified cue cards in trade meeting with Trump
thehill.com
thehill.com
I like that kind of diversity as long as it doesn't lead to flamewars.
Re: refugee crisis, I haven't seen much about it on HN, so cannot comment here.
Refugees kinda same. There's much less about it on HN, but when it's all rainbows whereas it's a disaster on par with a world war
Generally though, I find a nice mix of viewpoints here that I don't find elsewhere in quite the same way, and I like how the unifying element seems to be a kind of geekiness, for better and worse.
It often reminds me of the discussions I'd have with various nerd-groups I've been part of. Often very eclectic, often perhaps a bit too theoretical, but almost always interesting.
How much has been achieved by the eye rolling and talking about "the other side" (no matter by whom and at what "side") since Trump was elected? What has been rationally been recognized as a problem, and what steps have been taken towards solutions? Where have people made an effort to hear others, instead of their bubble? I'm sure there are people outside the limelight who actually did do these things, but from what I see being surfaced most of the time, it's kind of a shit show.
I'm sure it's a scene in a movie or ten, where parents have a real bad fight, but then realize that screaming at each other is something their kid should not see, because regardless of who is right, or who wins, or whatever, seeing them sink so low can do a whole other set of damage. This feels like that movie for me, for too long now. Be wary of things that are hard or impossible to come back from.
I'm not one who gives a crap about badges or offices, but even I feel uneasy how the office of the President of the US is being damaged by this. I say by this, not just "by Trump". You have to think of the future, too. And by this I do not mean "no criticism", that is 100% not my point. Adults do have discussions, and they fight, but being demeaning about it is orthogonal to that and not good ever, in no context. And also no matter how wrong or dumb or how much of an asshole someone is. Actually: The more they are, the more you should "win", and the more important it is for that to be clean and fair, and for that to allow them a route to "join the win" by actually coming around from their own volition and voluntary insight.
I'm not American, I never was in America and there has been no president during my lifetime I really liked. I could not care, but I do. Because "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind" as John Donne wrote, and this can't go on. You are better than this, all of you. Roughly speaking, "you" invented being better at this, ffs. So take care, of yourself and each other, and as in actually do that. Please.
Sorry for it being so jumbled, not sorry for ranting... I adamantly believe in the importance of this thing I don't know how to put well.
Then we had all those people trying to claim that Obama wasn't born in the US and was therefore disqualified?
Anyone remember Reagan and his astrologer, and probably Altzheimer's?
> I'm sure it's a scene in a movie or ten, where parents have a real bad fight, but then realize that screaming at each other is something their kid should not see, because regardless of who is right, or who wins, or whatever, seeing them sink so low can do a whole other set of damage.
In real life this often ends with one parent deciding, again and again, that they have to give up and take the abuse because otherwise they're going to be beaten. Or murdered.
I know when you say "brother/sister" you're talking in the abstract, but the problem is that intra-familial political divides are increasingly uncommon, I.e. Trump voters are unlikely to even be my third cousin. A recent precinct-by-precinct 2016 election map published by the NYT showed that it's likely I'd have to drive up to 30 miles to find a precinct that swung the other way, so they're not my neighbor either. Major protests, which remain one of the more productive tools of political communication because they require actual human effort, happen in large cities and end up preaching to the choir, effectively. The "Other Side" receives news of the worst elements of these protests in coverage designed to make them angry, /because that's what news coverage today is designed to do/. People read the news to get mad about something. They click on the story that's likely to have the juiciest arguments. And it's not the media's fault - yes they choose what to publish, but they have to maximize profits and therefore clicks.
I think what people don't get, or keep forgetting or whatever, is that Trump won because of the Midwest. Yes, he carried a bunch of traditional red states that were going to vote for him anyway. But he won because he convinced swaths of workers in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that he would fight harder to keep their jobs around than his opponent. And he's basically stuck to that promise, whether or not what he's doing will actually help them in the long term, or if he even understands the basic tenets of global trade (as this article seems to insinuate he doesn't).
These are the people who are being alienated by Democrats' efforts to unseat Trump at any cost, instead of pushing their own solution to the changing economic environment. What they'll likely say in 2020 is "so he's racist and sexist- but I still have a better chance with him than you."
As much as I'm nervous about the country being run by somebody who appears to be incompetent, ego-driven and lacking long-term strategy, I'm more nervous about what the left's candidate will be in 2024. In other words, if Trump is the response to 8 years of Obama, what will the response to 8 years of Trump look like?
Not sure where this is going so I'm gonna stop.
In the vast majority of districts, even in California, Trump scored ~32% on average. That means, minimum he scored ~13% (ie. 1 in 8 voters), average 32%, and up to 80%.
The above statement is bullshit. In your immediate environment, at the very least 13% of people voted for Trump, and very likely more. The odds that you don't know, have as a neighbor, or are family to one of them, seem very remote indeed.
That anyone in California (who would like to remain there) lies about their political preference ... seems a much, MUCH more likely explanation.
So, the real situation (again, with overwhelming likelihood), is
1) If you take the 8 houses around yours, one voted for Trump, absolute minimum. More likely 3 (in California, which would be the minimum). Out of your family, 1 in 8 voted for Trump, minimum (given that it will be skewed to the older ones, lets say, one of your parents, two of your grandparents seems a good guess).
2) These people clearly feel that you would react unreasonably if you found out, and that's why you don't know. Given how you describe Trump voters, I can certainly see why they feel this way.
But of course, I get that it's very comforting for you to think like this, even if it's extremely unlikely to be true. By the way, wasn't the whole point of Democrat values that people can have whatever political views they want, and you should support them regardless ?
Saying otherwise is plusuntruth, I mean, fake news!
The article wasn't too clear on whether the flashcards were for Juncker's benefit or Trump's. The Serially Sedated or the Conceptually Challenged. Yay, politicians.
You don't need to make up things to point his stupidity. It just makes things worse.