Off Topic Thread 4.0

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Money in their pockets and the economy. In the bigger picture, nothing else matters to a large chunk of their population. Nothing. It's as simple as that.

James Carvill who was an adviser to Bill Clinton and coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid" said the Republican strategy was a bit desperate but somewhat genius.

They are expecting a significant Trump backlash and as the damage was done politically already they pushed through their tax bill to hobble future administrations (most likely Democrat) with an additional 1.5 trillion dollar deficit and also ensure donor support despite a potential collapse of their popular support.

The sheer number of incumbent Republicans not running in the next set of elections supports this theory. It also explains why so many are silent about Trump, they aren't running and don't want to turn the base against them and in 5 years time when they step back in they can join the chorus of post-administration criticism that will have built up since then, citing their exit as a protest against Trump.

molloyjh

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. I can't see any way back for America. Too many people are too far gone at this point, I just can't see how you can turn that around without huge sweeping reforms. Which will never happen. Bush Jnr was a bit of a laughing stock 15 years ago, but I'm sure we'd all give our right arms for someone like him now. Then we had Palin, and we thought it couldn't get any worse. Then Trump ran for office and we thought it was a joke that would never come to pass. Then we thought he might moderate his behaviour once he got into office. It's just been getting progressively worse for years now. And the thing is, it's not like much of this is all that new. Look at McCarthyism for example.

In the past we had things like the sudden rise of facism in Germany, which sparked a war, which led to so much damage that it forced change on societies (incredible oversimplification for brevity). This is just a continuation of something that's always been there in US culture. There's nothing sudden about the rise of this sort of thing. And it's so ingrained in US society that it's all but impossible to root out. And given the way that global politics and relations have gone, the chances of a large scale conflict is slim, so the chance of a reset button being pressed is also slim. Too many Americans get to live in a bubble that stands little or no chance of being burst. So where exactly will change come from?

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

In the past we had things like the sudden rise of facism in Germany, which sparked a war, which led to so much damage that it forced change on societies (incredible oversimplification for brevity). This is just a continuation of something that's always been there in US culture. There's nothing sudden about the rise of this sort of thing. And it's so ingrained in US society that it's all but impossible to root out. And given the way that global politics and relations have gone, the chances of a large scale conflict is slim, so the chance of a reset button being pressed is also slim. Too many Americans get to live in a bubble that stands little or no chance of being burst. So where exactly will change come from?

The idea of the Democrats shifting from the centre-right to centre-left (I'd never consider them left ) seems to be frightening the sh1te out of the GOP. If they're frightened of it, then it seems that there may be some significant traction to be gained by following that path.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Money in their pockets and the economy. In the bigger picture, nothing else matters to a large chunk of their population. Nothing. It's as simple as that.

This is the crux of it, as long as Fox and the other Trump backers can trot out,”lowest unemployment in 40 years, Steel industry back in America, lower taxes, etc...”, the majority of Americans couldn’t give a flying f@*k about anything else. Civil rights abuse, security breaches, internment, foreign policy, none of it matters. Money talks in America, after all that’s the dream.

molloyjh

prawnsambo wrote: »

The idea of the Democrats shifting from the centre-right to centre-left (I'd never consider them left ) seems to be frightening the sh1te out of the GOP. If they're frightened of it, then it seems that there may be some significant traction to be gained by following that path.

And polarising the whole set up even further. I think we're seeing the damage that a 2 party system can do. It becomes a real "them or us" mentality. A broader range of (realistic) options covering a broader range of perspectives and viewpoints is the only thing that can really address that I think. But I can never see that happening in the US. Not in my lifetime anyway.

stephen_n

molloyjh wrote: »

And polarising the whole set up even further. I think we're seeing the damage that a 2 party system can do. It becomes a real "them or us" mentality. A broader range of (realistic) options covering a broader range of perspectives and viewpoints is the only thing that can really address that I think. But I can never see that happening in the US. Not in my lifetime anyway.

To be honest I could never see a huge difference between the two parties. Democrats on the surface are more liberal and socially aware, but that’s more because the republicans are so far right, it’s easy to be left of them. When you see the list of things that Clinton used his presidency to bring in before he left office, it would be very easy to assume they were GW’s policies. It’s more like a one party system with varying shades of opinion.

molloyjh

stephen_n wrote: »

This is the crux of it, as long as Fox and the other Trump backers can trot out,”lowest unemployment in 40 years, Steel industry back in America, lower taxes, etc...”, the majority of Americans couldn’t give a flying f@*k about anything else. Civil rights abuse, security breaches, internment, foreign policy, none of it matters. Money talks in America, after all that’s the dream.

I actually think it's got more to do with not having money in their pockets really. It was the recession and the level of disenfranchisement that gave Trump his platform. A lot of middle America was doing badly and wanted someone to blame for it. Trump gave them targets for their anger. That things are improving now just reinforces the ideas that they had when Trump was campaigning, because they see the decisions they made as having helped achieve those improvements.

The better off they are, the less likely they are to be motivated to vote for someone like Trump. The more comfortable they are, the less likely the antics that Trump got up to are to affect them.

It's not just Americans either. People tend to care about who they can afford to care about. If you can't put food on the table for your family, you're far less likely to act in a way that shows compassion to a famine in another part of the world. And the longer you go on struggling to feed your family, the angrier you'll get about it and the less compassion you'll show to others. It's just human nature. Luckily most Western societies don't hang you out to dry as much, or as quickly, as the American model does. As a result we tend to see that behaviour less often, and to a lesser degree. But we still see it. Lisbon and Brexit being good examples.

irishbucsfan

Ah its just pageview populism. The only way I see a meaningful change coming over there would be if they could somehow monetise decency.

I'll never live there and hopefully we can stop it spreading here.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah its just pageview populism. The only way I see a meaningful change coming over there would be if they could somehow monetise decency.

I'll never live there and hopefully we can stop it spreading here.

Doesn’t everything American come here eventually

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Doesn’t everything American come here eventually

No, definitely not, thankfully!

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, definitely not, thankfully!

It may be a slow process but we are becoming more Americanised all the time. At the moment what really divides us is access to information and a relatively free press. Though that is constantly being eroded. Ireland is very much polarised on certain issues, but the span of those issues is ever growing. Through TV American culture is what most kids aspire to. I would say that spread is inevitable.

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

I actually think it's got more to do with not having money in their pockets really. It was the recession and the level of disenfranchisement that gave Trump his platform. A lot of middle America was doing badly and wanted someone to blame for it. Trump gave them targets for their anger. That things are improving now just reinforces the ideas that they had when Trump was campaigning, because they see the decisions they made as having helped achieve those improvements.

The better off they are, the less likely they are to be motivated to vote for someone like Trump. The more comfortable they are, the less likely the antics that Trump got up to are to affect them.

It's not just Americans either. People tend to care about who they can afford to care about. If you can't put food on the table for your family, you're far less likely to act in a way that shows compassion to a famine in another part of the world. And the longer you go on struggling to feed your family, the angrier you'll get about it and the less compassion you'll show to others. It's just human nature. Luckily most Western societies don't hang you out to dry as much, or as quickly, as the American model does. As a result we tend to see that behaviour less often, and to a lesser degree. But we still see it. Lisbon and Brexit being good examples.

If you've the time, it's worth your while to read (and watch) this thread.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

It may be a slow process but we are becoming more Americanised all the time. At the moment what really divides us is access to information and a relatively free press. Though that is constantly being eroded. Ireland is very much polarised on certain issues, but the span of those issues is ever growing. Through TV American culture is what most kids aspire to. I would say that spread is inevitable.

We're very, very far removed from the USA today anyway. I travel back and forth to major American cities constantly and even the city I'm often based out of, San Francisco (despite being among the wealthiest and most progressive American cities), is miles away from being anything like any major European city I know. We import their culture, largely due to them being the largest anglophone nation, but we are culturally and politically very different. I definitely wouldn't agree with the notion that everything American comes here eventually.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We're very, very far removed from the USA today anyway. I travel back and forth to major American cities constantly and even the city I'm often based out of, San Francisco (despite being among the wealthiest and most progressive American cities), is miles away from being anything like any major European city I know. We import their culture, largely due to them being the largest anglophone nation, but we are culturally and politically very different. I definitely wouldn't agree with the notion that everything American comes here eventually.

Gas. Was in SF last year and all around the area and the overriding impression for me was it was the most 'foreign' country I've ever been in. Despite all the exposure on TV and internet and a shared 'ish language.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, definitely not, thankfully!

stephen_n wrote: »

It may be a slow process but we are becoming more Americanised all the time. At the moment what really divides us is access to information and a relatively free press. Though that is constantly being eroded. Ireland is very much polarised on certain issues, but the span of those issues is ever growing. Through TV American culture is what most kids aspire to. I would say that spread is inevitable.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We're very, very far removed from the USA today anyway. I travel back and forth to major American cities constantly and even the city I'm often based out of, San Francisco (despite being among the wealthiest and most progressive American cities), is miles away from being anything like any major European city I know. We import their culture, largely due to them being the largest anglophone nation, but we are culturally and politically very different. I definitely wouldn't agree with the notion that everything American comes here eventually.

I'd agree with IBF and I've similarly but not so much recently spent a good deal of time in the US. We follow a lot of their trends in terms of fashion, food, cinema, music etc etc but we've grown up with a very different discourse around politics and history.

Whilst Irish people have plenty of pride (good and bad) it pales in comparison to the flag worship that goes on in the states. Even in extremely liberal enclaves it's utterly cringe worthy how nationalism and faux-patriotism mix seamlessly with the idea of family and community.

Ultimately though and from a purely political perspective having a proportional representation electoral system and having multiple seats per region along with multiple political parties all occupying the centre is going to insulate us in the medium term from the same collapse in discourse.

If someone like Rupert Murdoch took an interest it might bring fringe politics to our shores in a meaningful way but hopefully this doesn't happen.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Gas. Was in SF last year and all around the area and the overriding impression for me was it was the most 'foreign' country I've ever been in. Despite all the exposure on TV and internet and a shared 'ish language.

I think SF is maybe a bit of an outlier because the place is totally crazy due to the intersection of so many cultures there and the massive influx of tech money.

Its a crazy place, downtown. It seems on every corner there's a coffee shop or brewery that's been started by some overpaid IPO kid who has decided to retire at the age of 26 and start his own business selling a new IPA infused with his own ballsweat or whatever other nonsense. But it's kind of special because of that... Unfortunately its unavoidable for members of certain industries!

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

If someone like Rupert Murdoch took an interest it might bring fringe politics to our shores in a meaningful way but hopefully this doesn't happen.

News International own a few Irish media outlets now I think. Didn't they buy FM104 recently?

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

News International own a few Irish media outlets now I think. Didn't they buy FM104 recently?

I've absolutely no idea but the media landscape has changed a lot in the last 5 - 10 years. More and more the papers are taking positions themselves on particular topics which I'm not in favour of. The Times supported repeal in the recent referendum but previously never overtly took a particular side.

It's something I disagree with even if it's 'my side' they are supporting. I wish news was just a sharing of facts but that day is gone if it ever existed.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea but the media landscape has changed a lot in the last 5 - 10 years. More and more the papers are taking positions themselves on particular topics which I'm not in favour of. The Times supported repeal in the recent referendum but previously never overtly took a particular side.

It's something I disagree with even if it's 'my side' they are supporting. I wish news was just a sharing of facts but that day is gone if it ever existed.

I'd actually prefer if our papers were more honest in their endorsements. It's better than pretending the papers are impartial, which is what the Times have done traditionally while engaging in shadow-campaigning. The Indo even called them out for exactly this in 1997 (wonder if thats online somewhere...)

News has never been a straight sharing of facts. Whether its the Times, the Indo or even the Irish Press. I don't see how it ever could be, unless we could train robots to take over from journos.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd actually prefer if our papers were more honest in their endorsements. It's better than pretending the papers are impartial, which is what the Times have done traditionally while engaging in shadow-campaigning. The Indo even called them out for exactly this in 1997 (wonder if thats online somewhere...)

News has never been a straight sharing of facts. Whether its the Times, the Indo or even the Irish Press. I don't see how it ever could be, unless we could train robots to take over from journos.

I see your point but there are other professions where people are paid to be impartial and manage to do so. Even within rugby if Alain Roland can referee a game fairly between Leinster and Munster then surely at least the editor of a major newspaper can seek integrity and compliance from their journalists!

I'm reminded of the recent interrogation of Peter Strzok in the US. He's been fired by the FBI because in private he was highly critical of Trump but absolutely no actions he took professionally were deemed to show bias.

On the turn side of that last week you have a climate scientist refusing to go on the BBC because they wanted to have a climate change denier on at the same time for 'balance'.

I'd still much prefer that the mainstream media did it's level best to just report the facts and keep personal opinions out of it as much as possible. I'd like that to be where their point of pride resides. It will never be 100% but moving away from that is a slippery slope that ends up looking something like the Dailymail.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I see your point but there are other professions where people are paid to be impartial and manage to do so. Even within rugby if Alain Roland can referee a game fairly between Leinster and Munster then surely at least the editor of a major newspaper can seek integrity and compliance from their journalists!

I'm reminded of the recent interrogation of Peter Strzok in the US. He's been fired by the FBI because in private he was highly critical of Trump but absolutely no actions he took professionally were deemed to show bias.

On the turn side of that last week you have a climate scientist refusing to go on the BBC because they wanted to have a climate change denier on at the same time for 'balance'.

I'd still much prefer that the mainstream media did it's level best to just report the facts and keep personal opinions out of it as much as possible. I'd like that to be where their point of pride resides. It will never be 100% but moving away from that is a slippery slope that ends up looking something like the Dailymail.

That has never existed and it never will. Being impartial when refereeing a rugby match is a very different thing to being impartial when writing an article about public policy or news. And finding impartial journalists is an impossible thing to do in practice because a basic requirement of being willing to become an entry-level journalist and continue down that career path is having a passion for current events.

I'm much happier to just have outlets who I believe are intellectually honest. The Guardian is an example of that, they've endorsed Labour in every modern general election except 2010, but they're extremely competent journalists in general and are free to express themselves openly. The Irish Times are far less honest in their approach, I find.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That has never existed and it never will. Being impartial when refereeing a rugby match is a very different thing to being impartial when writing an article about public policy or news. And finding impartial journalists is an impossible thing to do in practice because a basic requirement of being willing to become an entry-level journalist and continue down that career path is having a passion for current events.

I'm much happier to just have outlets who I believe are intellectually honest. The Guardian is an example of that, they've endorsed Labour in every modern general election except 2010, but they're extremely competent journalists in general and are free to express themselves openly. The Irish Times are far less honest in their approach, I find.

You can see the bias with journalists for the Independent, the journal, BP, the Times etc., and on an individual basis whilst frustrating it's something you can rationalise around. When an entire news organisation commits to supporting a campaign I simply consider them part of that campaign.

I can understand your opinion on the Guardian, but then conservatives who read the Guardian will have a diminished impression of them because of their position. Rather than the Guardian potentially reaching Tory voters it gets discounted out of hand because it's nailed it's colours to the mast.

I think editorial integrity and impartiality resolves this, even if individual journalists can't keep their personal opinions out of reporting.

Even opinion pieces are something I'd rather were kept overtly separate from the news. This used to be the case but it's no where near as obvious now.

Rigor Mortis

Deleted User wrote: »

You can see the bias with journalists for the Independent, the journal, BP, the Times etc., and on an individual basis whilst frustrating it's something you can rationalise around. When an entire news organisation commits to supporting a campaign I simply consider them part of that campaign.

I can understand your opinion on the Guardian, but then conservatives who read the Guardian will have a diminished impression of them because of their position. Rather than the Guardian potentially reaching Tory voters it gets discounted out of hand because it's nailed it's colours to the mast.

I think editorial integrity and impartiality resolves this, even if individual journalists can't keep their personal opinions out of reporting.

Even opinion pieces are something I'd rather were kept overtly separate from the news. This used to be the case but it's no where near as obvious now.

It is increasingly hard to sell straight news. About 15 years ago a proprietor said the only sustainable future for newspapers was as viewspapers. That has always stuck with me and I think he has been proven to be right.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We're very, very far removed from the USA today anyway. I travel back and forth to major American cities constantly and even the city I'm often based out of, San Francisco (despite being among the wealthiest and most progressive American cities), is miles away from being anything like any major European city I know. We import their culture, largely due to them being the largest anglophone nation, but we are culturally and politically very different. I definitely wouldn't agree with the notion that everything American comes here eventually.

We may be very far removed from where America is today. But if you look at a lot of the changes in our society in the last 30 years, the attitudes and the moves towards consumerism. It all stems from America, we aren’t like America is now, but we are a lot closer to where it was 30 years ago.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

We may be very far removed from where America is today. But if you look at a lot of the changes in our society in the last 30 years, the attitudes and the moves towards consumerism. It all stems from America, we aren’t like America is now, but we are a lot closer to where it was 30 years ago.

I don't think so at all. 30 years ago much of America was pushing for smaller Government. Ireland is 90% in favour of the EU.

As much as we've moved towards consumerism, one of the biggest issues for people currently is the lack of social housing and homelessness. They are very social issues yet they dominate much of the discourse currently in this country in favour of doing more for those who have less.

The government announced a few months back that despite the economy outperforming predictions that there wouldn't be a tax reduction or give away budget. This was met with applause and approval as prudent and cautious, in America this would result in a swift electoral defeat.

Yes, we have adopted some of the things that have come out of America but we've rejected a hell of a lot of it as well.

irishbucsfan

It'd take a fair amount to convince me that the changes we've seen over the past 30 years don't stem from our membership of the EU and the huge increase we've seen in our wealth, rather than America.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think so at all. 30 years ago much of America was pushing for smaller Government. Ireland is 90% in favour of the EU.

As much as we've moved towards consumerism, one of the biggest issues for people currently is the lack of social housing and homelessness. They are very social issues yet they dominate much of the discourse currently in this country in favour of doing more for those who have less.

The government announced a few months back that despite the economy outperforming predictions that there wouldn't be a tax reduction or give away budget. This was met with applause and approval as prudent and cautious, in America this would result in a swift electoral defeat.

Yes, we have adopted some of the things that have come out of America but we've rejected a hell of a lot of it as well.

Politically we are more Eurocentric that's for sure, I don't think our political system will ever become as entrenched or bought as US politics are. However socially we are far more preoccupied with the things we have, than the people around us. Yes there is discourse, but little else about what is an ever growing wealth divide. People might ring their hands a little about the poverty levels in this country, but they won't do anything about it and certainly won't do anything that impacts their personal wealth. Ireland isn't alone in following the American mantra that greed is good either. Maybe IBF is right and it's the increased wealth in the country driving these changes, not a reflection of the American dream. But I think the culture we seem to aspire to in this country, is the one created by Hollywood and the American TV networks.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It'd take a fair amount to convince me that the changes we've seen over the past 30 years don't stem from our membership of the EU and the huge increase we've seen in our wealth, rather than America.

Dubinusa

Very interesting perspectives. It's good for me to see how you guys think and form opinions.
I read the indo and the I.T everyday. I think that they are okay. I don't read anything over here. All bull****.
The world is very complex. People are very complex. It will always be that way.

Buer

The hurling final is taking up where the recent games left off. Regardless of drama or intensity, the quality is awful. So many basic errors and wides.

Dubinusa

At least it's not Kilkenny. It's boring and tiresome watching the same team win year after year. Same for Kerry and Dublin in the football.