I can’t even see an argument for that position. Of course it’s not good for America. I’m no soccer fan, but I’ve got to believe Trump’s interference is also bad for soccer.
Moderating:
This question isn’t really on topic and any detailed discussion doesn’t belong in this thread. So I’ll hide it.
This is just a guidance, not a warning.
A lot of the time the US acts like that big kid who gets messed with by smaller asshole kids because they’re afraid of getting in trouble and/or hurting someone. But… if they’d twist an arm or punch a few teeth every so often, nobody would mess with them, they’d be more respected, and everything would run more smoothly.
I mean, Iran is half the reason the Middle East has been problematic for decades, and successive US administrations have been afraid to check Iran in any substantial way, when it should have been done in the 1970s or 1980s. Of course Trump is doing it in a stunningly incompetent, unfocused sort of way, but at least he’s doing it.
Oh, and getting rid of that Social Security windfall provision is personally advantageous. Now I get both the pension I’m paying into, as well as the Social Security I paid into for 20 years, as opposed to just the pension and a pittance from SS.
A reminder that they were substantively checked by the agreement that Obama put in place and that Trump destroyed entirely because it had Obama’s name on it. And now, having reversed the most positive progress made in the Middle East in generations, he decided to double down on fucking it up. If anything, he’s rallying more support globally for Iran and against the US.
This is particularly noteworthy because the nuclear containment agreement with Iran was one of the best examples of Democrats “flexing more muscle” in foreign policy in recent decades. Which they (and Republicans as well) are going to find much, much harder to do in future, thanks to Trump.
Moderating:
The debate over Iran past and present belongs in other threads. Not this one. Drop it now.
If you are responding to something in a thread that is basically off-topic or likely to lead to a hijack, try this:
How to Reply as a linked Topic:
Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.
Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.
That is actually the best method.
I thought of one thing I can agree with, just not the way it was implemented.
Stopping the minting of pennies. Long, long overdue. I would phase out the nickel while I was at it.
On the topic of the thread, this may not so much be a Trump complaint as a MAGA complaint (although Trump himself plays it up a lot to win votes), but I agree that there is often a double standard in the way Christianity and other religions are treated, in the sense that Christianity is often the only religion that can be safely criticized or mocked freely by Hollywood, media, academics and others with no fear of being called a “-phobe” (the term “Christianophobia” carries no weight whatsoever, unlike “Islamophobia”) while every other religion is shielded by “don’t mock them, it’s bigotry to mock them,” followed by possible cancellation of someone who mocks those other religions. And on top of that, it very much often does feel that Islam, for all of its patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, bad behaviors, gets looser and more lenient treatment compared to Christianity - which despite also being a similar Abrahamic religion, is arguably overall less bad than Islam.
Progressives will usually defend that by saying Christianity is the dominant religion, that it’s punching up and not punching down, etc. But the perception, and difference in standard, is real. This was likely a huge factor in propelling such a vast amount of the evangelical vote to go MAGA.
That’s just because Christianity is the only religion that can even be portrayed in the media at all.
Is it less bad though in America? In terms of how many people it affects (both believers and non-believers culturally and legislatively)?
I mean, we don’t spend much time criticizing the aztec religion and that was worse than either.
That’s…not so. There is media coverage of…others.
Yes, the famous American media coverage of Muslims, which is entirely comparable to that of its coverage of Christianity.
As per mod instructions about non-Trump topics, I am suggesting we take this outside.
FWIW, I did write that post because it was Trump-related, because it was one thing Trump himself touted and something his supporters often cited as a reason to vote for him. But yes, I’ll go to the other thread.
I’m a little surprised no one has mentioned this: We no longer have to take our shoes off when we go through airport security. I hate Trump as much as anyone, but as someone who flies a lot, that has been a fantastic improvement.
But did Trump himself ever advocate for that or even was aware of that?
It was his administration, so it has to count in some way.
I agree fully. If you go off and say that Islam is backward, and Mohammed was a pedophile (both of which are pretty much true), people will absolutely pile on to tell you you’re intolerant or an Islamophile, and bend over backwards to explain how the guy being betrothed to a seven year old and then consummating the marriage when she was ten is somehow NOT pedophilia.
Say similar or worse things about Christianity, and it’s just nods or blank stares.
And while I don’t agree, I can completely see how from a certain point of view, it looks very anti-Christian when authorities are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims at airports, in workplaces, etc… while getting rid of the overtly Christian stuff they grew up with, like the Ten Commandments at the courthouse, or prayers before football games, or whatever.
I don’t doubt that many MAGA types come from that point of view, and view this as attacks on Christianity. They aren’t of course, but I can understand how they could be seen like that if you’re a person who isn’t very clear on the idea of civil liberties or who comes from a mono-Christian background and community.
Hell, I’m neither MAGA nor Evangelical (I’m a pretty liberal Episcopalian), and I get kind of irritated at the way people in the media and especially online talk about “Christians”, when they really mean “Evangelicals” and “Fundamentalists”. There’s a huge gulf between what they believe and practice and what I do (and really all the mainstream denominations do), and I don’t appreciate being lumped in with those clowns. But it’s apparently just fine to bash the entire religion like that, in ways that you can’t with say… Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc…
I hear things like this all the time, and from prominent figures.
And indeed I say words to this effect myself, though I focus on (both) being books of myths with mostly odious morals. Calling the whole thing backwards just invites examples where the morals actually are still reasonable by modern standards.
Now, it would be true that the left is usually more willing to criticize christianity than islam. And that’s because the latter often seems like punching down. (But I think the talking point of the left being hypocritical because they are pro-muslim and pro-gay rights is a myth. Freedom of religious expression =/= pro-muslim)
I’m with you in not agreeing. Because in most cases, we’re talking about accommodations made to muslims that are equivalent to, or at least on the way to being the same as provisions for christians.
Versus public endorsements of religion that are explicitly unconstitutional.
This one I can understand, I’ll bet it is annoying.
But look at it from other people’s point of view. When I see someone on TV saying abortion should be banned, and we need to get Jesus into our schools etc, all I know is that she’s Christian. I don’t know her denomination or views on things like biblical literalism.
And indeed there are people with awful social views who are Christian but neither of the sub-groups you mention.
Missed edit window: as I said in a previous post; the increased “willingness” to criticize christians is specifically because of the ways that many christians in the US are trying to take away rights, erode separation of church and state, and hold back scientific progress / education.
It was unfortunate phrasing in my last post, because I think some people will see it as “Aha! You admit the left has it in for christians!”
Circling back to the the thread topic:
In his first term I liked the Second Chance Act and Operation Warp Drive.
But that last one (vaccine development) is an example of why I have trouble bringing up any parts of the administration’s policies or actions I might agree with any more: He makes it too damn unpredictable to know if he still supports today the policy he proclaimed last term/year/month/Tuesday; or if he still does if we can then expect it enforced and followed up the way most normal people would expect a normal government to do so; or even if he’ll wander off and and make what happens next be someone else’s problem.