Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 28, 2016, 03:44:26 PM
-
Interesting interview though over dramatic title
https://tinyurl.com/jffua8k
-
This is quite fun
http://phrasegenerator.com/politics#.Vqo6Meo7Z2s.facebook
-
Interesting if quite geeky article.
http://tinyurl.com/zkhmzsq
-
The Iowa caucus results are very interesting. Certainly feels like a Rubio Candidacy is a good shout. While Sanders did well as opposed to where he was a few weeks ago, still feels like Hillary for the Dems. Sanders needs to win big in New Hampshire and do something about his polling in black voters
-
The Iowa caucus results are very interesting. Certainly feels like a Rubio Candidacy is a good shout. While Sanders did well as opposed to where he was a few weeks ago, still feels like Hillary for the Dems. Sanders needs to win big in New Hampshire and do something about his polling in black voters
I haven't been following Hilary's campaign as much as perhaps I could have done, but friends (American and Democrat at that) are saying that she's somewhat stuck in the 90s (and that's not percentage-wise).
-
The Iowa caucus results are very interesting. Certainly feels like a Rubio Candidacy is a good shout. While Sanders did well as opposed to where he was a few weeks ago, still feels like Hillary for the Dems. Sanders needs to win big in New Hampshire and do something about his polling in black voters
I'm not a betting man, but Rubio is surely the smart bet now.
-
Hard to believe Clinton won six coin tosses to snatch the Iowa nomination. Must be her amazing pant suits.
And her as President? Oh joy! Starting a nuclear war will hinge on a coin toss. But thank God that won't happen, a Republican will be in the white house in about a years time.
-
a Republican will be in the white house in about a years time.
If they select a more moderate candidate such as Rubio then quite possibly. If they go for Trump or Cruz not a chance.
-
Hard to believe Clinton won six coin tosses to snatch the Iowa nomination. Must be her amazing pant suits.
And her as President? Oh joy! Starting a nuclear war will hinge on a coin toss. But thank God that won't happen, a Republican will be in the white house in about a years time.
You're worried about someone starting a nuclear war from the White House, so you want a Republican... I must be missing something here.
Which of Rubio, Trump and Cruz do you think is less of a hawk than Clinton or Sanders?
O.
-
Ya, you missed your history lesson on the day the Cuban missile crisis was examined. And you missed the fact that Iran can go for the nuclear missile thingy all they want in ten years time. I believe just having a republican sitting in the white house is a nuclear deterrent.
-
Ya, you missed your history lesson on the day the Cuban missile crisis was examined. And you missed the fact that Iran can go for the nuclear missile thingy all they want in ten years time. I believe just having a republican sitting in the white house is a nuclear deterrent.
Right... you aren't the guy that's put Trump up for a Nobel Peace Prize for his 'vigorous peace through strength' ideology, are you?
This shoot first, shoot again, don't bother asking questions later Republican mentality is what led to the breakdown in Afghanistan, Iraq and the like in the first place, feeding Isis its hardware and personnel.
You can believe Republicans are a deterrent as much as you'd like, I don't think the evidence of recent history supports that belief. I'm hoping we don't have to find out, and whichever candidate gets the Democratic nomination carries the day.
O.
-
Too funny, now pay attention Mr. Out. Mr Trump will not be president of the USA.
-
Thanks for reminding me of the regrets there are that they gave Obama a little prize for absolutely nothing but his yap.
As I stated, Iran will be free to have as many nuclear bombs as it wants in ten yrs.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/18/former-top-nobel-official-says-maybe-obamas-peace-prize-was-not-such-a-good-idea/72396794/
-
Too funny, now pay attention Mr. Out. Mr Trump will not be president of the USA.
There's something that we can all be thankful for, of course, and although either Cruz or Rubio would be a massive improvement, neither of them is as good as either of the Democrat options, either for the majority of the American populace or for the rest of the world.
O.
-
There's something that we can all be thankful for, of course, and although either Cruz or Rubio would be a massive improvement, neither of them is as good as either of the Democrat options, either for the majority of the American populace or for the rest of the world.
O.
Not sure I would agree that Cruz would be an improvement on Trump.
-
I think Cruz is the improvement over the Demo options. The old communist Bernie or that, stand by your man crook Clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGJd80y360c
-
MRS. Clinton plays by her own rules.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/report-hillary-clinton-criminal-probe-urged-by-inspectors-general-over-email-use-at-state-120571
-
Not sure I would agree that Cruz would be an improvement on Trump.
I think just about anyone would be an improvement on Trump. The terrifying thing is that he actually stands a chance :o
-
I think Cruz is the improvement over the Demo options.
I'm trying to parse that, but I can't see how it works. You do understand we mean TED Cruz, right, and not Penelope Cruz?
The old communist Bernie
I think you might misunderstand what 'Communism' is.
or that, stand by your man crook Clinton.
Yes, it says a lot about her political stance that she repaired her marriage after her husband's infidelity... not any of it particularly bad, of course...
O.
-
I think just about anyone would be an improvement on Trump. The terrifying thing is that he actually stands a chance :o
The scary thing is that I'm not sure I agree.
Trump comes across as completely objectionable, but I suspect a lot of this is 'front'. I imagine that behind all that bravado he is relatively pragmatic in his views - I don't really think he is an ideologue.
That isn't the same for Cruz or Carson, who are religious right extremist ideologues of the n-th degree. Have a look at this web-site from an ultra conservative source, so if they like the candidate's position we should be running screaming away from them. Compare their almost unanimously positive view on Cruz with their more lukewarm support for the extreme rightwing-ness of Trump.
https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
Although the notion of a Trump presidency scares me rigid, the notion of a Cruz one scares me even more.
-
Interesting article from the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35406324
-
I think it will be a Democrat finally. I was thinking Clinton...but not sure now. Could be Sanders.
-
First thing Cruz has going for him is that he was born right here in my city. But seriously, I see nothing in his bio that would stop me from voting for him.
http://www.biography.com/people/ted-cruz
-
First thing Cruz has going for him is that he was born right here in my city. But seriously, I see nothing in his bio that would stop me from voting for him.
http://www.biography.com/people/ted-cruz
Which is almost certainly why many on this MB are terrified that he might end up as president.
Let's call him out on some of his uber-extremist right wing policies and views:
No funding for family planning services
Against equal marriage
Wants flat tax regime rather than a progressive system, so that a billionaire pays no more tax on his billionth $ than someone earning $10,000 does on their first
Climate change denier
Want to scrap even the hugely timid Obamacare provisions for universal healthcare
Wants to massively curtail or even ban abortion (potentially via constitutional amendment)
Totally biased in favour of Israel in the middle east.
Wants to encourage fossil fuel exploitation and reduce investment in renewable and sustainable energy
Active opponent of any change to restrict gun use
Anti-union
Anti minimum wage
The guy is a nightmare.
-
As I wrote, nothing that would stop me from voting for him.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data/
-
Anti-equal marriage, worker-exploiting, climate change-denying gun nut. Right up your street.
-
Which is almost certainly why many on this MB are terrified that he might end up as president.
Let's call him out on some of his uber-extremist right wing policies and views:
No funding for family planning services
Against equal marriage
Wants flat tax regime rather than a progressive system, so that a billionaire pays no more tax on his billionth $ than someone earning $10,000 does on their first
Climate change denier
Want to scrap even the hugely timid Obamacare provisions for universal healthcare
Wants to massively curtail or even ban abortion (potentially via constitutional amendment)
Totally biased in favour of Israel in the middle east.
Wants to encourage fossil fuel exploitation and reduce investment in renewable and sustainable energy
Active opponent of any change to restrict gun use
Anti-union
Anti minimum wage
The guy is a nightmare.
Probably only one of that list would compare favourably with my opinion, and that doesn't even touch on 'equal marriage'. I too am 'anti-minimum wage'. Would much prefer a realistic living wage.
-
There's something wrong with your keyboard; it's inserting quotation marks in random places.
-
As I wrote, nothing that would stop me from voting for him.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data/
The problem is that so-called 'global warming' is not a scientific concept, being a media-construction to pander to climate-change deniers. That said, there is plenty of evidence that indiates that warming has occurred over the years. Reduction of Arctic ice; retreat of Himalayan and other glaciers; etc.
-
There's something wrong with your keyboard; it's inserting quotation marks in random places.
That's right, Shaker; one has to point out that the term 'equal marriage' is a misnomer. It is neither 'equal', nor 'marriage'.
As for the reference to 'anti-minimum wage' I used them to point out that it too is somewhat of a misnomer.
-
That's right, Shaker; one has to point out that the term 'equal marriage' is a misnomer. It is neither 'equal', nor 'marriage'.
It's equal as in gay couples are equal to straight couples in marriage terms, and it's marriage because the law says it is.
Are you going to explain why you think otherwise (i.e. in denial of established fact), or can we expect you just to run away again?
-
Ah. The tactical running away, I see.
Figures.
-
That's right, Shaker; one has to point out that the term 'equal marriage' is a misnomer. It is neither 'equal', nor 'marriage'.
Nope - marriage is a civil institution so it is whatever the law says is despite the shameful homophobia of some Christians, which wasn't sufficient to prevent social progress here in the UK.
Do keep at it though, since it serves to remind reasonable people why they need to be on guard against those aspects of organised religion that would prefer to discriminate for God.
-
Hope has done a Brave Sir Robin again, Gordon, so I don't think he'll be back to explain his reality-denying beliefs.
Or just one section of them, anyway ;)
-
That's right, Shaker; one has to point out that the term 'equal marriage' is a misnomer. It is neither 'equal', nor 'marriage'.
Yes it is - on both counts - see Shaker for explanation.
-
Yes it is - on both counts - see Shaker for explanation.
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender - not two of the same.
-
Ah. The tactical running away, I see.
Figures.
Sorry, I hadn't realised that I'm not allowed to 1) go and cook my family's supper, 2) work on an assignnment that is already technically 3 months late, but I have been given a dispensation due to my stroke last October.
-
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender - not two of the same.
Not any more, thank goodness.
-
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender - not two of the same.
Only in the sad little definition given to it by you and those who believe like you. If anything devalues marriage that does.
-
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender
Nope, it doesn't.
- not two of the same.
The law says otherwise, and the law defines what marriage is (as in who can marry who, and can't). You obviously missed it, which is a surprise because it was in all the papers and on the telly and everything at the time.
-
Sorry, I hadn't realised that I'm not allowed to 1) go and cook my family's supper, 2) work on an assignnment that is already technically 3 months late, but I have been given a dispensation due to my stroke last October.
Easy mistake to make - I was just going by every other time you've run away from everything else you don't want to answer.
-
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender - not two of the same.
In YOUR opinion! An outdated opinion!
You are a homophobe and nothing that you say can change that FACT!
-
In YOUR opinion! An outdated opinion!
By almost two years, in fact.
-
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender - not two of the same.
No it doesn't - equal marriage means that couples are able to get married and therefore treated equally in law regardless of their gender and sexuality.
The term is used in preference to the term 'gay marriage' which erroneously implies that there are two kinds of marriage, 'gay marriage' and 'heterosexual marriage', when there is only one kind of marriage - which is now available equally to couples regardless of the gender makeup of that couple and their sexuality.
-
I think Hope hasn't yet realised that he is living in a post-Christian society and that were it not for the nonsense of the CofE being 'established', hence the shameful ring-fencing of them when SSM was legalised, that what Christianity thinks on any issue isn't binding on society at large or, seemingly, to those reasonable Christians who aren't hidebound to the fallacies of authority and tradition.
-
I think Hope hasn't yet realised that he is living in a post-Christian society and that were it not for the nonsense of the CofE being 'established', hence the shameful ring-fencing of them when SSM was legalised, that what Christianity thinks on any issue isn't binding on society at large or, seemingly, to those reasonable Christians who aren't hidebound to the fallacies of authority and tradition.
I think what he has also failed to realise is that for centuries in the UK marriage has been defined entirely by the civil law of the land, and remains so today. Religious 'marriages' are only valid when and if they align with civil law and that the reason why many people end up having two ceremonies - a civil marriage (valid and legally binding) and a separate religious ceremony. Get rid of the latter and the couple are still married, get rid of the former and they aren't.
-
I think what he has also failed to realise is that for centuries in the UK marriage has been defined entirely by the civil law of the land, and remains so today. Religious 'marriages' are only valid when and if they align with civil law and that the reason why many people end up having two ceremonies - a civil marriage (valid and legally binding) and a separate religious ceremony. Get rid of the latter and the couple are still married, get rid of the former and they aren't.
I have no interest in whether or not Britain is a 'post-Christian' society (whatever that might mean), nor am I worried about what the UK civil law has said. It is only in the last 25 years that the idea of marriage being anything other than between different sexes has become law anywhere in the world. We all know that legislation can be wrong or poorly created, and can fall over a period of time. I believe that this is a flawed piece of legislation, whether it exists in the UK, the USA or anywhere else in the world.
As for whether or not one is married, traditionally marriage was in the eyes of God - not civil law - as there were no civil benefits attached to being married until 100/150 years ago. That is why, for instance, divorces had to be granted by church leaders such as the Pope, as opposed to civil authorities. Like so much else that we now take for granted as being State provision, marriage has only relatively recently taken on a state-'provision' mantle.
-
And I also think that he has no interest in whether or not Britain is a 'post-Christian' society (whatever that might mean)
It means that the influence of organised Christianity on society at large is now so marginal as to be largely irrelevant to the majority, as must be obvious to you from the fact that same-sex marriage was legalised despite religious objections, and that for many of us Christianity is now something we can simply ignore.
.. nor is he that worried about what the UK civil law has said.
Even so you are still bound by them whether you agree or disagree.
It is only in the last 25 years that the idea of marriage being anything other than between different sexes has become law anywhere in the world.
It is called social progress, and we should be glad of it when any forms of discrimination are removed.
We all know that legislation can be wrong or poorly created, abd can fall over a period of time.
True, but legislation can also be beneficial and socially progressive.
I suspect he believes that this is a flawed piece of legislation, whether it exists in the UK, the USA or anywhere else in the world.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but where it is based on religious dogma that conflicts with progressive social attitudes then, and since the UK isn't a theocracy, your opinions carry no additional weight by dint of them being 'religious'.
I see that, sadly, an MP has died at a comparatively young age, and so a by-election is pending. It would be interesting to see how a candidate campaigning on a specifically Anglican religious manifesto would fare and until such times as such as yourself 'put up' as regards public policy by seeking and gaining a democratic mandate then the rest of us can, if we wish, simply ignore Christianity and consider its stance to be both regressive and irrelevant.
-
It means that the influence of organised Christianity on society at at large is now so marginal as to be largely irrelevant to the majority, as must be obvious to you from the fact that same-sex marriage was legalised despite religious objections, and that for many of us Christianity is now something we can simply ignore.
History would seem to suggest that this has occurred on a number of occasions before, so perhaps the cycle of religiosity and irreligiosity will continue its pattern.
Even so you are still bound by them whether you agree or disagree.
It's interesting that people are required to be bound by such things when it suits certain groups but not when it doesn't suit a certain group.
It is called social progress, and we should be glad of it when any forms of discrimination are removed.
It can also be called social engineering when forms of discrimination that have been in place for good reasons are artificailly removed. Tax breaks for big companies come to mind ;)
True, but legislation can also be beneficial and socially progressive.
'Can' be the operative word here, Gordon: not necessarily 'are'.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but where it is based on religious dogma that conflicts with progressive social attitudes then, and since the UK isn't a theocracy, your opinions carry no additional weight by dint of them being 'religious'.
But it is also interesting to notice that, when 'religious dogma' is used to support certain opinions, such as the validity of homosexual relationships, no complaints are raised. As for 'theocracy' I'm not sure that that is relevant as democracy allows all voices to be heard.
I see that, sadly, an MP has died at a comparatively young age, and so a by-election is pending. It would be interesting to see how a candidate campaigning on a specifically Anglican religious manifesto would fare and until such times as such as yourself 'put up' as regards public policy by seeking and gaining a democratic mandate then the rest of us can, if we wish, simply ignore Christianity and consider its stance to be both regressive and irrelevant.
Good to see the non-sequitur in this paragraph.
-
History would seem to suggest that this has occurred on a number of occasions before, so perhaps the cycle of religiosity and irreligiosity will continue its pattern.
I'd expect that context is relevant here, and in the 21st century UK, as opposed to times and places when people were more credulous regarding religious matters, it does seem that Christianity is on a long slow decline: it won't disappear anytime soon, but its relevance as an influence on social policy is already weakened to the extent that it is at best marginal and at worst irrelevant.
It's interesting that people are required to be bound by such things when it suits certain groups but not when it doesn't suit a certain group.
Depends what you mean by 'special group', and that such groups will have an agenda is no surprise - however the relevance of these groups to society at large is another matter within a democracy.
It can also be called social engineering when forms of discrimination that have been in place for good reasons are artificailly removed. Tax breaks for big companies come to mind ;)
The comparison you make between tax regimes and not discriminating on the basis of sexuality are strange bed-fellows: so strange as to be a desperate argument.
But it is also interesting to notice that, when 'religious dogma' is used to support certain opinions, such as the validity of homosexual relationships, no complaints are raised.
So, what is your problem with SSM if religious dogma really is supportive? I'm guessing that your 'support' is conditional else you'd already be fully supportive of SSM, and you clearly aren't: be interested to see how you clarify this point.
As for 'theocracy' I'm not sure that that is relevant as democracy allows all voices to be heard.
Indeed it does, but translating that voice into having a direct influence on the framing of social policy legislation isn't simply a matter of voicing opinions.
Good to see the non-sequitur in this paragraph.
Which is why I suggested you guys put an Anglican manifesto to the test in a democratic election - can't see why that is a non-sequitur, although I can see why you'd avoid doing so.
-
I have no interest in whether or not Britain is a 'post-Christian' society (whatever that might mean)
Gordon explained it extremely well in #47.
nor am I worried about what the UK civil law has said.
Unless you're a master criminal I'm pretty sure you're "worried" about what the law says in every other regard. A law regarding marriage between two people of the same sex is presumably one unlikely to be of use or interest to you in any case, so as was often said during the equal marriage "debate", there's no need to concern yourself with something that doesn't apply to you and never will.
We all know that legislation can be wrong or poorly created, and can fall over a period of time.
Not this one. As I've said before, the arc of history runs one way only on things such as this. Across the twentieth century the trend in all civilised places has been toward greater personal freedom and the emphasis on the rights of the individual. Votes for women, emancipation of women generally, decriminalisation of homosexuality, equal marriage, legal sanctions against discrimination on all manner of grounds (race/ethnicity, age, sex, physical ability, etc.), reproductive freedom ... it's a long list. Not only are these measures not repealed, they're consistently extended (albeit far too slowly) because all rational people of goodwill recognise that they're good for individuals and good for society as a whole. Removing backward and ignorant forms of discrimination, discrimination based on noxious, ugly, divisive and illiberal attitudes, makes individual people happier and society better for it.
I believe that this is a flawed piece of legislation, whether it exists in the UK, the USA or anywhere else in the world.
Nothing flawed about it - with regard to England and Wales it went through the proper channels exactly the same as any, in fact every other piece of legislation. Equal marriage in Ireland couldn't become law without majority approval for a change in the Irish constitution; a vote was held and a majority wanted to see such a change, so equal marriage become law. Simples. It's a progressive move that benefits a particular sector of society - or societies, rather, since more and more countries are legislating for equal marriage. Finland's bill has been passed and comes into force in just over a year's time, on March 1st 2017. I gather that Australia, Chile and Switzerland seem likely to be next on the list.
As for whether or not one is married, traditionally marriage was in the eyes of God - not civil law - as there were no civil benefits attached to being married until 100/150 years ago.
Yup. The Marriage Act 1836, to be precise. (Opposed by the C of E, needless to say). Glad to see you're finally catching up with the nineteenth century.
-
As for whether or not one is married, traditionally marriage was in the eyes of God - not civil law - as there were no civil benefits attached to being married until 100/150 years ago. That is why, for instance, divorces had to be granted by church leaders such as the Pope, as opposed to civil authorities.
We've moved on though, so that in the UK today organisations based on the religious superstitions of the middle-east in antiquity no longer have the substantial influence they once had on wider society that would, today, be disproportionate to their social relevance - good thing too!.
You guys have no current mandate to influence social policy for society in general, although you are perfectly free to acquire a mandate via the ballot-box: so why don't you?
-
We've moved on though
And therein lies the problem for Hoppity.
-
As for whether or not one is married, traditionally marriage was in the eyes of God - not civil law - as there were no civil benefits attached to being married until 100/150 years ago.
Oh the profound lack of understanding of history.
It of course depends on which 'tradition' you look at and how far back you go. 'Traditionally' the earliest cultures considered marriage as a society (i.e. legal) contract between couples. It wasn't primarily religious at all, but civil and legal. Indeed the early Christian church took no interest in marriage leaving it to the predominant greco-roman legal tradition. I think it wasn't until about 1200 that formal church rules were put in place for marriage. And even those had a basis in law - as ecclesiastic law and civil law were largely interdependent at that time.
And of course we have for a couple of hundred years here in the UK allowed marriage in an entirely civil context, without any religious element.
So the reality is that sometime marriage has had religious elements, sometimes not, but it is always civil and legal and without those civil and legal elements there isn't a marriage - without religious elements there can still be a marriage.
-
Hope, or should that read Hopeless
Go back into history, you are very keen on history when it suits your archaic arguments for Christian religious domination, take a look at Greek and Roman pre-Christian artwork.
You will find that, like quite a few other things, homosexual and lesbian activity predate your uptight, sexually repressed church by many many years.
If you want to drag us back into history keep it up and with any luck at all we will get far enough back to leave Christianity as something to come in the future and Herod will get your Jesus Christ with all the rest of the newborns and save us years of murder by your 'loving' god's adherents.
-
And of course we have for a couple of hundred years here in the UK allowed marriage in an entirely civil context, without any religious element.
In 2010 well over two thirds - 68% to be precise - of all marriages in this country were civil marriages which by law must be entirely secular with no religious input whatever. No hymns, no prayers, no references to a deity, nothing.
That was a rise of 4% over the preceding decade, so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that proportion is even higher by now.
-
In 2010 well over two thirds - 68% to be precise - of all marriages in this country were civil marriages which by law must be entirely secular with no religious input whatever. No hymns, no prayers, no references to a deity, nothing.
That was a rise of 4% over the preceding decade, so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that proportion is even higher by now.
Hymns, prayers, references to a deity are entirely optional elements that some people chose to add to their wedding ceremony, but are entirely unnecessary for a marriage to be valid. That requires the ceremony to be conducted according to the law of the land, and include those key elements required in law. If those key elements are missing and if the ceremony does not meet the legal requirements then there is no marriage - prayers, hymns, references to a deity etc won't change that fact.
-
The scary thing is that I'm not sure I agree.
Trump comes across as completely objectionable, but I suspect a lot of this is 'front'. I imagine that behind all that bravado he is relatively pragmatic in his views - I don't really think he is an ideologue.
That isn't the same for Cruz or Carson, who are religious right extremist ideologues of the n-th degree. Have a look at this web-site from an ultra conservative source, so if they like the candidate's position we should be running screaming away from them. Compare their almost unanimously positive view on Cruz with their more lukewarm support for the extreme rightwing-ness of Trump.
https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
Although the notion of a Trump presidency scares me rigid, the notion of a Cruz one scares me even more.
The scary part is that a large part of the American electorate identify with Trumps stated views (though you might well be right about Cruz and Carson)
-
Sorry, it is not either. Equal marriage requires a mix of gender - not two of the same.
I've had a look at the statute book - http://tinyurl.com/aeam22f - it turns out that used to be the case, but it no longer is. The relative gender of the participants is no longer relevant.
O.
-
It is only in the last 25 years that the idea of marriage being anything other than between different sexes has become law anywhere in the world.
But it's only in the last 150 years or so that it hasn't been a contract between a man and a woman...'s father.
We all know that legislation can be wrong or poorly created, and can fall over a period of time. I believe that this is a flawed piece of legislation, whether it exists in the UK, the USA or anywhere else in the world.
We do know that, but we don't presume that laws we don't like are automatically flawed, we have to produce a rational argument to support our stance.
As for whether or not one is married, traditionally marriage was in the eyes of God - not civil law - as there were no civil benefits attached to being married until 100/150 years ago.
When, as has been established, marriage was used by the church to establish it's power-base as the arbiter of legal unions between powerful people, whereas the masses by and large didn't need an official ceremony.
That is why, for instance, divorces had to be granted by church leaders such as the Pope, as opposed to civil authorities.
Yeah, I think you forgot to account for the establishment of the Church of England in the 1530s...
Like so much else that we now take for granted as being State provision, marriage has only relatively recently taken on a state-'provision' mantle.
Like so many other areas where society has realised the church is an irrelevance, what people do with their genitals and their taxes, and how the two interact, has nothing to do with their unsubstantiated 'spirit' claims.
O.
-
Good heavens big O - surely you're not suggesting that what used to be the case isn't any longer because things change? :o
-
I still don't understand why people wanting to marry and being allowed to marry devalues marriage. Surely the fact that people want to get married reaffirms that it still has a place in society? To deny it to people and make it exclusive is what devalues it.
-
I can't find the image now but there was a pointedly sarcastic poster doing the rounds a while back saying that of course equal marriage devalues real marriages, proper marriages like Kim Kardashian's 72-day splicing and the 55-hour connubial bliss of Britney Spears.
-
We've moved on though, so that in the UK today organisations based on the religious superstitions of the middle-east in antiquity no longer have the substantial influence they once had on wider society that would, today, be disproportionate to their social relevance - good thing too!.
You guys have no current mandate to influence social policy for society in general, although you are perfectly free to acquire a mandate via the ballot-box: so why don't you?
I think you are mistaking swivel eyed antitheism for society in general here. I suspect attempt on your part both to promote your own beliefs as mainstream and to excise religious people from the notion of society.
-
I think you are mistaking swivel eyed antitheism for society in general here. I suspect attempt on your part both to promote your own beliefs as mainstream and to excise religious people from the notion of society.
In that case I would suspect that your intelligence and sanity are seriously suspect!
-
I think you are mistaking swivel eyed antitheism for society in general here. I suspect attempt on your part both to promote your own beliefs as mainstream and to excise religious people from the notion of society.
If we are talking about equality for gay people, including the ability for those people to marry, then those views are undoubtedly mainstream in the UK, without doubt the majority position.
And don't forget that there is nothing that requires religious people to be gay, nor to think that homosexuality is right. Nor is there any requirement for religious organisations to have to conduct marriages for gay couples. Their ability to chose whether or not to do so is enshrined in law.
So we have a very good balance of supporting the extension of basic human rights, and therefore aligning the law with the majority view, while also clearly protecting the rights of those who take a minority view that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
-
In that case I would suspect that your intelligence and sanity are seriously suspect!
Have you also given up shaving and washing regularly?
-
Have you also given up shaving and washing regularly?
Shaving ages ago as I need a full beard to cosplay Archchancellor Ridcully and the MCM in May.
Washing, at least twice a day and a shower at least once a day! This means that the smell you seem to be detecting is probably your own. Farts ot BO I have no idea!
-
Shaving ages ago as I need a full beard to cosplay Archchancellor Ridcully and the MCM in May.
Washing, at least twice a day and a shower at least once a day! This means that the smell you seem to be detecting is probably your own. Farts ot BO I have no idea!
No.......I'm definitely getting a hint of goat ;)
-
No.......I'm definitely getting a hint of goat ;)
Not surprising seeing as how you've been acting the goat on this forum for long enough 8)
-
Not surprising seeing as how you've been acting the goat on this forum for long enough 8)
Goat? Me? Never use them pal..... ;)
-
Goat? Me? Never use them pal..... ;)
I did say acting . . . !
-
For those talking about Rubio being a potential candidate, it looks like he has blown it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35515562
-
For those talking about Rubio being a potential candidate, it looks like he has blown it.
You're not kidding:
https://goo.gl/dj6EEJ
-
Nope, will still be Rubio. This sort of stuff is minor.
-
Nope, will still be Rubio. This sort of stuff is minor.
We'll see.
-
Nope, will still be Rubio. This sort of stuff is minor.
Middle of the pack finish for Rubio in NH. He looks to be out of it.
-
Middle of the pack finish for Rubio in NH. He looks to be out of it.
It's a long and winding Road and NH is not a crucial Republican state
-
It's a long and winding Road and NH is not a crucial Republican state
The Trump band wagon is rolling on though.
-
Indeed it is but he won't be the nominee
-
Surprising showing for Sanders, I can't imagine anyone describing himself as a 'Socialist' could ever get anywhere near the Whitehouse (without finding themselves in a rifle sights)
-
Of course, perhaps my certainty that Trump won't win the nomination is wishful thinking
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10956978/donald-trump-terrifying
-
Of course, perhaps my certainty that Trump won't win the nomination is wishful thinking
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10956978/donald-trump-terrifying
But there is nothing like a raving 'Lefty' to swing the electorate to the Right :) . . . so who knows!
-
Sanders is fairly mild left in global terms, the Democrat nomination has only a tangential impact on the Republican one.
-
Sanders is fairly mild left in global terms, the Democrat nomination has only a tangential impact on the Republican one.
To us yes, if he were a British politician I expect he would be far too right-wing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. However in America is is regarded as pretty far left, in fact he used the 'S' word, and for a lot of Americans Socialist equates to Communist (which equates to a pact with the Devil).
So if he did manage to get the Democrat nomination, I would predict an overwhelming win for a right-wing Republican president, possibly Trump.
-
To us yes, if he were a British politician I expect he would be far too right-wing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. However in America is is regarded as pretty far left, in fact he used the 'S' word, and for a lot of Americans Socialist equates to Communist (which equates to a pact with the Devil).
So if he did manage to get the Democrat nomination, I would predict an overwhelming win for a right-wing Republican president, possibly Trump.
Strangely the polls, which while at thus stage are not very useful, don't back that up at all and Sanders does better than Hillary against most of the possible nominees.
The point remains though that whether Trump gets the nomination isn't going to be that much influenced by what the Dems do.
-
Strangely the polls, which while at thus stage are not very useful, don't back that UK at all and Sanders does better than Hillary against most of the possible nominees.
The point remains though that whether Trump gets the nomination isn't going to be that much influenced by what the Dems do.
At this stage the parties have not really started attacking each other but that doesn't mean that they are oblivious to the other side's candidates. If the Democrats are perceived as swinging to the left the Republicans will be more inclined to swing to the right. That might be good news for Trump.
-
At this stage the parties have not really started attacking each other but that doesn't mean that they are oblivious to the other side's candidates. If the Democrats are perceived as swinging to the left the Republicans will be more inclined to swing to the right. That might be good news for Trump.
More likely Cruz, I would suspect, but there is an alternative possibility that a distinctive candidate on the left would mean good news for a more centrist candidate in the right. The whole picture is also more complex than simple right/left Since some of Trump/Sanders support is the same as it is anti beltway. They both appeal to the anti Establishment crowd. Thinking about it, there may be a case that it is actually the Republican candidates who make Sanders more credible. The one likelihood of a Sanders v Trump election is a Bloomberg independent run.
Given the way the nominations run, there isn't really much opportunity for one sides choice influencing the other unless they have a race so tight that it goes to the convention undecided.
-
The whole picture is also more complex than simple right/left Since some of Trump/Sanders support is the same as it is anti beltway. They both appeal to the anti Establishment crowd. Thinking about it, there may be a case that it is actually the Republican candidates who make Sanders more credible. The one likelihood of a Sanders v Trump election is a Bloomberg independent run.
I'd more or less agree with that, but when the real fight starts, Sanders would be tarnished with the 'Commie' label - and that would make him unelectable.
-
Indeed it is but he won't be the nominee
You're sure of that, are you? Seems to me that people said the same thing about a certain Jeremy Corbyn.
Serious commentators dismiss Trump, but serious commentators are outnumbered by the ordinary rank and file of the GOP. I think Trump will very likely get the Republican nomination and he will then be trounced by whatever professional politician the Democrats go for.
-
You're sure of that, are you? Seems to me that people said the same thing about a certain Jeremy Corbyn.
Serious commentators dismiss Trump, but serious commentators are outnumbered by the ordinary rank and file of the GOP. I think Trump will very likely get the Republican nomination and he will then be trounced by whatever professional politician the Democrats go for.
Sure? Pretty much. At this stage previously Pat Robertson might have been leading. I'm not dismissing Trump because of his views but in part because the Republicans as a party are quite ruthless. They will want a professional too, and I think the most likely one, simply because they are the best chance the Republicans have of winning, is Rubio.
But, of course, I could be wrong. Virtual drink on it Trump v Rubio?
-
Sure? Pretty much. At this stage previously Pat Robertson might have been leading. I'm not dismissing Trump because of his views but in part because the Republicans as a party are quite ruthless. They will want a professional too
You are failing to differentiate the active Republicans from the ordinary people that do the voting in the primaries. Sure, the party hierarchy want a professional, but they don't get to choose.
But, of course, I could be wrong. Virtual drink on it Trump v Rubio?
Done.
-
The American presidential election: Who cares?
-
The American presidential election: Who cares?
If you don't need to live in this world I don't suppose it will affect you.
-
The American presidential election: Who cares?
The election of the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth? A leader whose actions directly affect the lives of 300 million people and whose foreign policy affects the rest of us? A leader who has the power to destroy all human life?
You really really should care.
-
They're all just as bad as each other. It makes no difference who wins. It's all just guff.
-
They're all just as bad as each other. It makes no difference who wins. It's all just guff.
How brown is Putin's ring?
-
How brown is Putin's ring?
If anybody knows, ad_o will ...
-
Very droll. However, it will make no difference who wins. America will still be the basket case it's always been, with hillbillies at home with shotguns and hillbillies abroad with assault rifles.
-
I saw some footage from last night's Republican "debate" (I use the term in its loosest sense).
I really don't understand how anyone can support any of the characters on that stage. It looked like a casting call for a Political satire. These people are so plastic I'm surprised the stage lighting didn't reduce them to puddles of foul-smelling gloop.
-
America will still be the basket case it's always been, with hillbillies at home with shotguns and hillbillies abroad with assault rifles.
As usual, you do not know what you are talking about: the Hillbillies at home also have assault rifles.
-
Looks like Trump is still very-much in the running:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35624026
I think Super-Tuesday will be quite revealing.
-
Had someone elsewhere speculate that with Jeb Bush dropping out, he might be worth a bet as being the VP candidate as the Republicans haven't won a Presidential election since 1928 without either Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.
-
Had someone elsewhere speculate that with Jeb Bush dropping out, he might be worth a bet as being the VP candidate as the Republicans haven't won a Presidential election since 1928 without either Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.
The thing I find surprising is that (against all expectations) Jeb Bush sounded like one of the more sensible candidates, so the fact that he is out of the running doesn't bode well for the likely quality of the winner.
-
The thing I find surprising is that (against all expectations) Jeb Bush sounded like one of the more sensible candidates, so the fact that he is out of the running doesn't bode well for the likely quality of the winner.
But not a very good campaigner. Will be interesting to see where the votes of his go to, I would suspect mainly to Kasich and Rubio, with some to Cruz. The next to drop out one would think is Carson, I think those split Trump, Cruz with some to Rubio. When Kasich goes I think those are mainly Rubio.
-
I can almost taste my virtual pint. Trump is still rolling on. The only down side is that Jeb Bush being out will strengthen Rubio. Apparently Bush spent a lot of his advertising money on rubbishing Rubio instead of the real threat.
-
We'll see. Undoubtedly it is a big step forward for Trump, but I think it begins to clear the field for this being a two person contest. Trump is definitely going to be at the races but this is still early.
If you get your virtual pint, I think I may have to have a few real ones to cope with the outcome.
-
If you get your virtual pint, I think I may have to have a few real ones to cope with the outcome.
Winning the Republican nomination is not the end of the race. There might be enough insane registered Republicans to nominate Trump but I am quite confident that there are not enough insane Americans to vote him into the Whitehouse.
In fact, I'd be happier if Trump did get the nomination because I think Rubio might have a chance of beating the Democrats and any of the Republican contenders in the Whitehouse is a disaster for the World.
-
Yes, there is that though it increases the chance of a Bloomberg run and I think that could make the actual election too close to call. I agree that Rubio gives the Republicans a better chance buy i'd rather Trump had no chance.
-
Winning the Republican nomination is not the end of the race. There might be enough insane registered Republicans to nominate Trump but I am quite confident that there are not enough insane Americans to vote him into the Whitehouse.
In fact, I'd be happier if Trump did get the nomination because I think Rubio might have a chance of beating the Democrats and any of the Republican contenders in the Whitehouse is a disaster for the World.
The problem is, it looks as if the Democrats might be making the same mistake as Labour. Bernie Sanders (fine fellow though he undoubtedly is) has used the 'S' word, he has admitted to being a Socialist and in the minds of a great many Americans that is the same as Communist!
He would be unelectable, giving the presidency to whatever freak the Republicans come-up with.
-
The problem is, it looks as if the Democrats might be making the same mistake as Labour. Bernie Sanders (fine fellow though he undoubtedly is) has used the 'S' word, he has admitted to being a Socialist and in the minds of a great many Americans that is the same as Communist!
He would be unelectable, giving the presidency to whatever freak the Republicans come-up with.
I think in Sanders v Trump, Sanders gets in.
-
I think in Sanders v Trump, Sanders gets in.
No, I'd put a virtual pint on that one - I say Sanders would be unelectable against Hitler!
-
No, I'd put a virtual pint on that one - I say Sanders would be unelectable against Hitler!
Maybe, but we are not talking about Hitler.
-
Maybe, but we are not talking about Hitler.
No, but if he were available, I'm sure that the Republicans would be considering him :)
-
One Republican's politician view of the candidates
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PyN3tDmcfvU
-
Looking very much like I will owe jeremyp a virtual pint. Super Tuesday has worked exceptionally well for Drumpf with enough support going to Rubio and Kasich to make it likely that they will continue, and there will be no candidate string enough to emerge as a clear alternative. Cruz isn't an easy character for other Republicans to rally around.
-
The numbers for possible match ups in the Dem V Rep Presidential race continue to look as if both parties will choose the candidate least likely to do well with independents, and in theory least likely to win.
http://tinyurl.com/zvq4yo5
-
Looks like Bloomberg ruling himself out.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/the-2016-election-risk-that-michael-bloomberg-won-t-take
-
The problem of Cruz
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-most-offensive-gop-candidate-cruz-would-be-more-dangerous-oval-office
-
There is talk that because of Trumps ego and his money he may stand as an independent for president if the Republican party do a nasty on him and give the candidacy to some one else.
All things being equal it looks like Clinton and Trump and both have dirt on them which will be good for a very visceral fight and mud slinging. ;D
-
With Bernie Sanders making a good showing in recent primaries, there are the questions over what happens at a nominating congress if 2 or more candidates arrive at the congress tied on primary votes? Are some representatives obliged to vote for their primary winner whilst others aren't, or is it a completely open democratic vote? Not sure that this has ever happened in the past, but surely the parties must have contingency plans should it happen.
-
With Bernie Sanders making a good showing in recent primaries, there are the questions over what happens at a nominating congress if 2 or more candidates arrive at the congress tied on primary votes? Are some representatives obliged to vote for their primary winner whilst others aren't, or is it a completely open democratic vote? Not sure that this has ever happened in the past, but surely the parties must have contingency plans should it happen.
In some way, I quite like Sanders but I don't think he could ever win the Presidency, so it would be better for the world if Clinton was the Democratic candidate.
-
In some way, I quite like Sanders but I don't think he could ever win the Presidency, so it would be better for the world if Clinton was the Democratic candidate.
It would definitely be better for the world if Clinton wins the presidency, it would be horrific, and then some, if Trump won. >:(
-
It would definitely be better for the world if Clinton wins the presidency, it would be horrific, and then some, if Trump won. >:(
Especially seeing as how he apparently doesn't know the difference between 9/11 and 7-11!
-
It looks as if Trump is on-target to get the Republican nomination:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36147183
-
And The Donald makes progress against The Hillary
http://tinyurl.com/hgrma7x
-
Further polls showing that Sanders does be v Trump than Clinton does
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
-
I'm finding it really difficult to believe that Americans are really so stupid as to let Trump win the Presidential Election. That graph chills my stomach. Surely it can't come to pass? What is wrong with them?
-
One thing that's amazed me, just reading around various forums and blogs, is the intense hatred for Clinton, shown by various Dems, independents, and so on, many of them Bernie supporters. It looks as if they will not vote for Hillary if she is the candidate. I suppose it's partly the Clinton brand, the history with Bill, and so on. But still.
-
Bill Maher "Americans are stupid"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMOxj8w0K-c
-
BBC are reporting that Trump has secured the Republican nomination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084
-
It will be an extremely bad day for the planet if Trump becomes President.
-
It will be an extremely bad day for the planet if Trump becomes President.
Agreed but I don't think it'll happen.
-
It will be an extremely bad day for the planet if Trump becomes President.
I'm not sure that it will be as bad as we like to make out. I destest trump, but over the last 50+ years, some of the world's major nations have had some pretty dire leaders elected. The world seems to have survived them.
-
I suppose it's partly the Clinton brand, the history with Bill, and so on. But still.
But also the fact that she is seen as establishment, against which there appears to be a major backlash; and some of the daft things she seems to have said and done over time.
-
BBC are reporting that Trump has secured the Republican nomination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084
From what I have read on the website, they are saying that he has won enough delegates 'to win the nomination'. That is different to winning the nomination. It is still possible for the Republican Party to put up an alternative candidate at the Convention in July. Not sure that this has ever been done, though, but both the Democratic and Republican Parties have clauses in their constitutions allowing them to do so.
-
From what I have read on the website, they are saying that he has won enough delegates 'to win the nomination'. That is different to winning the nomination. It is still possible for the Republican Party to put up an alternative candidate at the Convention in July. Not sure that this has ever been done, though, but both the Democratic and Republican Parties have clauses in their constitutions allowing them to do so.
I honestly don't think it will happen. There's more at stake than just the presidency, there is Congress too.
Imagine what the Trump supporters will do if Trump is not nominated. My bet is they will attempt to punish the Republican Party by not voting for the official nominee and not voting for Republican Congresspeople. If they do that, the Democrats will not only win the presidency but also take control of both Houses.
-
I honestly don't think it will happen. There's more at stake than just the presidency, there is Congress too.
Imagine what the Trump supporters will do if Trump is not nominated. My bet is they will attempt to punish the Republican Party by not voting for the official nominee and not voting for Republican Congresspeople. If they do that, the Democrats will not only win the presidency but also take control of both Houses.
The simple or obvious answer to this is that he will stand as an independent and split the republican vote thereby giving it to Clinton. Or he will threaten this behind closed doors and they will have no choice but to give him the nomination. He is rich and therefore has power.
-
This news, just in - 'Independent candidate to stand'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37012626
-
There's talk (apparently) of forcing Trump to stand down so the GOP can put in a credible candidate. Currently Clinton is leading by 6-9% which, with the electoral college, equates to a landslide.
One of my Facebook friends has even posted a plea to lay off Trump for a bit because he is frightened that the GOP might replace him with a candidate who could win.
It's bloody typical, we put on the craziest vote ever and the Americans just have to top it.
-
There's talk (apparently) of forcing Trump to stand down so the GOP can put in a credible candidate. Currently Clinton is leading by 6-9% which, with the electoral college, equates to a landslide.
One of my Facebook friends has even posted a plea to lay off Trump for a bit because he is frightened that the GOP might replace him with a candidate who could win.
It's bloody typical, we put on the craziest vote ever and the Americans just have to top it.
You want to out do the Americans? Now that's crazy!!!
-
One commentator said that this election will be the greatest show in town and one should get the popcorn out and sit back and enjoy the fireworks. They claimed that never in the history of US elections had the two parties been so aggressive towards each other with even their followers fighting. Both candidates have some form of large lump of shit on them which is going to give each other plenty of ammo, and both have some internal festering fighting going on. Western democracy, don't you just love it!!!
-
Donald Trump has now apparently hinted that gun rights advocates should assassinate Hilary Clinton (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37029170).
What's the betting his campaign implodes before the election?
-
Donald Trump has now apparently hinted that gun rights advocates should assassinate Hilary Clinton (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37029170).
What's the betting his campaign implodes before the election?
But his words were ambiguous, and he denies that he was actually advocating violence - so he has managed to put out a message that both moderate and extreme supporters can accept with enthusiasm - maybe not so stupid as he looks?
-
But his words were ambiguous, and he denies that he was actually advocating violence - so he has managed to put out a message that both moderate and extreme supporters can accept with enthusiasm - maybe not so stupid as he looks?
Really? You think this was actually good for his campaign?
-
Really? You think this was actually good for his campaign?
It's very difficult to judge, we see things from a very different perspective on this side of the Atlantic. Whenever he creates controversy he seems to gain in the polls. I suspect that it won't do him any harm, but it will be interesting to watch.
-
Donald Trump has now apparently hinted that gun rights advocates should assassinate Hilary Clinton (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37029170).
What's the betting his campaign implodes before the election?
I dont think he was being serious - he's not that crazy. He ought not to be able to get away with it, though.
-
Whenever he creates controversy he seems to gain in the polls.
This is manifestly not true. The controversy over the Muslim parents of a dead US soldier damaged him pretty severely.
-
I dont think he was being serious
No, of course he wasn't, but he has supporters that might take him seriously. The problem isn't that he was being serious but that he said it at all. Presidents need to be presidential and not make stupid off the cuff remarks that might accidentally incite violence.
This is just another example of why he is unfit to be president.
-
This is manifestly not true. The controversy over the Muslim parents of a dead US soldier damaged him pretty severely.
Trump has made a great many controversial and downright outrageous remarks throughout his campaign, yet he got nominated and is still very much in the running for the presidency. A particular remark may cause a blip in his ratings, but when you consider all the really stupid things he has said, you have to conclude, that the electorate either:
a/ don't care.
or
b/ assume that it is just rhetoric.
Either way, I wouldn't wright him off yet.
-
No, of course he wasn't, but he has supporters that might take him seriously. The problem isn't that he was being serious but that he said it at all. Presidents need to be presidential and not make stupid off the cuff remarks that might accidentally incite violence.
This is just another example of why he is unfit to be president.
Agreed, although I don't think there are many, if any, people who would take what he said literally. If there were I would think he'd be arrested straight away. It's disrespectful enough to damage his campaign though.
-
No, of course he wasn't, but he has supporters that might take him seriously. The problem isn't that he was being serious but that he said it at all. Presidents need to be presidential and not make stupid off the cuff remarks that might accidentally incite violence.
This is just another example of why he is unfit to be president.
I agree entirely that he is unfit to be president, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen.
-
Trump has made a great many controversial and downright outrageous remarks throughout his campaign, yet he got nominated and is still very much in the running for the presidency.
Your assertion was that whenever he creates controversy he gains in the polls. Well he's still creating controversy (now is part of whenever) and he is not gaining in the polls.
-
Your assertion was that whenever he creates controversy he gains in the polls. Well he's still creating controversy (now is part of whenever) and he is not gaining in the polls.
He makes a controversial remark and that he keeps his name in the headlines - it's the old 'no publicity is bad publicity' thing, a common tactic amongst politicians.
Yes, a remark may have short term negative effects, but it keeps the name of Trump is on everyone lips and long term that is good for him.
-
He makes a controversial remark and that he keeps his name in the headlines - it's the old 'no publicity is bad publicity' thing, a common tactic amongst politicians.
Yes, a remark may have short term negative effects, but it keeps the name of Trump is on everyone lips and long term that is good for him.
He's the Republican candidate for the next US president. He doesn't need controversial remarks like this to keep his name on everyone's lips.
-
He's the Republican candidate for the next US president. He doesn't need controversial remarks like this to keep his name on everyone's lips.
Only time will tell how successful his tactics turn out to be.
We all thought that Americans couldn't possibly be stupid enough to elect Dubya - just look how wrong we were then!
-
I dont think he was being serious - he's not that crazy. He ought not to be able to get away with it, though.
I agree. He is use to being on TV etc. and shocking the audience as a means to entertaining them. As long as there is a good number of people who don't want the usual politicians he is in with a chance.
-
I agree. He is use to being on TV etc. and shocking the audience as a means to entertaining them. As long as there is a good number of people who don't want the usual politicians he is in with a chance.
He says he was not advocating violence but was simply referring to the power that voters held, and that 'there can be no other interpretation'. Unfortunate that people immediately assumed he was calling for his opponent's assassination, such as the chap on LBC yesterday.
-
He says he was not advocating violence but was simply referring to the power that voters held, and that 'there can be no other interpretation'. Unfortunate that people immediately assumed he was calling for his opponent's assassination, such as the chap on LBC yesterday.
All I was saying was what he is use to - a well train dog and all that - I wasn't justifying what he said; which was a stupid thing.
-
I don't think he was trying to shock the audience, just stating that second amendment people could use their vote to prevent Clinton winning the election.
-
I don't think he was trying to shock the audience, just stating that second amendment people could use their vote to prevent Clinton winning the election.
Oh come n. He didn't say anything about voting. It sounded to me like he was in the middle of saying they could shoot Clinton down (but in a flippant way) when he realised what he was saying and so just left the end of the sentence hanging.
-
Oh come n. He didn't say anything about voting. It sounded to me like he was in the middle of saying they could shoot Clinton down (but in a flippant way) when he realised what he was saying and so just left the end of the sentence hanging.
We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this. Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.
-
We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this. Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.
That was the point I was trying to make. He makes a statement that could be interpreted as advocating violence under certain circumstances, then clarifies his position by saying that he was simply pointing out that the gun lobby is a potent political force - so he manages to put out multiple messages that can be picked-up by various groups.
Even his moderate supporters, possibly after a bit of a wobble, will be left thinking along the lines.
Donald Trump, anti-establishment not afraid to speak his mind in defence of American values. (all that misunderstanding about the ‘Second Amendment People’ was probably just drummed up by establishment liberals. Anyway he say he's going to bring American jobs back home)
And I notice that today, if you google 'Donald Trump', the gun speech no longer appears on the first page. It has been superseded by his latest masterpiece.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/
-
We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this. Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.
I'd have thought the exact opposite: that if someone did decide to take a shot at HC (no shortage of guns in the good ol' USA after all) then Trump's comment would come back to haunt him no matter how much he tried to distance himself from such an event.
Sounded to me like a(nother) 'mouth is moving but the brain is disengaged' moment from the Donald.
-
I'd have thought the exact opposite: that if someone did decide to take a shot at HC (no shortage of guns in the good ol' USA after all) then Trump's comment would come back to haunt him no matter how much he tried to distance himself from such an event.
Sounded to me like a(nother) 'mouth is moving but the brain is disengaged' moment from the Donald.
He doesn't actually want someone to assassinate her - that would make her a martyr, the last thing he wants. He just wants to make sure he gets the 'Redneck' vote (and keep his name in the headlines)
-
He doesn't actually want someone to assassinate her - that would make her a martyr, the last thing he wants. He just wants to make sure he gets the 'Redneck' vote (and keep his name in the headlines)
I agree: I don't think he wants that, but my impression was it was an example of a remark that if it was planned then it wasn't a very clever plan, or if it was meant to sound witty then it was poorly delivered or it was a foot in mouth moment.
-
I agree: I don't think he wants that, but my impression was it was an example of a remark that if it was planned then it wasn't a very clever plan, or if it was meant to sound witty then it was poorly delivered or it was a foot in mouth moment.
I think he is just emulating the 'Shock Jocks'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock
-
I think the idea that Trump's speeches are carefully crafted to this level is clearly incorrect - see link. That doesn't mean he's not clever enough while rambling, and the 'threat' to Hillary was similar constructed, to do a bait and switch of almost saying something.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646
-
I think the idea that Trump's speeches are carefully crafted to this level is clearly incorrect - see link. That doesn't mean he's not clever enough while rambling, and the 'threat' to Hillary was similar constructed, to do a bait and switch of almost saying something.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646
I don't think that an electorate that voted in 'Dubya' would be put off by a 'rambling disjointed speech'
-
I don't think that an electorate that voted in 'Dubya' would be put off by a 'rambling disjointed speech'
That's not the point here. The question is whether the ambiguities caused by this type of rambling are somehow cleverly conceived to be that way.
-
I think he is just emulating the 'Shock Jocks'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock
I'd have thought that seeking notoriety as an election strategy is an odd one: it is very easy to achieve of course, as we've seen, but surely the cumulative effects of repeated notorious statements are difficult to predict in the sort-term and could also have long-term repercussions should he be elected when his remarks come back to haunt him (such as we saw when our Boris was doing a recent 'serious' press conference with John Kerry).
My impression is, and I could be wrong, that he really is a political loose cannon (albeit a rich one) who doesn't have the 'thinking on his feet' skills to carry off notoriety as a means of being seen to be clever and witty.
-
That's not the point here. The question is whether the ambiguities caused by this type of rambling are somehow cleverly conceived to be that way.
I think you are correct that that speech did not go as planned, in fact there doesn't appear to have been a plan, but a bit of 'rambling' never did Reagan any harm in fact it helped maintain his 'folksy' image.
-
We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Trump is too clever, that's a good one. Don't forget his speech writers let his wife plagiarise one of Michelle Obama's speeches. They are not the sharpest tools in the box.
-
He doesn't actually want someone to assassinate her - that would make her a martyr, the last thing he wants. He just wants to make sure he gets the 'Redneck' vote (and keep his name in the headlines)
The redneck vote is already his. He needs to get the votes of people who disapprove of killing Democrats.
-
I'd have thought that seeking notoriety as an election strategy is an odd one: it is very easy to achieve of course, as we've seen, but surely the cumulative effects of repeated notorious statements are difficult to predict in the sort-term and could also have long-term repercussions should he be elected when his remarks come back to haunt him (such as we saw when our Boris was doing a recent 'serious' press conference with John Kerry).
If we have gained anything from the recent referendum, it must surely be that some of the underhanded strategies of political campaigning have been laid bare. People start to believe all kinds of outrageous statements and downright lies if they are repeated often enough and that is part of what Trump is doing.
I doubt he even thinks about long term repercussions - why would he?, he'd be president by then.
My impression is, and I could be wrong, that he really is a political loose cannon (albeit a rich one) who doesn't have the 'thinking on his feet' skills to carry off notoriety as a means of being seen to be clever and witty.
My impression is that he would be a very poor president and a very dangerous one, but that doesn't mean that he won't succeed.
-
The redneck vote is already his. He needs to get the votes of people who disapprove of killing Democrats.
That's 'yesterdays news', it doesn't even appear on page 1 of google and people have short memories. What they will remember is that he is 'outspoken'.
And I suspect that very few of his supporters spend much time looking through archive material. If he says something really stupid just before the election that might be a different matter.
-
If we have gained anything from the recent referendum, it must surely be that some of the underhanded strategies of political campaigning have been laid bare. People start to believe all kinds of outrageous statements and downright lies if they are repeated often enough and that is part of what Trump is doing.
I doubt he even thinks about long term repercussions - why would he?, he'd be president by then.
Unlikely
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
-
Unlikely
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I hope very much that that forecast is correct, but 'a week is a long time in politics' and the presidential race has more than twelve weeks to go yet - and I dare say that Hilary will find a few banana skins in her path.
-
Oh come n. He didn't say anything about voting. It sounded to me like he was in the middle of saying they could shoot Clinton down (but in a flippant way) when he realised what he was saying and so just left the end of the sentence hanging.
The context of the remark was what could happen once Clinton was president. This makes it look more like he could have been inciting violence. However, it's not hard to see that it his mind he was still thinking about preventing her becoming president (by not voting for her). He seems the type who would contradict himself by mistake.
-
As soon as he says Second Amendment, people are thinking guns. In fact, you can see people in the audience looking gob-smacked. As NS said, it's classic bait and switch, so he can deny the reference to guns. But it's what kids do - I didn't really say you're a bitch, it just came out funny. Just using such tricks disqualifies you from office, I think.
-
As soon as he says Second Amendment, people are thinking guns. In fact, you can see people in the audience looking gob-smacked. As NS said, it's classic bait and switch, so he can deny the reference to guns. But it's what kids do - I didn't really say you're a bitch, it just came out funny. Just using such tricks disqualifies you from office, I think.
Maybe it should disqualify him but unfortunately it doesn't and there is still plenty of time for the election to swing his way.
We live in scary times.
-
I disagree with him on the gun issue, but I don't doubt he can be honest, and that he was in this case. Clinton supporters would, of course, assume he was dishonest.
-
I disagree with him on the gun issue, but I don't doubt he can be honest, and that he was in this case. Clinton supporters would, of course, assume he was dishonest.
What do you think he said honestly?
-
Oh come n. He didn't say anything about voting. It sounded to me like he was in the middle of saying they could shoot Clinton down (but in a flippant way) when he realised what he was saying and so just left the end of the sentence hanging.
What you can read peoples' minds now!!! What justification do you have for that?
-
We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this. Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.
Are you saying everything he says is on autocue? He sounds to me to be ad-libbing it.
-
That's not the point here. The question is whether the ambiguities caused by this type of rambling are somehow cleverly conceived to be that way.
I don't think it is ramblings or autocue, but prepared venom.
-
What you can read peoples' minds now!!! What justification do you have for that?
I said "it sounded to me like..." It's pretty obvious from that that this was my opinion based on the words that I heard him say. No further justification needed.
Have you found out what "justification" means yet?
-
Maybe it should disqualify him but unfortunately it doesn't and there is still plenty of time for the election to swing his way.
We live in scary times.
His party are trying to ditch him, so perhaps...
-
His party are trying to ditch him, so perhaps...
Yes I heard that too. And some of my American acquaintances are pretty nervous about the possibility. They think the GOP might replace him with somebody who can beat Hillary. Of course, were he to continue as an independent, it would split the vote. If he didn't continue there might be enough Trump supporters who would refuse to vote for anybody else to give the election to Hillary even without a split vote.
-
I said "it sounded to me like..." It's pretty obvious from that that this was my opinion based on the words that I heard him say. No further justification needed.
Yes, but why? That still needs a justification for it, unless you are saying your viewpoints aren't worth diddly squat.
-
Yes I heard that too. And some of my American acquaintances are pretty nervous about the possibility. They think the GOP might replace him with somebody who can beat Hillary. Of course, were he to continue as an independent, it would split the vote. If he didn't continue there might be enough Trump supporters who would refuse to vote for anybody else to give the election to Hillary even without a split vote.
Firstly, I believe there is a Green candidacy standing in the Presidential elections, so I can't see why say McCain supporters don't go for her, thereby mixing things up in the probability stakes. And secondly I believe it is too late to get your name on the ballot paper so Trump couldn't stand as an independent.
-
His party are trying to ditch him, so perhaps...
It's a bit late for that now, they have nominated him.
-
What do you think he said honestly?
That, "The Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they are so united,” which he told a CBS affiliate in North Carolina late on Tuesday.
-
There was also the fact that he didn't pause after the "...I don't know". He usually pauses after saying something he knows will shock people.
-
Yes, but why? That still needs a justification for it, unless you are saying your viewpoints aren't worth diddly squat.
The justification is the words he said. Listen to them.
-
secondly I believe it is too late to get your name on the ballot paper so Trump couldn't stand as an independent.
Not quite. They still have about a week to get on enough state ballots to have a chance.
https://ballotpedia.org/Important_dates_in_the_2016_presidential_race
-
That, "The Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they are so united,” which he told a CBS affiliate in North Carolina late on Tuesday.
What else?
Actually, I'll save you time:
And by the way, if she gets to pick - if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.
-
But that statement is totally ambiguous. It could mean:
Gunmen will be encouraged to assassinate her
or
There will be armed insurrection
or simply
They will organise democratic protest
You hear what you want to hear.
-
But that statement is totally ambiguous. It could mean:
Gunmen will be encouraged to assassinate her
or
There will be armed insurrection
or simply
They will organise democratic protest
You hear what you want to hear.
If it was just going to end in "democratic protest" why would you refer to people with guns?
-
If it was just going to end in "democratic protest" why would you refer to people with guns?
Because they are a well organised group and to be fair, they have used democratic means in the past to make their case.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-NRA-so-effective-at-lobbying
-
It's a bit late for that now, they have nominated him.
You think politics is a game that plays fair? :o
-
That, "The Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they are so united,” which he told a CBS affiliate in North Carolina late on Tuesday.
One guy on Dateline claims that the NRA have paid for many of Trumps ad commercials, which would explain his comments.
-
Because they are a well organised group and to be fair, they have used democratic means in the past to make their case.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-NRA-so-effective-at-lobbying
Someone on Dateline was implying that his comments here were in reference to Clinton being in power, plus the democrats being in control of the Senate and HoR, and then from there she bringing in her judges, all leading to gun rights being watered down.......and then what happens next is...
-
Listening to Lionel Shriver, novelist, being interviewed on the BBC she mentioned that if Trump was concocted as a fictitious character the readers wouldn't buy it. He wouldn't be accepted as plausible. That's how crazy the situation is!!!
-
...and then what happens next is...
... that fewer American citizens die at the hands (or firearms) of foeelow American citizens. However, I doubt whether Clinton would change any of the gun laws. The NRA have too many Congressmen and women, not to mention Senators (regardless of party in both cases), in their thrall.
-
Because they are a well organised group and to be fair, they have used democratic means in the past to make their case.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-NRA-so-effective-at-lobbying
Well why be coy about it then?
-
Because they are a well organised group and to be fair, they have used democratic means in the past to make their case.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-NRA-so-effective-at-lobbying
Not sure that handing out money to pay campaign costs, etc. is necessarily the best example of 'democratic means', LA.
-
... that fewer American citizens die at the hands (or firearms) of foeelow American citizens. However, I doubt whether Clinton would change any of the gun laws. The NRA have too many Congressmen and women, not to mention Senators (regardless of party in both cases), in their thrall.
That last bit was meant to indicate what Trump had 'implied', the assignation of Clinton.
-
Hillary Clinton now at 89.2% chance of winning.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
We are probably past the point where the Republicans can replace their candidate without incurring election losing penalties, at least not without court action.
-
Not sure that handing out money to pay campaign costs, etc. is necessarily the best example of 'democratic means', LA.
It's the American way Hope.
-
Hillary Clinton now at 89.2% chance of winning.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
We are probably past the point where the Republicans can replace their candidate without incurring election losing penalties, at least not without court action.
I very much hope you are right but betting odds are not the same as probability and there is still plenty of time for unexpected events.
-
I very much hope you are right but betting odds are not the same as probability and there is still plenty of time for unexpected events.
Check the site. These are not betting odds, they are probabilities arrived at by simulating the election 20,000 times using the latest polling and other data. In fact, it's Nate Silver's site.
-
Hilary down to a 67.8% chance of winning.
This is beginning to get worrying.
-
Hilary down to a 67.8% chance of winning.
This is beginning to get worrying.
What did I say about unexpected events? :)
-
What did I say about unexpected events? :)
I don't think Hilary's health will last the coarse. Every little cough and splut will be scrutinised now. With the riggers of being President, assuming she wins, she is bound to 'fall' at some point.
-
I don't think Hilary's health will last the coarse. Every little cough and splut will be scrutinised now. With the riggers of being President, assuming she wins, she is bound to 'fall' at some point.
She had a bout of pneumonia, that's all. I have a friend who caught pneumonia in college. She's still perfectly fit 30 years later.
-
She had a bout of pneumonia, that's all. I have a friend who caught pneumonia in college. She's still perfectly fit 30 years later.
There's no guarantees in life and she is 69 years old.
-
There's no guarantees in life and she is 69 years old.
the first is an irrelevant truism, the second is factually wrong by a year. The whole sentence seems a tad vacuous - what's your point, caller?
-
There's no guarantees in life and she is 69 years old.
Donald Trump is 70.
-
Pneumonia is a very serious condition, particularly in the elderly, and I am only too aware of that through recent events in my family. To think of my particular family member in question beginning a job as physically, and mentally, demanding as the US President is a non-starter: he is 71, by the way.
-
I think being President, especially these days, is a job for someone in their 40s or early 50s. Whilst Clinton is a million times more preferable than Trump, she is still over the hill, imo.
-
the first is an irrelevant truism, the second is factually wrong by a year. The whole sentence seems a tad vacuous
OK, she's 68, but in my defence she looks 69, probably because she is ill. ;D
It is only vacuous to those who are vacuous!!!
-
OK, she's 68, but in my defence she looks 69. ;D
It is only vacuous to those who are vacuous!!!
was that in the other fortune cookie?
-
Donald Trump is 70.
I know but we were talking about Hilary and whereas he's pretty fit for his age she's coughing and spluttering and near death's door. Her vice President is the grim Reaper!
-
I know but we were talking about Hilary and whereas he's pretty fit for his age she's coughing and spluttering and near death's door. Her vice President is the grim Reaper!
and where did you get your M.D.?
-
was that in the other fortune cookie?
Only from the fortune cookies you're working from.
-
and where did you get your M.D.?
You should buy better quality fortune cookies, not those cheap ones you're using at the moment, because that's just awful.
-
You should buy better quality fortune cookies, not those cheap ones you're using at the moment, because that's just awful.
What is? That you are making medical diagnoses and have no expertise? Not exactly a fortune cookie, just a simple fact
.
-
I know but we were talking about Hilary and whereas he's pretty fit for his age she's coughing and spluttering and near death's door. Her vice President is the grim Reaper!
She's not near death's door and frankly, Trump doesn't look too fit to me. He's practically brain dead as it is.
-
What is? That you are making medical diagnoses and have no expertise? Not exactly a fortune cookie, just a simple fact
.
I think it is Trump's doctor who does his medical, not me.
-
I think it is Trump's doctor who does his medical, not me.
And yet you think Hillary's doctor is wrong to the extent that you claim expertise on that but accept Trump's doctor. To judge that yph would needs a medical qualification which you admit you do not have. Do you want to try and get to a logical position!
-
She's not near death's door and frankly, Trump doesn't look too fit to me. He's practically brain dead as it is.
Well, getting into that car she looked like she was due for her next shot of virgin's blood!!! ;D
-
And yet you think Hillary's doctor is wrong to the extent that you claim expertise on that but accept Trump's doctor. To judge that yph would needs a medical qualification which you admit you do not have. Do you want to try and get to a logical position!
She had a fainting fit some years ago, and it is not only me who is flagging up her health problems, many commentators in the US are asking questions about this.
-
She had a fainting fit some years ago, and it is not only me who is flagging up her health problems, many commentators in the US are asking questions about this.
and they all have M.D.s? You have accepted Trump's doctor because they are a doctor, but want to ignore Hillary's doctor because of some commentators and a an alleged fainting fit which without any medical qualification you have connected to this. Which effectively justifies Floo's idea that Trump is mad because she thinks that.
-
and they all have M.D.s? You have accepted Trump's doctor because they are a doctor, but want to ignore Hillary's doctor because of some commentators and a an alleged fainting fit which without any medical qualification you have connected to this. Which effectively justifies Floo's idea that Trump is mad because she thinks that.
You do play this stupid black and white game. There is a middle area where reasonable speculation can take place. If that is too hard for you then I suggest you just eat your fortune cookies and leave it at that.
-
You do play this stupid black and white game. There is a middle area where reasonable speculation can take place. If that is too hard for you then I suggest you just eat your fortune cookies and leave it at that.
except you are the one claiming expertise here. You can speculate, you didn't. Tell me about your knowledge of the fainting for. Tell me about why you claim knowledge about Hillary and Trump's doctor expertise.
-
except you are the one claiming expertise here. You can speculate, you didn't. Tell me about your knowledge of the fainting for. Tell me about why you claim knowledge about Hillary and Trump's doctor expertise.
Do you actually follow the news? The doctors have been in the media replying to the clamours for these details.
-
Do you actually follow the news? The doctors have been in the media replying to the clamours for these details.
'the doctors'? That doesn't even make sense in Englush. You think think Trump's doctor is right, and yet challenge Hillary's. Get back to me when ypy stop being a hypocrite.
-
'the doctors'? That doesn't even make sense in Englush. You think think Trump's doctor is right, and yet challenge Hillary's. Get back to me when ypy stop being a hypocrite.
Still playing your black and white games, I see! There's the issue of past condition and hence doubts - i.e. non black and white thinking.
-
Well, getting into that car she looked like she was due for her next shot of virgin's blood!!! ;D
She was ill. Have you never been ill?
-
and they all have M.D.s? You have accepted Trump's doctor because they are a doctor
Wrong, Jack Knave accepts Trump's doctor because Trump's doctor does not contradict Jack Knave. He is quite happy to accept the opinions of experts as long as they confirm his bias.
-
Still playing your black and white games, I see! There's the issue of past condition and hence doubts - i.e. non black and white thinking.
or as it is normally called inconsistent logic
-
She was ill. Have you never been ill?
Watching her lurch into the car looked like someone being helped home after a night at the Pig and Whistle.
-
Watching her lurch into the car looked like someone being helped home after a night at the Pig and Whistle.
So? I still can't see why this puts her general health into question.
-
So? I still can't see why this puts her general health into question.
When a woman in her late sixties is falling about in public, she's either drunk, or ill. And if she's ill, then it is a serious matter as a Presidential candidate.
-
When a woman in her late sixties is falling about in public, she's either drunk, or ill. And if she's ill, then it is a serious matter as a Presidential candidate.
I think your misogyny is showing.
She had pneumonia. Lots of people get pneumonia and fully recover.
-
I think your misogyny is showing.
She had pneumonia. Lots of people get pneumonia and fully recover.
I love women, even Theresa May. However, pneumonia is serious, and especially in older people. And if it is/was pneumonia, I find it hard to believe she was up and about in a couple of hours or so, and is allegedly completely fit now.
-
I love women, even Theresa May. However, pneumonia is serious, and especially in older people. And if it is/was pneumonia, I find it hard to believe she was up and about in a couple of hours or so, and is allegedly completely fit now.
when did you get your medical degree?
-
when did you get your medical degree?
Same place as you and Jeremy. It seems common sense (remember that?) that an elderly woman falling, literally, ill in public is a serious medical matter; and especially so for someone in a highly pressured situation as she is in. You seem remarkably unsympathetic to the possible medical repercussions to an elderly person. I have first-hand experience of this, and doctors take such situations extremely seriously. Whatever her actual condition is, it does not bode well for the future, when she faces one of the most demanding jobs in the world, if she is not 100% fit.
-
Same place as you and Jeremy. It seems common sense (remember that?) that an elderly woman falling, literally, ill in public is a serious medical matter; and especially so for someone in a highly pressured situation as she is in. You seem remarkably unsympathetic to the possible medical repercussions to an elderly person. I have first-hand experience of this, and doctors take such situations extremely seriously. Whatever her actual condition is, it does not bode well for the future, when she faces one of the most demanding jobs in the world, if she is not 100% fit.
. Her doctor says she is fit. So you think she is lying?
-
. Her doctor says she is fit. So you think she is lying?
In the US anything is possible. I note that Trump's doctor's medical assessment has been subject to some doubt; so why not Clinton's?
-
In the US anything is possible. I note that Trump's doctor's medical assessment has been subject to some doubt; so why not Clinton's?
so you are backing your 'common sense' of something you have seen on video against the statement of the doctor who has examined Hillary Clinton.
-
so you are backing your 'common sense' of something you have seen on video against the statement of the doctor who has examined
Hillary Clinton.
In all honesty, I couldn't give a tinkers about Clinton as such, or Trump. I just maintain that if there is any doubt whatsoever about her health, at her age, it is a serious situation, not just for the US, but for the world.
-
It would be if she had a degenerative brain disease I suppose but I don't think having pneumonia or similar infection is a cause for concern. For goodness sake, everyone has illness at some time or another but we aren't all in the public eye or charging about all over the country which is bound to lower the immune system. So we recover in private and nobody thinks anything of it.
As has been previously stated, JFK and FDR had chronic debilitating health conditions which didn't stop them doing their job. As for her age, she is 68 and Trump is 70. They are both in pretty good nick for their ages.
-
It would be if she had a degenerative brain disease I suppose but I don't think having pneumonia or similar infection is a cause for concern. For goodness sake, everyone has illness at some time or another but we aren't all in the public eye or charging about all over the country which is bound to lower the immune system. So we recover in private and nobody thinks anything of it.
As has been previously stated, JFK and FDR had chronic debilitating health conditions which didn't stop them doing their job. As for her age, she is 68 and Trump is 70. They are both in pretty good nick for their ages.
I'm of a similar age, and was a sportsman all my life, continuing my running into my late fifties. Then my health more or less collapsed. And that is a common scenario. What if Trump or Clinton follow that path? It is a risk with either of them.. If Clinton, for example, is elected, to assume she will spend the next four years without illness is very hopeful, and it then becomes a matter of how serious any illness might be.
-
Yes but you have to remember that Trump was too ill to serve in the army. He had a sore toe. Oh diddums. The man is a hypocrite and a coward.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/how-donald-trump-avoided-the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/
-
People have to take risks BA, not one of us can tell how our health will be in the future. I wouldn't discount either (or Bernie), on account of age or possible future bad health.
Trent, I didn't know Trump was a Vietnam draft dodger. Good for him!!!! He was damned lucky to have a bone spur problem in his foot, at least he's still alive unlike so many who perished out there fighting a war that couldn't be won.
(He shouldn't crow about other people though.)
-
Yes but you have to remember that Trump was too ill to serve in the army. He had a sore toe. Oh diddums. The man is a hypocrite and a coward.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/how-donald-trump-avoided-the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/
I had a sore toe a week or two ago. Very debilitating.. Surprising how one toe can affect you. I fear I shall not be running for Parliament or anything, in case it recurs!
-
Snap BA. Mine turned out to be an ingrowing toenail, unusual in a middle toe. A podiatrist put it right for me last week but it was painful while it lasted. I certainly couldn't have run about in jungles shooting people. Can now of course ;D, where's me rifle?
-
Snap BA. Mine turned out to be an ingrowing toenail, unusual in a middle toe. A podiatrist put it right for me last week but it was painful while it lasted. I certainly couldn't have run about in jungles shooting people. Can now of course ;D, where's me rifle?
Funny how much apparently useless toes can cause so much bother. I was cutting my nails and slipped and cut into my fourth toe. It still isn't right; I keep aggravating it walking.
Hope yours is okay now. I once had an in-grown one, and I remember how painful that was.
-
Even sweetie companies think Trump is a dick
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/skittles-donald-trump-jr-tweet-skittles-are-candy-refugees-are-n651051?cid=sm_fb
-
.... that an elderly woman ...
Don't be so fucking patronising.
Who are you to sneer about anyone's age? 68 is not old. If it is, what does that make the 70 year old porcine throwback she opposes?
-
Don't be so fucking patronising.
Who are you to sneer about anyone's age? 68 is not old. If it is, what does that make the 70 year old porcine throwback she opposes?
By what devious logic do you believe I was sneering? She isn't exactly a spring chicken! And no need for the foul language: It adds nothing to your already lame post.
-
Your standard response to anything you disagree with is to patronise. Your favourite put-down is "naive" - you never explain why a response deserves this criticism, it is merely a way of putting yourself into a superior position. You are doing it again ... "devious logic". It is sneering.
You are seldom interested in using rational argument, you merely find a way of dismissing your ... err ... discussant.
To consider age as a disqualification is insidious. Both candidates in this election are of similar ages. I wonder what Donald Trump's reaction would have been to a sudden bout of pneumonia? More to the point, what would your reaction have been?
-
Your standard response to anything you disagree with is to patronise. Your favourite put-down is "naive" - you never explain why a response deserves this criticism, it is merely a way of putting yourself into a superior position. You are doing it again ... "devious logic". It is sneering.
You are seldom interested in using rational argument, you merely find a way of dismissing your ... err ... discussant.
To consider age as a disqualification is insidious. Both candidates in this election are of similar ages. I wonder what Donald Trump's reaction would have been to a sudden bout of pneumonia? More to the point, what would your reaction have been?
If I ever sneer it's because the point in question is deserving of it. As to sneering at you: well, use civilised speak and maybe I won't. And then, as to being superior: no offence, but, judging by your last, sad, post, I am. But then, you see, if I have a fault, and I haven't, it's modesty!
-
Good reply to Trump on skittles
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs2Ryb7VMAAO2KT.jpg
-
If I ever sneer it's because the point in question is deserving of it.
Actually, on this forum you normally sneer when you can't answer a point.
-
Good reply to Trump on skittles
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs2Ryb7VMAAO2KT.jpg
I'm stealing that.
-
Actually, on this forum you normally sneer when you can't answer a point.
I sneer when it's appropriate, as many on here do at some time, and that includes you . The difference is I manage to keep my cool, whereas some also resort to foul language.
-
Loving this from Randy Rainbow
https://www.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ldfF6chin5s
-
This is Stephen Colbert's take
https://www.youtube.com/#/watch?v=6YuI5T-gGlM
-
Not convinced this guy has worked as hard on the jokes
https://www.ft.com/content/804537f6-83d2-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5
-
Newspaper has never supported a Democrat for president comes out in favour of Clinton
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/
-
New Trump slogan: 'Seriously, ladies, many of you could lose a few pounds'.
-
I wonder if this is the killer blow for Trump - reports that he lost nearly a billion dollars in the nineties, and was able to 'spread' this over the next 20 years, so that he hasn't paid federal taxes since 1995. This is perfectly legal, but it may not go down well with people who just pay their taxes, since they have no choice.
Trump as welfare queen. Quite a slogan.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/trumps-no-good-very-bad-week-economic-genius-revealed-as-tax-scammer-who-lost-916-million-in-a-boom-market/
-
But that just makes him a genius, wigginhall, according to Giuliani
-
I think Giuliani had the stonking line, 'would you rather have a financial genius as president or a woman?'. Well, if you put it like that.
-
Indeed and here we are with it.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/giuliani-trump-better-president-than-a-woman
-
I suppose the reply is that many of Trump's supporters don't care if he didn't pay taxes, or in fact, admire him. Also, they don't care if he fat-shames ex-beauty queens, and so on. But this seems to leave Trump on about 45%, and stuck there. The women's vote looks gone now; where else does he get support, unless Clinton falls over or something?
-
I suppose the reply is that many of Trump's supporters don't care if he didn't pay taxes, or in fact, admire him. Also, they don't care if he fat-shames ex-beauty queens, and so on. But this seems to leave Trump on about 45%, and stuck there. The women's vote looks gone now; where else does he get support, unless Clinton falls over or something?
cognitive dissonance is your friend even it it beats you up
-
I think Giuliani had the stonking line, 'would you rather have a financial genius as president or a woman?'. Well, if you put it like that.
Hard to call yourself a financial genius when you lost $916 million in one year.
-
Clinton is back up to a 68.1% chance of winning (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo).
Another debate and a few more tax revelations should be all we need to be able to sleep safe in our beds.
-
Clinton now running at a 76.2% (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo) chance of winning. It seems that the debates and Trump's latest tax fiasco have been quite destructive. I dare to hope.
-
TRUMPING IS GOOD FOR YOU!
(but not for anybody near you)
-
Clinton now running at 82.2% (http://"http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo") chance of winning. The debate did her no harm at all (she was at over 80% just before the debate). So we can say she won it.
-
Clinton now running at 82.2% (http://"http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo") chance of winning. The debate did her no harm at all (she was at over 80% just before the debate). So we can say she won it.
It's not over until the fat lady sings!!!
-
It's not over until the fat lady sings!!!
You're not actually pro Trump are you?
-
You're not actually pro Trump are you?
All I'm saying is that there have been so many strange twist and turns in this US election we mustn't count our votes before they have been cast.
-
You're not actually pro Trump are you?
Probably, after all Trump is the love child of Nigel Farage & Marine Le Pen - and don't tell me, I know the timeline doesn't make sense but I've just been watching The Time Travellers Wife.
-
All I'm saying is that there have been so many strange twist and turns in this US election we mustn't count our votes before they have been cast.
That is true. However, it's really hard to see Trump improving his level of support at the moment.
-
That is true. However, it's really hard to see Trump improving his level of support at the moment.
May be the problem will be with Hillary? I.e. not that Trump will rise but that she will slip down on some issue.
-
May be the problem will be with Hillary? I.e. not that Trump will rise but that she will slip down on some issue.
It's possible, but I think it would have to be really bad for her to lose to the Donald now. There are too many people who are shit scared of him getting into power. It would have to be as bad as the tape of him claiming that he sexually assaults women and uses his stardom to get away with it.
-
Clinton at 86% now, on 538. I don't see how Trump can come back now, unless there is some catastrophe for Clinton. As he gets wilder, his vote seems to be shrinking. And details come back to haunt him, for example, he is still saying that the Central Park Five are guilty, despite DNA evidence. Of course, they are black/Hispanic, therefore guilty.
And saying that he would jail Clinton is like a big dark cloud over him, since that is not the President's decision. Of course, it pleases some of his base.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37614095
-
And of course Farage spoke up for him after the debate, underlining his standards. The whole silverback gorilla comment was dubious and and an insult to silverbacks.
-
It's white privilege, isn't it?
-
Brilliant speech from Michelle Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e3QKKOp50&feature=share
-
New York Times' lawyers reply to Trump's lawyers
http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-timess-response-to-donald-trumps-retraction-letter/
-
It's possible, but I think it would have to be really bad for her to lose to the Donald now. There are too many people who are shit scared of him getting into power. It would have to be as bad as the tape of him claiming that he sexually assaults women and uses his stardom to get away with it.
Two other issues here are turnout (or lack of for Hillary) and shy Trumpers, skewing the poles.
She has also been up against the FBI about her email/server thing and on caution of perjury.
-
Two other issues here are turnout (or lack of for Hillary) and shy Trumpers, skewing the poles.
She has also been up against the FBI about her email/server thing and on caution of perjury.
what would you vote?
-
what would you vote?
Either I would not bother or I'd vote for one of the others - the independents.
-
Either I would not bother or I'd vote for one of the others - the independents.
so neither Johnson or Stein as they aren't independent?
-
Either I would not bother or I'd vote for one of the others - the independents.
and I take it that you think Nigel Farage is wrong in his defence of Trump speaking in favour of sexual assault?
-
so neither Johnson or Stein as they aren't independent?
They are independent of the two big players. My point being the other choices.
-
and I take it that you think Nigel Farage is wrong in his defence of Trump speaking in favour of sexual assault?
The only speech I've seen Farage give in Trump's quarter was the initial one. Farage doesn't care for Trump's position all he sees is the peoples' revolt against politics as usual; the Neo-Liberal one that has trashed our world. The one that the EU follows, for the elites, the 1%ers and so on.
-
The only speech I've seen Farage give in Trump's quarter was the initial one. Farage doesn't care for Trump's position all he sees is the peoples' revolt against politics as usual; the Neo-Liberal one that has trashed our world. The one that the EU follows, for the elites, the 1%ers and so on.
So you missed his he;s like a big silver back gorilla following on from Trump's support for sexual assault
-
So you missed his he;s like a big silver back gorilla following on from Trump's support for sexual assault
Yeah. I'm not really too bothered. Farage is doing it for reasons I have said - he hates the world that Hillary occupies.
-
Yeah. I'm not really too bothered. Farage is doing it for reasons I have said - he hates the world that Hillary occupies.
not really too bothered about supporting sexual assault, good for you!
-
Yeah. I'm not really too bothered. Farage is doing it for reasons I have said - he hates the world that Hillary occupies.
No he doesn't. He's from exactly the same big business world, you poor deluded sap. He may express himself differently - but they are cut from the same cloth. You are foolish if you have fallen for the man of the people act.
Give me a fag and a pint down the pub and I can do exactly the same act.
-
No he doesn't. He's from exactly the same big business world, you poor deluded sap. He may express himself differently - but they are cut from the same cloth. You are foolish if you have fallen for the man of the people act.
Give me a fag and a pint down the pub and I can do exactly the same act.
But you won't be a hedge fund worker, neo liberal, expenses claiming, 350 million pound lying, sexual assault supporter
-
But you won't be a hedge fund worker, neo liberal, expenses claiming, 350 million pound lying, sexual assault supporter
No - more's the pity in these post-Brexit straitened times. (excluding the last bit of course)
-
A week (or so) is a long time in politics.
After the last TV debate, Nigel Farage (ugh!) described Trump as "an alpha male". I heard on Friday that Farage wanted nothing more to do with the nasty man.
-
A week (or so) is a long time in politics.
After the last TV debate, Nigel Farage (ugh!) described Trump as "an alpha male". I heard on Friday that Farage wanted nothing more to do with the nasty man.
He would only be following the Republican leadership's example.
It's amazing that they have only just discovered what he is really like.
-
not really too bothered about supporting sexual assault, good for you!
That's not what I said. And anyway there is a bigger picture here as I explained. And because of this it is the thing of my enemy's enemy is my 'friend'. Politics is dirty!
-
That's not what I said. And anyway there is a bigger picture here as I explained. And because of this it is the thing of my enemy's enemy is my 'friend'. Politics is dirty!
His comments supported sexual assault and you aren't too bothered about.
-
No he doesn't. He's from exactly the same big business world, you poor deluded sap. He may express himself differently - but they are cut from the same cloth. You are foolish if you have fallen for the man of the people act.
Give me a fag and a pint down the pub and I can do exactly the same act.
Nah! You need to do your homework, mate.
-
But you won't be a hedge fund worker, neo liberal, expenses claiming, 350 million pound lying, sexual assault supporter
Who's that, NS?
-
His comments supported sexual assault and you aren't too bothered about.
What comments?
-
Who's that, NS?
That would be your saint Nige
-
What comments?
The taped comments of Trump, you know, the stuff we were discussing.
-
That would be your saint Nige
He never was a hedge fund manager for starters.
-
The taped comments of Trump, you know, the stuff we were discussing.
What about them?
-
He never was a hedge fund manager for starters.
agree he was a metals trader. Huge difference in terms of the commitment to big business ;)
-
What about them?
they support sexual assault.
-
agree he was a metals trader. Huge difference in terms of the commitment to big business ;)
Trading in the real stuff is different to gambling in the shadow banking world or using people as near slaves.
-
they support sexual assault.
Who's they?
-
Trading in the real stuff is different to gambling in the shadow banking world or using people as near slaves.
Metal trading isn't real stuff, it's primarlily a derivatives market.
-
Who's they?
Trump's statements in the recording support sexual assault, you think this is no big deal.
-
Trump's statements in the recording support sexual assault, you think this is no big deal.
I thought we were talking about Farage?
-
Metal trading isn't real stuff, it's primarlily a derivatives market.
So who deals with the real stuff then, as in trading it and selling it and so on?
-
I feel sorry for the American people. I couldn't in good conscience vote for either candidate. For the life of me though, I don't understand how Clinton is considered any better than Trump. Clinton is a compulsive liar and at least as hawkish as any previous American president. Clinton would mean more war, more terrorism and more refugee crisis. In fact I think I want Trump to win if only because it would throw a major spanner in the works of the current system.
-
I thought we were talking about Farage?
and what happened arising from Trump's remarks supporting sexual assault. Something you were not too bothered about.
-
So who deals with the real stuff then, as in trading it and selling it and so on?
It's worth reading the link below. The contracts are futures contracts which can result in actual transfer but the trading of this amounts to multiple times the amount of metals traded in total across the world never mind on the LME. These are derivatives.
https://lme.com/trading/
-
It's worth reading the link below. The contracts are futures contracts which can result in actual transfer but the trading of this amounts to multiple times the amount of metals traded in total across the world never mind on the LME. These are derivatives.
https://lme.com/trading/
Sounfs like a con, if you ask me.
-
Sounfs like a con, if you ask me.
It's certainly big financial business
-
I think we're splitting hairs a bit here. Farage was a commodities dealer: he made a lot of money out of it. Whether he was selling real metal to real people or betting on price fluctuations (most metals deals are more the latter than the former), he is part of the elite that everybody was supposed to be voting against in Brexit and will be voting against in the US General Election.
To make matters worse, he also takes money from the EU as an MEP - an organisation to which he is opposed. He and Donald Trump make a good pairing.
-
I feel sorry for the American people. I couldn't in good conscience vote for either candidate. For the life of me though, I don't understand how Clinton is considered any better than Trump. Clinton is a compulsive liar and at least as hawkish as any previous American president. Clinton would mean more war, more terrorism and more refugee crisis. In fact I think I want Trump to win if only because it would throw a major spanner in the works of the current system.
I agree. And that is what I think Farage is trying to do. Mess up these elites fuckers.
-
and what happened arising from Trump's remarks supporting sexual assault. Something you were not too bothered about.
I think I said that there was a bigger picture involved. But this was just a general comment about Trump. I think someone said Farage has now dropped trump.
-
It's worth reading the link below. The contracts are futures contracts which can result in actual transfer but the trading of this amounts to multiple times the amount of metals traded in total across the world never mind on the LME. These are derivatives.
https://lme.com/trading/
I know this stuff. What I don't know is what Farage actually did. But if he is as bad as you make out then he wouldn't haven't dropped such a lucrative career to run a backwater movement party that most people ridiculed for years, working his balls off 24/7 and losing his private life, and which achieved pretty much nothing until recently.
-
I know this stuff. What I don't know is what Farage actually did. But if he is as bad as you make out then he wouldn't haven't dropped such a lucrative career to run a backwater movement party that most people ridiculed for years, working his balls off 24/7 and losing his private life, and which achieved pretty much nothing until recently.
then why misrepresent what he was doing as not being the sort of financial instrument trading that you seem to despise? As to working hard, isn't that true of many politicians but they are 'elite', he is hard working. It's your double standards I am taking issue with.
-
What I don't know is what Farage actually did.
He traded in commodities. He brokered deals in metals specifically
But if he is as bad as you make out
Nobody is making him out as bad for that. What they are doing is pointing out that it makes him part of the elite that Brexit voters were allegedly protesting against.
then he wouldn't haven't dropped such a lucrative career to run a backwater movement party that most people ridiculed for years, working his balls off 24/7 and losing his private life, and which achieved pretty much nothing until recently.
He's done very nicely for himself as an MEP. His salary is looking even better right now, what with him helping to stitch up Sterling.
-
One of our posters put this up on another forum and I thought others might find it interesting, especially Christians - I told him I would copy it. Apologies if it has already been posted here, I've only just logged on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/04/christians-can-vote-for-trump-but-they-cant-do-it-in-the-name-of-christianity/?utm_term=.78986b21098b
-
A lot of Republicans seem to be right-wing very unpleasant Christians. One could do without one of them as president, just as one wouldn't want Trump to hold that office! :o :o
-
The thing that it underlines, as do the comments, is the visceral impact of the subject of abortion in the U S. I don't see opposition to abortion as indicative of being very unpleasant.
It also underlines the difficulty of dealing in moral absolutes in a world where you are forced to make relativist decisions. The writer is correct that pro life is a wider position than a single issue, but I don't understand how an absolutist balances a situation where there is no absolutely satisfactory outcome, and how when they do, they can still remain an absolutist.
-
The thing that it underlines, as do the comments, is the visceral impact of the subject of abortion in the U S. I don't see opposition to abortion as indicative of being very unpleasant.
It also underlines the difficulty of dealing in moral absolutes in a world where you are forced to make relativist decisions. The writer is correct that pro life is a wider position than a single issue, but I don't understand how an absolutist balances a situation where there is no absolutely satisfactory outcome, and how when they do, they can still remain an absolutist.
I think a woman should have an absolute right to abort a pregnancy in the early stages, for whatever reason. To make abortion illegal as pro-lifers would seek to do is very unpleasant!
-
I think a woman should have an absolute right to abort a pregnancy in the early stages, for whatever reason. To make abortion illegal as pro-lifers would seek to do is very unpleasant!
Whilst not wishing to start a discussion on abortion again (!) I have to just say that you do see things in a very cut and dried manner.
Now while I can agree that the right to an abortion lies mainly with the woman - I can't help feeling that your attitude relegates men to a 'no choice but to agree' position. And I do not think that is helpful or fair.
Women (rightly in some cases) complain that men do not take responsibility for their actions and yet here you are removing any responsibility in this area for any actions. It just isn't as simple an issue as that.
That goes both for the strongly pro-abortion stance that you appear to hold - and the equally strong stance that anti-abortionists hold.
Abortion is a serious issue and to remove all shades of gray from the discussion is not helpful or sensible imo.
-
I think a woman should have an absolute right to abort a pregnancy in the early stages, for whatever reason. To make abortion illegal as pro-lifers would seek to do is very unpleasant!
and they would say to murder babies as they say it is very unpleasant. If you merely define things you disagree with as very unpleasant then it's a fairly useless phrase.
-
Indeed it is NS.
Trent: Abortion is a serious issue and to remove all shades of gray from the discussion is not helpful or sensible imo. You are right about that, every aspect needs to be discussed.
Floo, your attitude is as dogmatic as those who are anti-abortion.
In reality, no politician is going to be able to ban it altogether in the USA which is so vast and encompasses people of every opinion- but opinions have to be considered and politicians are obliged to say something on the subject. The successful ones will take the middle ground, Obama did. He was blasted by pro-lifers but really, his stance is moderate. He devotes an entire chapter of his (self written) book, "The Audacity of Hope" to the subject of abortion. The book is well worth reading.
Trump is sucking up to a particular strata of society with, it has to be said, some success but if anyone bothers to look beneath the surface, he is just paying lip service to the Pro-lifers. If he does become President he won't be able to deliver most of the promises he is giving but he can talk the talk.
Abortion is only one issue. I keep on saying that to people who are bogged down with it but there are so many important issues. I wonder how many of us think about our politicians' views on abortion? Not many I'm sure, but we in the UK, generalisation here, have a different attitude to politics and politicians to the Americans as we do to religion.
-
Whilst not wishing to start a discussion on abortion again (!) I have to just say that you do see things in a very cut and dried manner.
Now while I can agree that the right to an abortion lies mainly with the woman - I can't help feeling that your attitude relegates men to a 'no choice but to agree' position. And I do not think that is helpful or fair.
Women (rightly in some cases) complain that men do not take responsibility for their actions and yet here you are removing any responsibility in this area for any actions. It just isn't as simple an issue as that.
That goes both for the strongly pro-abortion stance that you appear to hold - and the equally strong stance that anti-abortionists hold.
Abortion is a serious issue and to remove all shades of gray from the discussion is not helpful or sensible imo.
Whilst a woman should discuss having a termination with her partner, it is her decision that counts as she has to carry the foetus for nine months, and then give birth, which isn't a load of laughs!
-
Whilst a woman should discuss having a termination with her partner, it is her decision that counts as she has to carry the foetus for nine months, and then give birth, which isn't a load of laughs!
Well thanks for that I hadn't realized that the woman carried the foetus - me being a poor thick man who clearly can't read an article about pregnancy and retain any information about it.
Nuance as a concept isn't your strongest suit is it.
-
Well thanks for that I hadn't realized that the woman carried the foetus - me being a poor thick man who clearly can't read an article about pregnancy and retain any information about it.
Nuance as a concept isn't your strongest suit is it.
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
-
Brownie, the whole push on this is not about the President banning abortion but about the appointments to the Supreme Court. There is one outstanding to be made and the possibility of maybe 4 more. If that were to happen it might be possible to choose a court that would revoke Roe vs Wade
-
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
Nor sarcasm apparently.
-
Nor sarcasm apparently.
Sorry I am not sure what the heck you are on about? I thought my comment about a woman's right to decide on a termination of pregnancy quite reasonable. Men might know about pregnancy in theory, but unless you have been pregnant have no idea what a woman has to go through to produce a child! ::)
-
Brownie, the whole push on this is not about the President banning abortion but about the appointments to the Supreme Court. There is one outstanding to be made and the possibility of maybe 4 more. If that were to happen it might be possible to choose a court that would revoke Roe vs Wade
Thanks NS, I am not as well up on the mechanics of the political system in the USA. However I can't see that happening somehow. We'll see.
Floo, what you said was not unreasonable from many points of view. I'm sure neither of us actually like the idea of abortion but I'm actually inclined to agree with you. However there are other POVs that deserve consideration, it's not a black or white issue. If everything was either black or white there would be no discussion. A bit like when we were at school (or me anyway), and we were told "This is how it is, end of".
-
Thanks NS, I am not as well up on the mechanics of the political system in the USA. However I can't see that happening somehow. We'll see.
The President nominates candidates for the Supremes that have to be approved by Senate. There is 1 vacancy currently after the death of Scalia. This leaves the court currently made up of what is perceived as 4 liberals, 3 conservative and 1 swing voter. Due to the age of 2 of the liberal wing, 83 and 78, and the one 'swinger' 80, there is a good chance that they may stand down in the next four years. That would give the next President the chance to have 4 appointees and change the make up to the court to possibly 2 liberal and 7 conservative. Now I doubt that all the 'conservative' judges would necessarily vote to outlaw abortion on a 'new Roe v Wade' case but if 4 of them had been picked primarily to do do, there is a strong chance 1 more of the others may follow suit.
-
Thanks NS, I am not as well up on the mechanics of the political system in the USA. However I can't see that happening somehow. We'll see.
Floo, what you said was not unreasonable from many points of view. I'm sure neither of us actually like the idea of abortion but I'm actually inclined to agree with you. However there are other POVs that deserve consideration, it's not a black or white issue. If everything was either black or white there would be no discussion. A bit like when we were at school (or me anyway), and we were told "This is how it is, end of".
I wouldn't have chosen an abortion, but I defend a woman's right to have one. One of my daughters was deemed to have had a high chance of giving birth to a Down's Syndrome baby when she had her 16 week check with her third child. She would definitely have opted for an abortion if the amnio had shown it to be the case, her husband was also of that opinion. As much as our girl loves her adopted DS brother, she didn't think she could rear a child with that condition herself. Fortunately the amnio showed her daughter, now 8, didn't have the condition. Her husband went and got the snip, as having other children would not have been wise.
-
Much as I dislike the idea of abortion in many respects, it frightens me to think of the possibility of going back to a time when there was very little choice in the matter. In our case, pre-1967. From what I remember, it wasn't all that straightforward for two or three years after '67. Unlike you, floo, I am sure I would have had an abortion had I felt it to be the lesser of two evils in a situation. Imagining a scenario in which it was denied to me causes me to feel panic even now when I know it isn't going to happen. Goodness knows what it does to those young enough to become pregnant. I suppose they are confident they will take sufficient precautions so as not to conceive a child they can't care for; that will be true of most - but we all know stuff happens.
I really hope the USA doesn't take a step backwards on this one, from what NS described it is at least a possibility.
-
then why misrepresent what he was doing as not being the sort of financial instrument trading that you seem to despise? As to working hard, isn't that true of many politicians but they are 'elite', he is hard working. It's your double standards I am taking issue with.
I don't call all politicians elites, but most go into parties that are doing well and very few give up a very lucrative career to be in the backwaters of the game.
-
Nobody is making him out as bad for that. What they are doing is pointing out that it makes him part of the elite that Brexit voters were allegedly protesting against.
No it does not because he left it to run UKIP.
He's done very nicely for himself as an MEP. His salary is looking even better right now,...
You sound jealous...?
-
I don't call all politicians elites, but most go into parties that are doing well and very few give up a very lucrative career to be in the backwaters of the game.
I think you don't understand egotism
-
I think you don't understand egotism
Then Ghandi was a mega egotist!!! ;D
-
Then Ghandi was a mega egotist!!! ;D
you are right,Nigel is just like Ghandi
-
you are right,Nigel is just like Ghandi
I'm glad you're coming round to seeing sense to how Farage has been a martyr to this Brexit issue!
-
I'm glad you're coming round to seeing sense to how Farage has been a martyr to this Brexit issue!
yeah, apparently Ghandi was a racist too
-
yeah, apparently Ghandi was a racist too
Who mentioned racist? Remember, NS, you are not capable of making a judgment on your own; that would be an objective act. So first you would need to define what the word racist means and then discuss it with the 7 billion odd people on this planet to get a subjective consensus. Good luck with that one! ;D
-
Who mentioned racist? Remember, NS, you are not capable of making a judgment on your own; that would be an objective act. So first you would need to define what the word racist means and then discuss it with the 7 billion odd people on this planet to get a subjective consensus. Good luck with that one! ;D
No, a judgement is a subjective act, never said anything else. You are a tad confused, again!
-
odd people on this planet
most of whom post on this forum!
-
most of whom post on this forum!
You must have found soulmates then! ;D ;D ;D
-
No, a judgement is a subjective act, never said anything else. You are a tad confused, again!
You said that the only valid judgement was a consensus one, that individual subjective ones couldn't be relied on. You're moving the goal posts, something you do a lot.
-
Finally, Hillary's emails are going to be looked at again by the FBI.... and it's been reported in MSM. But there's something about the smug look on her face that says... 'I know something you don't'. No doubt, she'll get away with it.
-
Finally, Hillary's emails are going to be looked at again by the FBI.... and it's been reported in MSM. But there's something about the smug look on her face that says... 'I know something you don't'. No doubt, she'll get away with it.
Get away with what exactly?
-
It'll be amazing if the FBI swing it for Trump. Wow. Of course, the conspiracy theorists and plain liars are now hot to trot in the US, and some over here.
-
Many thought Dubya was a total prat, but he looks pretty good compared to that idiot Trump!
-
Well, the idiot currently has 44% of the vote, acc. to 538, and moving up.
-
Well, the idiot currently has 44% of the vote, acc. to 538, and moving up.
It is extremely worrying! :o
-
Finally, Hillary's emails are going to be looked at again by the FBI.... and it's been reported in MSM. But there's something about the smug look on her face that says... 'I know something you don't'. No doubt, she'll get away with it.
I think you will find that Hillary's emails aren't being looked at 'again' Sweetpea. As I understand the situation, this is a completely different set of emails that have cropped up in the process of the FBI investigating the sexting antics between an ex-congressman and a then 15-year old girl.
-
yeah, apparently Ghandi was a racist too
Who was Ghandi, NS? ;)
-
Finally, Hillary's emails are going to be looked at again by the FBI.... and it's been reported in MSM. But there's something about the smug look on her face that says... 'I know something you don't'. No doubt, she'll get away with it.
I too wondered what she might think she is getting away with and can't say I've seen any 'smug look' when she's been on TV. Whatever anyone thinks of the woman, that really is quite nasty and below the belt.
NS has explained about the emails.
As for Gandhi (the H comes before the i at the end, not after the G at the beginning), there are a few things on the internet about it. Here's one link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34265882
It seems the Mahatma was not perfect. Did anyone really believe he was?
As for MSM, I looked it up and it appears to be a joint health supplement.
-
What would be amazing is that an FBI intervention so late in the day, could tilt the election towards Trump. Surely, questions would be raised about how this happened, and if it was under political pressure.
-
You said that the only valid judgement was a consensus one, that individual subjective ones couldn't be relied on. You're moving the goal posts, something you do a lot.
Nope, never said that, you are now not only confused but misrepresenting me.
-
Happened to catch a brief section of a programme on the BBC's World Service TV earlier this afternoon. It was pointing out that whilst the Democratic Party enjoys far more support amongst the Hollywood 'elite' than the Republican Party. However, the only actors who have become politicians have almost always stood on the Republican ticket.
Any suggestions why?
-
What would be amazing is that an FBI intervention so late in the day, could tilt the election towards Trump. Surely, questions would be raised about how this happened, and if it was under political pressure.
But the investigation into Anthony Weiner's antics has been on-going since September, when the sexting accusations against him surfaced. Now, it could be that that 'surfacing' was timed on purpose - in the same way that the surfacing of Trump's gropings was 'timed' on purpose. Should there be questions raised about that?
Remember that both Donald and Hillary are probably the least approved of candidates in a very long time.
-
I too wondered what she might think she is getting away with and can't say I've seen any 'smug look' when she's been on TV. Whatever anyone thinks of the woman, that really is quite nasty and below the belt.
NS has explained about the emails.
As for Gandhi (the H comes before the i at the end, not after the G at the beginning), there are a few things on the internet about it. Here's one link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34265882
It seems the Mahatma was not perfect. Did anyone really believe he was?
As for MSM, I looked it up and it appears to be a joint health supplement.
Brownie, I'm not a Hillary fan and as for a "nasty and below the belt" remark, I rather think me referring to the woman as "smug" is pretty tame considering her persona. What kind of woman (HC) belittles another woman who accuses someone of rape. Then James Corney, the FBI director, warns the American public if they do as Hilary has done they will be imprisoned. But Hils gets away with it....
-
Both Dem and Rep candidates seem pretty dire and are prepared to drag up anything to discredit eachother but I would prefer to wait and see what comes out that can be proven.
-
Both Dem and Rep candidates seem pretty dire and are prepared to drag up anything to discredit eachother but I would prefer to wait and see what comes out that can be proven.
why is Hillary as dire as the Donald?
-
why is Hillary as dire as the Donald?
Yes this puzzles me somewhat. This need to reduce them to the same level. Mrs Clinton for her faults is a much more reliable politician (and I mean that in a good way) than Trump will ever be.
Please folks read some of the things he says. He is barely literate or intelligible. This was on FB today, I checked it to make sure it is a true quote. It is. He was asked why he thought Lincoln succeeded. This was his reply:
Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man who did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time. And Nixon failed, I think to a certain extent, because of his personality. You know? It was just that personality. Very severe, very exclusive. In other words, people couldn’t come in. And people didn’t like him. I mean, people didn’t like him.
I mean really - do you think that Clinton could ever form such badly thought out, badly phrased nonsense about Abraham Lincoln.
They are not the same. The man is an imbecile. As well as all the other things he is well known for.
-
Get away with what exactly?
With not having done anything seriously wrong.
-
Well, the idiot currently has 44% of the vote, acc. to 538, and moving up.
Clinton is still five points ahead which is a lot in US election terms as reflected in her chance of winning (79%) but it's beginning to get worrying.
-
What kind of woman (HC) belittles another woman who accuses someone of rape.
When has she ever done that?
Then James Corney, the FBI director, warns the American public if they do as Hilary has done they will be imprisoned. But Hils gets away with it....
Maybe because she hasn't done anything illegal.
Hillary had some emails on a dodgy server. Trump admitted on camera that he sexually assaults women and uses his fame to get away with it. These are not the same. Hillary Clinton is a good politician. Donald Trumps a lying, bullying, sexist cheating arsehole. The two are not the same.
-
Donald Trumps a lying, bullying, sexist cheating arsehole.
Why are you showering Trump with flattery? That is an insult to lying, bullying,sexist cheating arseholes!
-
why is Hillary as dire as the Donald?
If you want my opinion, she is not, at worst she is the lesser of two evils - but I only know what I read or see on TV and how reliable is that? If I was an American I would vote for her as opposed to Trump whom I still find difficult to take seriously - I have always wanted to believe Hilary will be a good president but it isn't about my feelings which are irrelevant as I'm not going to be voting.
Both campaigns are barrel scraping to find ammunition against eachother and whilst I know politics is always a dirty business, whatever anyone said about Obama I don't remember any accusations against his character.
I don't understand the accusation of Hilary belittling someone who alleges they have been raped, I googled last night and could find nothing substantial.
The only information we have is what is reported and, honestly, I feel it's best to avoid some of the more obscure, sensational, conspiratorial sites.
-
Hillary had some emails on a dodgy server. Trump admitted on camera that he sexually assaults women and uses his fame to get away with it. These are not the same. Hillary Clinton is a good politician. Donald Trumps a lying, bullying, sexist cheating arsehole. The two are not the same.
The only thing I'd change here is 'average' for 'good' in the 4th sentence. Even some Democrats felt that she was a burden to Obama.
-
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14572263_10210404245437870_2911532084169622053_n.jpg?oh=0718e73c2e8116cd9a12cae768f47d2b&oe=588BE0C8
-
Both campaigns are barrel scraping to find ammunition against eachother and whilst I know politics is always a dirty business, whatever anyone said about Obama I don't remember any accusations against his character.
The difference is that you don't need to scrape the barrel to find evidence that Donald Trump is unfit to be president. On the other hand Hillary Clinton has been investigated by various of her enemies for twenty five years and they have failed to find anything that they can make stick.
-
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14572263_10210404245437870_2911532084169622053_n.jpg?oh=0718e73c2e8116cd9a12cae768f47d2b&oe=588BE0C8
That totally nails it. Clinton and Trump are mentioned in that picture exactly the same number of times, therefore they are equally as bad!
-
FWIW I would vote for Stein. At least then if Killary won I would maintain some personal dignity. Gary Johnson is just as potty as Mr Fart, albeit he is more gentlemanly.
-
Poll puts Mr Fart in the lead
http://www.wxyz.com/news/political/donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-by-one-percent-new-poll-finds
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
-
Heard part of a brilliant Radio 4 programme - Rich Hall's (US Election) Breakdown - between 18:30 and 19:00 hrs this evening.
-
538 has Trump's chances now as 34%, and he is closing. Oh hell.
-
Pretty much from Barbara Kingsolver
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/hillary-clinton-white-house-donald-trump-bullying-barbara-kingsolver?CMP=fb_cif
-
FWIW I would vote for Stein. At least then if Killary won I would maintain some personal dignity. Gary Johnson is just as potty as Mr Fart, albeit he is more gentlemanly.
Why do you call her Killary?
-
The FBI have announced they have not found anything incriminating after their latest investigation of Clinton's e-mails.
-
Obviously you need a psychic Scottish goat at times like this
http://tinyurl.com/j88jd6z
-
Let's hope that Scottish goat is correct! Ah but when you see where its breed originates it is no wonder it knows a thing or two! ;D
-
Odds shifted dramatically in favour of Clinton in last couple of days, in part because of the figures coming out covering those already voted.
-
By this time on Wednesday we should probably know the outcome.
-
By this time on Wednesday we should probably know the outcome.
We shall probably know quite early in the day.
An unworthy thought has occurred to me: Should Donald Trump win and Mrs May visit him to discuss the Special Relationship, she had better prepare to be groped. That appears to be the only meaning of relationship that Trump comprehends.
More seriously, should he win, how soon do you think it would be before his inadequacies as president would become obvious?
-
Guide to timings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37885746?SThisFB
-
And first result
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/hillary-clinton-wins-the-battle-of-dixville-notch-as-us-election/
-
Good piece by Nick Bryant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37903384
-
To be honest, I don't care too much. If I had to chose, however, then it would be Trump but only because it would mean a major defeat for the Atlanticists who, it seems, are determined to start a new Cold War egged on by Britain, Estonia and group of neo-fascists in Ukraine.
-
Just been having a discussion with an American friend about the long lines that always seem to be there in US presidential elections despute comparatively low turnouts. I fund it bizarre that this is not a major scandal in a major democracy that there are effectively insufficient polling stations.
-
More seriously, should he win, how soon do you think it would be before his inadequacies as president would become obvious?
The day before? ;)
-
The day before? ;)
Excellent, if a big overestimate
-
I've got my popcorn and a beer to celebrate with/drown my sorrows in.
-
I've got my popcorn and a beer to celebrate with/drown my sorrows in.
Cheese and wine for me. Normally I would be in bed for this but not for this and not in 2016, don't trust it an inch
-
Hi everyone,
Another brexit is happening as some had predicted. Trump is WINNING! Even in traditional blue states.
All the computer models and poll predictions turned out to be rubbish!!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I dunno about Brexit but at 0515 I just saw the results are Trump 244, Clinton 208.
:( >:(
-
Atm, Trump 244 votes, Clinton 208.
-
That about wraps it up for humanity.
-
Trump it is!!
-
Disbelief on the BBC panel, no idea who the lady in white is but she seems to think it was a fight between those with college degrees and the "less well educated" who voted for Trump. It all sounds so familiar.
How it came to those two as candidates is beyond be but as for picking Trump, I would say many Americans are tired of political dynasties. The Clintons being one of them, but they have some baggage a lot of people do not like.
-
A VERY BAD DAY FOR AMERICA AND AN EVEN WORSE ONE FOR THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
That about wraps it up for humanity.
have you thought about getting off the band waggon ?
-
Apparently Hitler's pre-election speeches had similarities to those of that evil creep Trump! >:( Still January isn't here yet, who knows what might happen before then!
-
Trump is the least bad of the two candidates. At least it seems less likely now that there will be a new Cold War.
-
Apart from the whole depresssing news, it is a very sad day for American women who will have to fight hard to maintain their existing freedoms, let alone to move forward.
-
Trump is the least bad of the two candidates. At least it seems less likely now that there will be a new Cold War.
Mainly because it looks as if Trump will abandon NATO - still, I don't suppose that would bother you too much, Finland has been run by Russia before hasn't it?
-
Finding it hard to take seriously Trump's victory speech promising to help the millions of forgotten Americans by employing them to rebuild US infrastructure so it is second to none - if he is serious his voters seem to have accepted a huge increase in national debt to fund this since he promised tax cuts - whoever voted for him it doesn't seem to have been fiscally conservative Republicans.
Trump voters really seem to have convinced themselves that people lending to a protectionist US government will not worry about the risk of default enough to reduce/ stop lending to or investing in the US. Either that or they are too busy protesting against the Establishment to care.
-
Ain't democracy wonderful? Any billionaire racist xenophobic mysogenist with a leaning towards disrespect for disabled people, Black people, Arabs and Moslems can become president........
-
It's what the people want...a reflection of the priorities of the demographic that voted for him. Older, white males who believe his promises of jobs and a brighter economic future for themselves and their kids, and who didn't want to vote for the Establishment that they blame for their current situation.
-
A president backed by the KKK
You went low, America
-
A president backed by the KKK
You went low, America
I can see the colour bar being reinstated! :o
-
Ain't democracy wonderful? Any billionaire racist xenophobic mysogenist with a leaning towards disrespect for disabled people, Black people, Arabs and Moslems can become president........
are you describing me? ;)
-
Mainly because it looks as if Trump will abandon NATO
Which is a good thing. We don't need NATO.
- still, I don't suppose that would bother you too much, Finland has been run by Russia before hasn't it?
And Trump becoming President of the USA will make that less likely. Obama and Clinton were on a war path with Russia. Now you can pontificate all you want but neither the US nor UK has a thousand mile border with Russia. We can stay neutral now.
-
Of course we need NATO! ::)
-
Of course we need NATO! ::)
No we don't. Nato = http://img04.deviantart.net/0ff8/i/2006/034/0/d/war_is_business_2_by_latuff2.jpg
-
Of course we need NATO! ::)
are you qualified to make that statement?
-
No more than you I don't suppose, but in my view NATO is needed.
-
Would have expected more reaction here today.
-
It's what the people want...a reflection of the priorities of the demographic that voted for him. Older, white males who believe his promises of jobs and a brighter economic future for themselves and their kids, and who didn't want to vote for the Establishment that they blame for their current situation.
Indeed. Bring back manufacturing. Do these older, white males realise the levels of wages they must endure for their products to be commercially attractive? Or do they believe that customers will pay anything for the satisfaction of home-produced goods? Or the potential damage to the environment of re-opening the coal mines?
Will they be prepared to perform the low-skilled and low-paid jobs that Mexicans (behind the high wall) and other non-Americans used to do?
Are the members of this demographic, relatively uneducated, possessing out-dated skills, really helping to "make America great" by electing an inexperienced politician, not very successful businessman, who will also be the oldest elected first-term president in American history?
I suspect that they are creating a president from their nostalgic fantasies, and - because of their age - they will have passed into history when their offspring and descendants will be engaged in the long process of righting his catastrophic errors.
The future should be concerned with creating opportunities for the young, not turning America into some kind of fantasy-land theme park for for yesterday's discontents.
-
Did you know that "Pence" is the name of Trump's running mate?
-
Indeed. Bring back manufacturing. Do these older, white males realise the levels of wages they must endure for their products to be commercially attractive? Or do they believe that customers will pay anything for the satisfaction of home-produced goods? Or the potential damage to the environment of re-opening the coal mines?
Will they be prepared to perform the low-skilled and low-paid jobs that Mexicans (behind the high wall) and other non-Americans used to do?
Are the members of this demographic, relatively uneducated, possessing out-dated skills, really helping to "make America great" by electing an inexperienced politician, not very successful businessman, who will also be the oldest elected first-term president in American history?
I suspect that they are creating a president from their nostalgic fantasies, and - because of their age - they will have passed into history when their offspring and descendants will be engaged in the long process of righting his catastrophic errors.
The future should be concerned with creating opportunities for the young, not turning America into some kind of fantasy-land theme park for for yesterday's discontents.
Your rhetoric here is exactly why Trump won, because the estalishment don't give a fuck about them, and if Ronald Reagan can become president why not Donald Trump (though Reagan was, of course, more mild mannered)?
-
Would have expected more reaction here today.
I think that everybody is in shock.
I cannot believe it myself. Mr Fart has WON Trying to be sensible for a moment, it strikes me as being like a far bigger version of the Greater London Mayoral election in 2008. Labour kidded themselves that "Londoners" really did want more of Ken Livingstone as Emperor, & more of his eighties style "positive discrimination". They had reckoned without the usually politically apathetic majority who had had enough of both.
-
I think that everybody is in shock.
I cannot believe it myself. Mr Fart has WON Trying to be sensible for a moment, it strikes me as being like a far bigger version of the Greater London Mayoral election in 2008. Labour kidded themselves that "Londoners" really did want more of Ken Livingstone as Emperor, & more of his eighties style "positive discrimination". They had reckoned without the usually politically apathetic majority who had had enough of both.
I'm surprised anyone's "shocked". This was well and truly on the cards. This defeat of the establishment is the establishment's fault. It's stuck two fingers up at everyone for too long. The world is changing. I have hope now that this will happen in Europe too.
-
Your rhetoric here is exactly why Trump won, because the estalishment don't give a fuck about them, and if Ronald Reagan can become president why not Donald Trump (though Reagan was, of course, more mild mannered)?
Lazy analogy.
Ronald Reagan had been Governor of California for a period of 7 years (1967-75) prior to his election as president and he was elected twice to that office. Reagan was actually pretty experienced as a politician prior to being elected president in 1980. Indeed he had also run for the Republican nomination for presidential candidate twice before his eventual successful bid.
-
http://www.buchanobserver.co.uk/news/aberdeenshire-business-owner-wins-presidential-election-1-4282745
-
I think that everybody is in shock.
I cannot believe it myself. Mr Fart has WON Trying to be sensible for a moment, it strikes me as being like a far bigger version of the Greater London Mayoral election in 2008. Labour kidded themselves that "Londoners" really did want more of Ken Livingstone as Emperor, & more of his eighties style "positive discrimination". They had reckoned without the usually politically apathetic majority who had had enough of both.
I don't think analogy with Ken Livingston in 2008 is accurate. Livingston was a two term Mayor and unsurprisingly had rather run out of steam (and support). And I'm not sure if you were in London through the period from 2000 to 2008, but actually the big legacies from Livingston were nothing to do with politically correct eighties type stuff - quite the reverse it was all deeply pragmatic stuff. He is remembered firstly for the congestion charge, secondly for oyster cards, thirdly for the bendy buses, fourthly (with a bunch of others) winning the Olympics for London and finally for his response to 7/7.
There was very little eighties style "positive discrimination" in his mayoral record. What you seem to be referring to is his much earlier period as leader of the GLC in the 80s (until the Tories abolished it/him!).
But there is another problem with your analogy - presumably in you analogy Trump is Boris. Eh - Boris was and is every inch the insider establishment politician, old school chum of the leader of the Tories (and future PM) at the time. Indeed if you actually recollect Boris was effectively parachuted in by his mate Cameron when Stephen Norris (the expected candidate) pulled out unexpectedly. Boris was no outsider in the way Trump is.
-
have you thought about getting off the band waggon ?
Have you thought about opening your eyes to see what has happened here?
Trump is an isolationist. His rhetoric is racist in the extreme. He'll probably throw the Paris climate change agreement in the bin. His election has had an immediate effect on the US stock markets.
Also he bullies his subcontractors, sexually assaults women and is an orange game show host.
-
Which is a good thing. We don't need NATO.
And Trump becoming President of the USA will make that less likely. Obama and Clinton were on a war path with Russia.
You can really talk bullshit when you want.
Trump is going to let Putin do exactly what he wants. If that includes making Finland part of Greater Russia, nobody will now be able to stop him.
-
Your rhetoric here is exactly why Trump won, because the estalishment don't give a fuck about them
Trump doesn't give a fuck about them.
-
You can really talk bullshit when you want.
Trump is going to let Putin do exactly what he wants. If that includes making Finland part of Greater Russia, nobody will now be able to stop him.
Putin is quite capable of annexing Finland, and presenting himself as a moderate against those who want Alaska as well (Mr Zhirinovsky).
-
You can really talk bullshit when you want.
Trump is going to let Putin do exactly what he wants. If that includes making Finland part of Greater Russia, nobody will now be able to stop him.
You're talking bullshit. It's easy to talk from England. You don't share a border. Neither has your trade been ruined with your largest neighbour. Obama and Clinton were on a ruinous path and neither knew how to engage with Russia.
https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10620770_10152785776603949_6573108327830889180_n.jpg?oh=40f2be18ba5b2b6a73de051db9ffc064&oe=58CE6D6A
-
Finding it hard to take seriously Trump's victory speech promising to help the millions of forgotten Americans by employing them to rebuild US infrastructure so it is second to none - if he is serious his voters seem to have accepted a huge increase in national debt to fund this since he promised tax cuts - whoever voted for him it doesn't seem to have been fiscally conservative Republicans.
Oh, I do agree, I've just had to switch it off - thatsmarmy, pseudo-sincere, dripping with - well, whatever is the best word to put here - voice. Yuk!
quote]
-
You're talking bullshit. It's easy to talk from England. You don't share a border.
No we don't, which is why it would be that much more difficult for Putin to annex the UK than Finland.
Neither has your trade been ruined with your largest neighbour.
Oh didn't you hear? we've already had a vote to start doing that.
Obama and Clinton were on a ruinous path and neither knew how to engage with Russia.
And you think the orange pussy groper does? I think you are in for a shock.
-
I think there is something almost inevitable about this. After 8 years of Obama, who is after all a sophisticated and articulate guy, some people will want something very different, call it anti-elitist, unprivileged, or whatever. And that ain't Clinton, as she is almost an extension of Obama. Well, Trump is certainly opposite.
It is scary though, in terms of stuff like abortion, LGBT, as well as economic stuff. I'm guessing that Trump doesn't have a clue in terms of what to do. He won't build a wall, he won't imprison Clinton, he won't expel Muslims, but what will he do?
-
No we don't, which is why it would be that much more difficult for Putin to annex the UK than Finland.
Oh didn't you hear? we've already had a vote to start doing that.
And you think the orange pussy groper does? I think you are in for a shock.
You're so brainwashed it's unbelievable. Keep on believing that that Russia is the enemy. That is what the estsblishment has been feeding you. The real enemy is neo-liberal America. War is good business.
-
There is a point about neo-liberalism, but I reckon Trump has dealt one off the bottom of the pack here. I mean, what is the alternative? Have Trump's advisers got some exciting economic ideas, which dispense with neo-lib? Hmm.
-
Trump doesn't give a fuck about them.
you are right , it was a game to him . HE is as surprised as anybody else at the result . He's probably wondering 'what the fuck do I do now?'
-
you are right , it was a game to him . HE is as surprised as anybody else at the result . He's probably wondering 'what the fuck do I do now?'
Have you been watching the latest season of South Park?
-
You're so brainwashed it's unbelievable. Keep on believing that that Russia is the enemy. That is what the estsblishment has been feeding you. The real enemy is neo-liberal America. War is good business.
The real narrative goes like this. The US starts supporting rebels in various Arab countries, including Syria. Russia says no, this is not the way. The rebels gain momentum and Russia warns of the consequences saying, Assad might be a barstard but ISIS is worse. The US, in actions rather than words, says they prefer ISIS. Russia helps Assad. America gets pissed off. Anerica orchestrates a coup in Ukraine led by a group of neo-fascists. Russia responds. America gets even more pissed off like a big bully who doesn't get its way, and imposes sanctions and wants to expand its war machine, NATO, ever closer to Russia scaring people into thinking Russia will invade us all. Who is the aggressor? Who should I be afraid of? It's not Russia. This is all the work of Obama/Clinton and shady financial backers.
-
Have you been watching the latest season of South Park?
no, I've never seen it, is it relevant?
-
Which is a good thing. We don't need NATO.
And Trump becoming President of the USA will make that less likely. Obama and Clinton were on a war path with Russia. Now you can pontificate all you want but neither the US nor UK has a thousand mile border with Russia. We can stay neutral now.
And that Mr Putin is such a nice chap, I'm sure he wishes his neighbours no malice at all.
-
Oh dear! :o
That came as a shock!
-
Have you thought about opening your eyes to see what has happened here?
Trump is an isolationist. His rhetoric is racist in the extreme. He'll probably throw the Paris climate change agreement in the bin. His election has had an immediate effect on the US stock markets.
Also he bullies his subcontractors, sexually assaults women and is an orange game show host.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
He might have said it as a joke, but it doesn't bode well for any climate change agreements.
:(
http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/what-donald-trumps-election-means-9226290
The only good thing is he can't pull out, this time round
Part of the Paris Agreement was an effective lock-in for a four year period. So, theoretically, Donald Trump would have to win a second term in order to officially pull out of the deal.
“The Paris agreement prohibits any exit for a period of three years, plus a year-long notice period, so there will be four stable years,” said Ségolčne Royale, France's environment minister and one of the members that helped negotiate the agreement.
-
Farage magic does it again!!! Kicking the teeth of the rich establishment elite. ;D
This will empower the anti EU lot in Europe that they can fight back and win.
-
You're so brainwashed it's unbelievable. Keep on believing that that Russia is the enemy. That is what the estsblishment has been feeding you. The real enemy is neo-liberal America. War is good business.
What people don't realise is that Russia's GDP is about as big as Italy's. They can't afford a war, and they are hurting now 'cause of the low oil prices and sanctions.
-
There is a point about neo-liberalism, but I reckon Trump has dealt one off the bottom of the pack here. I mean, what is the alternative? Have Trump's advisers got some exciting economic ideas, which dispense with neo-lib? Hmm.
He could put them, the bankers, in jail. Though he comes across to me as a mafia type operator so....
-
Kicking the teeth of the rich establishment elite. ;D
By voting in a billionaire who was born into an astonishingly wealthy household. :o
Trump is the rich establishment elite personified.
If you play golf you need to be rich.
If you play golf at the right 'club' you must be rich and establishment
If you actually own the right 'club' you are at the heart of the rich establishment elite.
-
Oh dear! :o
That came as a shock!
Seems there were more shy trumpers than they thought.
Didn't his acceptance speech almost make him look human. :-\
He looks to me like Frankenstein's monster in Mel Brook's film - nasty at first but singing and dancing later on.
-
By voting in a billionaire who was born into an astonishingly wealthy household. :o
Trump is the rich establishment elite personified.
If you play golf you need to be rich.
If you play golf at the right 'club' you must be rich and establishment
If you actually own the right 'club' you are at the heart of the rich establishment elite.
That's a different type. Clinton was the rotten real McCoy.
-
Farage magic does it again!!! Kicking the teeth of the rich establishment elite. ;D
This will empower the anti EU lot in Europe that they can fight back and win.
I think it entirely possible that a future generation will send a robot back in time to ensure that Farage's plane crash in 2010 goes 'according to plan'
-
Seems there were more shy trumpers than they thought.
Didn't his acceptance speech almost make him look human. :-\
He looks to me like Frankenstein's monster in Mel Brook's film - nasty at first but singing and dancing later on.
and putting religious loons onto the Supreme Court, sort of Putting on the Titz
-
I think it entirely possible that a future generation will send a robot back in time to ensure that Farage's plane crash in 2010 goes 'according to plan'
Dream on...................
-
So far, Clinton has a higher popular vote than Trump. Odd how that keeps happening, as with Gore/Bush.
-
That's a different type. Clinton was the rotten real McCoy.
I never said that Clinton isn't a member of the rich establishment elite. I would countering your implied assertion that Trump isn't.
Without doubt both Trump and Clinton are top drawer, paid up members of the rich establishment elite. There is a difference - Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth in the manner that Trump was - don't forget this is a guy who considered a $1million gift from his father when he was in his 20s as a 'very small loan'. Hmm.
Let's be honest here JK, Trump is every bit as much rich, establishment elite as Clinton.
-
A good article from a Democrat.
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.hz5th2te7
-
Hardly an article, more of a rant.
-
A good article from a Democrat.
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.hz5th2te7
Surely it was Trump's rhetoric that showed his values? The main issue I have with the article is that it misses that Trump could get to nominate up to four justices to the Supreme Court through a Republican Senate pushing to the right, and having chosen in Pence a VP showing his need to keep the support of the religious right.
-
Surely it was Trump's rhetoric that showed his values? The main issue I have with the article is that it misses that Trump could get to nominate up to four justices to the Supreme Court through a Republican Senate pushing to the right, and having chosen in Pence a VP showing his need to keep the support of the religious right.
We should keep in mind that the Republicans are split three ways i.e. the factions are opposed to each other in a similar way Labour's factions are.
-
Whilst I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of confidence that this could ever happen, I will have to laugh if - in 4 or 8 years' time - the general consensus is that Trump has done a good job; not necessarily been amongst the greatest of US presidents, but someone who has actually brought the nation together, has strengthened the economy and made US society a fairer, more equal one.
-
Whilst I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of confidence that this could ever happen, I will have to laugh if - in 4 or 8 years' time - the general consensus is that Trump has done a good job; not necessarily been amongst the greatest of US presidents, but someone who has actually brought the nation together, has strengthened the economy and made US society a fairer, more equal one.
He'll only last one term. He has promised so much to an outlying factional group, who will be disappointed, and will never get enough of the rest, even if he does a good-ish job, and the Democrats will get their act together with a new face, such that he won't return.
-
He'll only last one term. He has promised so much to an outlying factional group, who will be disappointed, and will never get enough of the rest, even if he does a good-ish job, and the Democrats will get their act together with a new face, such that he won't return.
Unfortunately, JK, such views on a number of US Presidents have been proven wrong in the past.
-
A good article from a Democrat.
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.hz5th2te7
It's got lies in it. How can it be good?
-
He'll only last one term. He has promised so much to an outlying factional group, who will be disappointed, and will never get enough of the rest, even if he does a good-ish job, and the Democrats will get their act together with a new face, such that he won't return.
Obama failed to deliver on his first term promises and he got a second term. GW Bush was a disaster in his first term but got a second term. Whilst I think you are right - because even GWB was good compared with Trump - I wouldn't bet against a second term.
On the other hand, I also wouldn't bet against him not lasting a full first term.
-
It's got lies in it. How can it be good?
What lies?
-
The thing about Trump is he starting with the bar very low. Most people expect him to be a disaster so if he manages to achieve one or two good or popular things they will start to be pleased with him.
-
What lies?
Hillary Clinton rigging the primaries for one.
-
Hillary Clinton rigging the primaries for one.
But that's not a lie.
-
It is a lie, imo. I see there a lots of protests against Trump all over the US, I don't remember that ever happening before when a President has been elected.
-
"Educated" people who cannot see past the end of their nose protesting against something that did not go their way, and they will never understand why. Same as Brexit.
Hillary Clinton was as bad a choice as Donald Trump was. A lot of Americans see her as a liar and responsible for the deaths of the embassy staff in Libya.
-
"Educated" people who cannot see past the end of their nose protesting against something that did not go their way, and they will never understand why. Same as Brexit.
Hillary Clinton was as bad a choice as Donald Trump was. A lot of Americans see her as a liar and responsible for the deaths of the embassy staff in Libya.
Not even a performing monkey would be as bad a choice as Trump! >:(
-
Not even a performing monkey would be as bad a choice as Trump! >:(
It's not that I don't disagree with you, it is simply that the political elites are so detached they seem to truly have no idea what is happening or why it is happening. They themselves have created this fertile ground by ignoring the signs, steamrollering over people, mocking them even.
Brexit
Trump
Le Pen............?
Do you think they have got it yet. I don't as I still read many articles by rich lefties, detached from it all, in their own little world. Seems like the plebs aren't happy being useful tools any more.
-
Has anyone spelt out what the "plebs" actually want? Is it something achievable?
-
A second night of protests in the US against President-elect Donald Trump has turned violent in Portland, Oregon.
Several thousand demonstrators gathered in the centre of the western city. Some smashed shop and car windows, threw firecrackers and set rubbish alight.
Police in Portland accused some demonstrators of carrying bats and arming themselves with rocks. Objects were thrown at the police, who responded with pepper spray and rubber baton rounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37946231
That's the way to do it. Break some random stuff up.
I always find it amusing how demonstrators are defined.
Left = left
Right = far right ( just being right does not exist any more)
Lefty who disrupts and breaks things = activist
Righty who disrupts and breaks things = fascist thug
-
I agree with a lot of what you say, JP, but I think that "the plebs"have their own problems, too.
Trump is promising to restore manufacturing jobs. What he isn't saying is that for the USA to be a major commodity goods manufacturer it will have to be able to compete with China (and other places) in the employment market. How many people will be prepared to receive third-world wages for the privilege of manufacturing their own products? For that matter, how many Americans will be prepared to pay realistic prices for goods not made in low-wage economies? (Of course, Trump could be just sloganising - like his meaningless "make America great again".)
Having said that, I think that one major error made in the UK was making main-grade nursing a graduate entry profession. There must have been many potential nurses for whom that was perceived as a barrier too many, having to stay at school in the sixth form ... and so on. The nurses imported from the rest of the world to keep the NHS going are among the reviled immigrants whose presence helped fuel the Brexit vote. The scatter gun given to "the plebs" scattered just a little too widely to be in "the plebs" best interest!
-
The economics of it are interesting. Clinton lost in the rust belt, apparently because many blue-collar workers saw free trade as having led to factory closures. So Trump is arguing for the destruction of free trade deals, and then what? Presumably, tariffs against Chinese goods? That often leads to retaliation, of course. We shall see if Trump can bring jobs back to the rust belt, although I think this had been happening to an extent under Obama.
But Trump is also promising massive spending on infrastructure, building roads, bridges, and so on. Ironically, this is often a policy of the left, or Keynesians.
I hadn't really noticed in the debates that Trump landed powerful blows against Clinton on free trade, and she stumbled and stuttered.
So it goes.
-
How is he going to fund all those works?
The USA has been consistently in debt to the Chinese by over $1 trillion since 2010 - and he will block trade with China?
-
How is he going to fund all those works?
The USA has been consistently in debt to the Chinese by over $1 trillion since 2010 - and he will block trade with China?
He's also talking about big tax cuts, as well, isn't he? I guess he will borrow big time.
Having said that, Clinton was very vulnerable on free trade, OK, I know that hindsight is an exact science.
-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GLG9g7BcjKs
About 6 mins of your time. Why Trump won by Jonathan Pie who is a satirical news reporter character created and played by actor Tom Walker
-
Just saw on CNN, school children in the US chanting...'White Power'...'Build the wall'....
Lot of simmering discontent surfacing, it seems.
We can't just blame Trump. We must remember that he only represents what the majority feel....
Seems to be a world wide phenomenon too....which will get a shot in the arm with the coming of Trump.
-
Unfortunately, JK, such views on a number of US Presidents have been proven wrong in the past.
Trump's in a class of his own. Also, interestingly, the BBC were asking whether he would last a term; as he may get agitated that he isn't getting his way and being allowed to do what he wants. I can see him doing a Brown and throwing his mobile about the office.
-
It is a lie, imo. I see there a lots of protests against Trump all over the US, I don't remember that ever happening before when a President has been elected.
Sore losers, like the remoaners.
-
Not even a performing monkey would be as bad a choice as Trump! >:(
But it would out perform Hillary.
-
Has anyone spelt out what the "plebs" actually want? Is it something achievable?
Revolution.
-
I agree with a lot of what you say, JP, but I think that "the plebs"have their own problems, too.
Trump is promising to restore manufacturing jobs. What he isn't saying is that for the USA to be a major commodity goods manufacturer it will have to be able to compete with China (and other places) in the employment market. How many people will be prepared to receive third-world wages for the privilege of manufacturing their own products? For that matter, how many Americans will be prepared to pay realistic prices for goods not made in low-wage economies? (Of course, Trump could be just sloganising - like his meaningless "make America great again".)
Having said that, I think that one major error made in the UK was making main-grade nursing a graduate entry profession. There must have been many potential nurses for whom that was perceived as a barrier too many, having to stay at school in the sixth form ... and so on. The nurses imported from the rest of the world to keep the NHS going are among the reviled immigrants whose presence helped fuel the Brexit vote. The scatter gun given to "the plebs" scattered just a little too widely to be in "the plebs" best interest!
Higher prices means higher wages and a lot less for the rich venal elites. And this means more money in the economy and we all know that money makes the world go round - money velocity.
-
How is he going to fund all those works?
The USA has been consistently in debt to the Chinese by over $1 trillion since 2010 - and he will block trade with China?
China aren't in TTP. And the US plan a bigger build up of military bases in the East. I don't think China are going to be too pleased. Some think that if WWIII starts it will most likely be in the East.
-
There you are, Farage strikes gold again, calling Obama a 'loathsome individual'. And jokes about sexual assault. Classy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37934790
-
He's also talking about big tax cuts, as well, isn't he? I guess he will borrow big time.
From himself? ;)
-
There you are, Farage strikes gold again, calling Obama a 'loathsome individual'. And jokes about sexual assault. Classy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37934790
That is unbelievably vile, even for Farage.
How could anyone describe Barack Obama as a "loathsome individual", regardless of opinion about his governance?
Honestly, I despair of 'our countrymen' sometimes.
-
The Indy:
"Donald Trump's victory averted World War III, top Putin Aide claims" .... "Clinton was a symbol of war, and Trump has a chance to change this course”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/world-war-three-donald-trump-president-averted-putin-aide-claims-a7412111.html
There may be unrest on the streets but the cold war that was brewing with Obama, Clinton and Putin may have been prevented.
-
But that's not a lie.
Yes it is.
-
Hillary Clinton was as bad a choice as Donald Trump was.
Don't be so stupid.
A lot of Americans see her as a liar and responsible for the deaths of the embassy staff in Libya.
The fact is that she wasn't.
-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GLG9g7BcjKs
About 6 mins of your time. Why Trump won by Jonathan Pie who is a satirical news reporter character created and played by actor Tom Walker
The second half of that was very insightful.
-
We can't just blame Trump. We must remember that he only represents what the majority feel....
No he doesn't. He lost the popular vote.
-
Higher prices means higher wages
Not in manufacturing. In manufacturing, higher prices mean you go bankrupt, because people won't buy your stuff.
-
The Indy:
"Donald Trump's victory averted World War III, top Putin Aide claims" .... "Clinton was a symbol of war, and Trump has a chance to change this course”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/world-war-three-donald-trump-president-averted-putin-aide-claims-a7412111.html
There may be unrest on the streets but the cold war that was brewing with Obama, Clinton and Putin may have been prevented.
Do you honestly believe that? Putin loves Trump. He's lying.
-
Do you honestly believe that?
Yes. It's true. Obama/Clinton are warmongers. As I wrote earlier on this thread "The real narrative goes like this. The US starts supporting rebels in various Arab countries, including Syria. Russia says no, this is not the way. The rebels gain momentum and Russia warns of the consequences saying, Assad might be a barstard but ISIS is worse. The US, in actions rather than words, says they prefer ISIS. Russia helps Assad. America gets pissed off. Anerica orchestrates a coup in Ukraine led by a group of neo-fascists. Russia responds. America gets even more pissed off like a big bully who doesn't get its way, and imposes sanctions and wants to expand its war machine, NATO, ever closer to Russia scaring people into thinking Russia will invade us all. Who is the aggressor? Who should I be afraid of? It's not Russia. This is all the work of Obama/Clinton and shady financial backers."
-
Yes. It's true. Obama/Clinton are warmongers.
I think you need to check your history.Only one president has led the USA into major wars in the 21st century and it's not Obama. The idea that Obama is a war monger and the gangster Putin is not is frankly laughable.
-
I think you need to check your history.Only one president has led the USA into major wars in the 21st century and it's not Obama. The idea that Obama is a war monger and the gangster Putin is not is frankly laughable.
So Syria, Libya and Ukraine have nothing to do with Obama/Clinton then? You really do live in a bubble.
-
Remember kids, a Trump is not just for Christmas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f37qzY4atTw
( Parody of John Lewis Christmas advert, non-UK may not 'get' it. )
-
I think you need to check your history.Only one president has led the USA into major wars in the 21st century and it's not Obama. The idea that Obama is a war monger and the gangster Putin is not is frankly laughable.
Agreed.
-
Remember kids, a Trump is not just for Christmas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f37qzY4atTw
( Parody of John Lewis Christmas advert, non-UK may not 'get' it. )
Brilliant, just fucking brilliant!
-
Brilliant, just fucking brilliant!
Quite ( or even ordinary brilliant ;) )
-
Quite ( or even ordinary brilliant ;) )
I see that some people are complaining about the original JL ad because it is not 'sad enough ' !
-
Sebastian Toe: Quote from: Brownie on Today at 12:07:31 PM
Quite ( or even ordinary brilliant ;) )
I see that some people are complaining about the original JL ad because it is not 'sad enough ' !
-------------
Sad people who do not feel joy watching animals! I think it's great.
-
I don't know how many of you have heard Mike Pence's nomination speech. I just heard it. Its all Christian-iny...but I somehow like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vVKWRK40Ts
Good to hear someone declare his faith with so much conviction. People have stopped doing that in the neo liberal era.
-
Thanks Sririam! Here's a transcript for those who can't watch or listen atm :
https://www.bustle.com/articles/194243-heres-the-transcript-of-mike-pences-election-night-speech
(I don't have any comment right now, will digest it properly later)
-
Thanks Sririam! Here's a transcript for those who can't watch or listen atm :
https://www.bustle.com/articles/194243-heres-the-transcript-of-mike-pences-election-night-speech
(I don't have any comment right now, will digest it properly later)
Hi Brownie,
What I have linked is the nomination speech....not the post election speech. In the speech I have linked he is very articulate, clear and to the point. I somehow liked his conviction and direct style.
-
I will listen to it later, atm my husband is doing stuff and I don't want to disturb him (any more than usual!). Then I'll come back and comment.
-
Brownie.... that's a very good video. lol!
Sriram.... yes, wonderful testimony by Pence within that video, but I can't support his dispensational Christian Zionist beliefs. All the same he is sincere in his beliefs and comments.
-
Yes. It's true. Obama/Clinton are warmongers. As I wrote earlier on this thread "The real narrative goes like this. The US starts supporting rebels in various Arab countries, including Syria. Russia says no, this is not the way. The rebels gain momentum and Russia warns of the consequences saying, Assad might be a barstard but ISIS is worse. The US, in actions rather than words, says they prefer ISIS. Russia helps Assad. America gets pissed off. Anerica orchestrates a coup in Ukraine led by a group of neo-fascists. Russia responds. America gets even more pissed off like a big bully who doesn't get its way, and imposes sanctions and wants to expand its war machine, NATO, ever closer to Russia scaring people into thinking Russia will invade us all. Who is the aggressor? Who should I be afraid of? It's not Russia. This is all the work of Obama/Clinton and shady financial backers."
Jeremy, ad_o here, is showing the bigger picture.
-
Not in manufacturing. In manufacturing, higher prices mean you go bankrupt, because people won't buy your stuff.
If they have the money they'll buy it. It is all relative.
-
Do you honestly believe that? Putin loves Trump. He's lying.
If he gets what he wants he'll love him! :o
-
Yes. It's true. Obama/Clinton are warmongers. As I wrote earlier on this thread "The real narrative goes like this. The US starts supporting rebels in various Arab countries, including Syria. Russia says no, this is not the way. The rebels gain momentum and Russia warns of the consequences saying, Assad might be a barstard but ISIS is worse. The US, in actions rather than words, says they prefer ISIS. Russia helps Assad. America gets pissed off. Anerica orchestrates a coup in Ukraine led by a group of neo-fascists. Russia responds. America gets even more pissed off like a big bully who doesn't get its way, and imposes sanctions and wants to expand its war machine, NATO, ever closer to Russia scaring people into thinking Russia will invade us all. Who is the aggressor? Who should I be afraid of? It's not Russia. This is all the work of Obama/Clinton and shady financial backers."
Neo-Cons since Bill Clinton's time.
-
I think you need to check your history.Only one president has led the USA into major wars in the 21st century and it's not Obama. The idea that Obama is a war monger and the gangster Putin is not is frankly laughable.
Neo-Cons since B. Clinton's time.
-
Neo-Cons since B. Clinton's time.
Why all the 'secrecy', JK. There have only been conservative presidents since Bill Clinton (in fact, I'd suggest that the US has never had a non-conservative President - they've just been closer to or further away from the global understanding of right-wing [as opposed to left-wing]).
-
Why all the 'secrecy', JK. There have only been conservative presidents since Bill Clinton (in fact, I'd suggest that the US has never had a non-conservative President - they've just been closer to or further away from the global understanding of right-wing [as opposed to left-wing]).
Secrecy? Do you mean the B? That's because he wrote Bill in his previous post on the thread? Is there a global definition of conservative that works here? And if there is do you think that all 'conservatives' are 'neo cons', the term Jack Knave used?
-
Jeremy, ad_o here, is showing the bigger picture.
Putin is a gangster. The idea that he is more trustworthy not to start a war than Clinton would have been is completely laughable.
He invaded the Crimea, for dog's sake.
-
Here is a video on Trump, Hillary and Brexit. Lot of bad language and very emotional.....but it is good. The Left has been too rigid and intolerant of opposing views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
-
I think Trump is as dangerous as Hitler and probably shares the same warped ethos. >:(
-
I think Trump is as dangerous as Hitler and probably shares the same warped ethos. >:(
I don't believe that you really believe that.
-
I don't believe that you really believe that.
You better believe it, because I think that evil creep and Hitler would have hit it off well!
-
I think a lot of people are hoping that Trump moderates his stance on different things. You have to hope so, as his full package of white nationalism, misogyny, racism, targeting of Mexicans and Muslims, economic protectionism - is pretty horrific.
I don't think he's the same as Hitler, but his policies are dangerous. Also, abandoning climate change is the real nightmare, and there are predictions that temperatures could rise by 7 degrees, if the Paris accord is abandoned.
There are unpleasant reminders of the 30s, and we all know where that led.
-
I don't believe that you really believe that.
I don't believe that you don't believe that she really believes that.
-
You better believe it, because I think that evil creep and Hitler would have hit it off well!
We've been here before, floo, but there is no comparison between Trump and Hitler and it doesn't help to use hyperbole about a character we dislike.
They may have got on well though, plenty of people did get on well with Hitler.
In bygone days he would probably have got on well with Saddam Hussein who was 'America's friend' at one time.
However I agree with Wiggi that there is a whiff of 1930s ethos about Mr Trump.
I'm dying to know what he is going to do about abortion laws, if anything. That is because a poster on another forum is a Trump supporter (& quite jubilant atm), purely because he believes Trump is 'pro-life'. I do not believe he is genuinely 'pro-life' but am prepared to be convinced otherwise if there is evidence. Hope he isn't, actually. As if that was the only issue ::).
-
We've been here before, floo, but there is no comparison between Trump and Hitler and it doesn't help to use hyperbole about a character we dislike.
They may have got on well though, plenty of people did get on well with Hitler.
In bygone days he would probably have got on well with Saddam Hussein who was 'America's friend' at one time.
However I agree with Wiggi that there is a whiff of 1930s ethos about Mr Trump.
I'm dying to know what he is going to do about abortion laws, if anything. That is because a poster on another forum is a Trump supporter (& quite jubilant atm), purely because he believes Trump is 'pro-life'. I do not believe he is genuinely 'pro-life' but am prepared to be convinced otherwise if there is evidence. Hope he isn't, actually. As if that was the only issue ::).
He won't do anything about abortion laws directly. It's the choice of the Supreme Court judges that will affect this. Given his choice of Pence as VP, it illustrates his debt to the religious right. Pence is virulently 'pro life' and thinks creationism should be taught in schools.
-
He won't do anything about abortion laws directly. It's the choice of the Supreme Court judges that will affect this. Given his choice of Pence as VP, it illustrates his debt to the religious right. Pence is virulently 'pro life' and thinks creationism should be taught in schools.
Which is why Trump needs to survive until he is booted out by the electorate. Bad as Trump is, I think Pence might be worse.
-
Which is why Trump needs to survive until he is booted out by the electorate. Bad as Trump is, I think Pence might be worse.
but the choice of Supreme Court judges is likely to be on a similar basis to the choice of Pence. It will be as a sop to the religious right.
-
but the choice of Supreme Court judges is likely to be on a similar basis to the choice of Pence. It will be as a sop to the religious right.
Trump is in power, he will pick who he picks. You can bet if Pence is in power he will pick similar judges.
If I were Trump now, I would confirm Obama's choice as a peace offering to the fractured USA and an FU to the Republicans who turned their backs on him in the campaign.
-
We've been here before, floo, but there is no comparison between Trump and Hitler and it doesn't help to use hyperbole about a character we dislike.
They may have got on well though, plenty of people did get on well with Hitler.
In bygone days he would probably have got on well with Saddam Hussein who was 'America's friend' at one time.
However I agree with Wiggi that there is a whiff of 1930s ethos about Mr Trump.
I'm dying to know what he is going to do about abortion laws, if anything. That is because a poster on another forum is a Trump supporter (& quite jubilant atm), purely because he believes Trump is 'pro-life'. I do not believe he is genuinely 'pro-life' but am prepared to be convinced otherwise if there is evidence. Hope he isn't, actually. As if that was the only issue ::).
Well I beg to differ, I think there is plenty of comparison better Trump and Hitler, I have met several people in the last few days who think the same. I just hope the world wakes up to the comparison before it is to late! He might try to do what Hitler did to the Jews to Muslims, given half a chance!
-
Trump is in power, he will pick who he picks. You can bet if Pence is in power he will pick similar judges.
If I were Trump now, I would confirm Obama's choice as a peace offering to the fractured USA and an FU to the Republicans who turned their backs on him in the campaign.
They would still have to pass the nomination but I agree it would be a good tactic in some ways.
-
Well I beg to differ, I think there is plenty of comparison better Trump and Hitler, I have met several people in the last few days who think the same. I just hope the world wakes up to the comparison before it is to late! He might try to do what Hitler did to the Jews to Muslims, given half a chance!
that other people agree with you is merely the ad populum fallacy. You need to make the case by laying out what you see as the comparison.
-
that other people agree with you is merely the ad populum fallacy. You need to make the case by laying out what you see as the comparison.
His rabid attitude to Muslims is akin to Hitler's attitude towards the Jews, imo. Trump would like to make homosexual relationships illegal, I believe Hitler consigned gays to extermination camps. Hitler was very much in love with himself as is Trump. I just hope somehow Trump is neutralised before he can do any damage as President.
-
His rabid attitude to Muslims is akin to Hitler's attitude towards the Jews, imo. Trump would like to make homosexual relationships illegal, I believe Hitler consigned gays to extermination camps. Hitler was very much in love with himself as is Trump. I just hope somehow Trump is neutralised before he can do any damage as President.
Can you cite me anything from Trump that says he would like homosexual relationships should be illegal?
-
I think more than worry about Trump or Brexit as individual events, we should be more sensitive to changing sentiments among a majority of the people in all parts of the world. Quite clearly, the world today is not the same as it was 10 years ago. That''s what we should be responsive to.
-
His rabid attitude to Muslims is akin to Hitler's attitude towards the Jews, imo.
I think he is unlikely to start gassing them though.
Trump would like to make homosexual relationships illegal,
Evidence?
I just hope somehow Trump is neutralised before he can do any damage as President.
So do we all, but that doesn't mean Trump is in the same league as Hitler.
-
I don't think Trump is a fascist by any means. But he is showing enough right-wing themes to worry me, e.g. white nationalism, attacks on minorities, misogyny, and his talk of jailing Clinton. Hopefully, a lot of this is hot air, but still.
If there was another economic crash, then I would worry about fascism. But I think the US economy has been growing recently (ironically).
-
I think more than worry about Trump or Brexit as individual events, we should be more sensitive to changing sentiments among a majority of the people in all parts of the world. Quite clearly, the world today is not the same as it was 10 years ago. That''s what we should be responsive to.
Leaving aside that Trump got elected on a minority of vote which itself was only 55 % of the electorate, and that it is on a multiple number of issues, what does be responsive mean?
-
Some reports that Clinton has received the largest vote of any presidential candidate, except Obama. How really odd. Some estimates that she has nearly 2 million votes more than Trump. Eh?
-
Going back to Trump, the crucial difference is authoritarian rule, isn't it? I see worrying parallels between the treatment of Jews in the 30s, and Muslims today, but I don't think Le Pen, Farage and Trump are actually advocating internment and so on. As I said earlier, the economies are too robust in Europe and the US, whereas in the 20s and 30s the economies were smashed. Of course, the authoritarian stuff wasn't just about minorities.
-
Going back to Trump, the crucial difference is authoritarian rule, isn't it? I see worrying parallels between the treatment of Jews in the 30s, and Muslims today, but I don't think Le Pen, Farage and Trump are actually advocating internment and so on. As I said earlier, the economies are too robust in Europe and the US, whereas in the 20s and 30s the economies were smashed. Of course, the authoritarian stuff wasn't just about minorities.
I might be wrong but I thought Trump did suggest rounding all Muslims up, and putting them in interment camps before kicking them out of the US even if they have lived there all their lives.
-
I might be wrong but I thought Trump did suggest rounding all Muslims up, and putting them in interment camps before kicking them out of the US even if they have lived there all their lives.
I haven't seen that. I think he did get close to fascist-type comments, and there are parallels with Jews in the 30s, but still, he is not another Hitler. Of course, he could turn into one, if there are big economic upsets, or another 9/11.
-
We shall just have to see how it all pans out.
-
When I look at Farage, Le Pen and Trump, I sure get nervous about white nationalism, and the treatment of Muslims (like Jews). So far, I am holding onto optimism about European and American values, but of course, they can get swept away by war and isolationism. Here's hoping.
-
Incidentally, 80% of US Evangelicals voted Trump, he is truly a man of the Lard.
-
When I look at Farage, Le Pen and Trump, I sure get nervous about white nationalism, and the treatment of Muslims (like Jews). So far, I am holding onto optimism about European and American values, but of course, they can get swept away by war and isolationism. Here's hoping.
Here's one hoping Le Pen wins next year. Another kick in the teeth of the current system. We have been forgotten by the elite. We want out countries, our continent and our culture back. I have no desire to walk into Helsinki and feel like I'm in downtwon Baghdad or Mogadishu. Down with the EU, down with the system. Down with Soros and the Rothschilds. The people are rising.
-
Volksverräter ausgestoßen aus der Deutschen Volksgemeinschaft!
-
... The people are rising.
One suspects they'd be better off properly funding their pensions and health insurance.
-
Don't be so stupid.The fact is that she wasn't.
Interesting comeback.
I have a lot of relatives in the USA and I have discussed this quite a bit with a couple of them.
The one more than most was educated at Virginia University, worked at the Pentagon in his career and is certainly no redneck. His view is that it is a blight on the country that they ended up with the two candidates they did and couldn't bring himself to vote for either of them.
Trump is self explanatory, but his reasons for Clinton are......
(copied direct from a message to me)
#1 she's a liar
#2 she's not trustworthy
#3 pay for play while Secretary of State
#4 she's a political insider
#5 questionable Clinton Foundation contributions received as a result of #3 IOU's
#6 blood on her hands from Benghazi
Lots of Americans believe the same.
-
Volksverräter ausgestoßen aus der Deutschen Volksgemeinschaft!
Eh?
-
Interesting comeback.
Yes, you made a false claim. I dismissed it.
(copied direct from a message to me)
#1 she's a liar
#2 she's not trustworthy
#3 pay for play while Secretary of State
#4 she's a political insider
#5 questionable Clinton Foundation contributions received as a result of #3 IOU's
#6 blood on her hands from Benghazi
Number 6 is certainly false. If your friend did as much research on numbers 1 to 5, then his opinions are worthless.
Lots of Americans believe the same.
Yes, that's a huge problem, much the same as a lot of British believed the Leave campaign lies in the Brexit vote.
-
He's not a friend, he's family. 4th gen yank from an Brit coal mining immigrant.
Anyway, that's fine. I mean he has only lived through the whole thing, from the beginning to the end so I will let him know some well informed bloke from over here knows much better and that he is just plain old stupid.
Anyway, Hil lost. Another one you seem to be struggling with. I wonder how you will cope when Austria and France go next.
-
Eh?
Enemies or traitors of the people, Ad-o. Nazi type rhetoric applied to those whom they persecuted.
-
Here's one hoping Le Pen wins next year. Another kick in the teeth of the current system. We have been forgotten by the elite. We want out countries, our continent and our culture back. I have no desire to walk into Helsinki and feel like I'm in downtwon Baghdad or Mogadishu. Down with the EU, down with the system. Down with Soros and the Rothschilds. The people are rising.
Ad_O, I'd say the elite know just what they are doing, and until Soros and the Rothschilds et al stop pulling the strings, not a lot is going to change.... Trump or no Trump.
-
Ad_O, I'd say the elite know just what they are doing, and until Soros and the Rothschilds et al stop pulling the strings, not a lot is going to change.... Trump or no Trump.
True.
-
He's not a friend, he's family. 4th gen yank from an Brit coal mining immigrant.
and that makes him an oracle of truth how?
Anyway, that's fine. I mean he has only lived through the whole thing, from the beginning to the end so I will let him know some well informed bloke from over here knows much better and that he is just plain old stupid.
He is factually wrong about Benghazi. That's all there is to it. Hillary Clinton does not have blood on her hands any more than her Republican predecessors have blood on their hands for the sixty US diplomatic staff who were killed on GW Bush's watch.
Anyway, Hil lost. Another one you seem to be struggling with. I wonder how you will cope when Austria and France go next.
If that prospect doesn't scare you, it should.
-
I am simply explaining the relationship and who he is, nothing more. There can be only one oracle and you are sitting in the oracle chair at the moment with no sign of you leaving.
No it doesn't scare me. What scares me are left wing fascists who whine, moan, bitch and rampage when the vote doesn't go their way. Suddenly democracy is a shit idea and uneducated racist fuckwits shouldn't be able to vote.
-
I am simply explaining the relationship and who he is, nothing more. There can be only one oracle and you are sitting in the oracle chair at the moment with no sign of you leaving.
There was a congressional investigation on it that concluded Clinton was not at fault, so I don't need to be an oracle.
No it doesn't scare me. What scares me are left wing fascists who whine, moan, bitch and rampage when the vote doesn't go their way.
Moaning and bitching is fine. Rampaging is not. However, the protests in the USA will die down after a few days as will the racist attacks by Trump supporters. Trump is here for four years.
Suddenly democracy is a shit idea and uneducated racist fuckwits shouldn't be able to vote.
The only person I saw in the presidential campaign hinting that democracy was a shit idea was Donald Trump.
-
The one thing that is becoming clear about Trump is that 'what you see is NOT what you get'.
He is rapidly changing his position on virtually everything and no one knows what kind of presidency we will end up with.
-
I think there is one small redeeming factor in all of this and that is that anything that happens, good or bad, commented on or not, is communicated around the world within hours.
-
The one thing that is becoming clear about Trump is that 'what you see is NOT what you get'.
He is rapidly changing his position on virtually everything and no one knows what kind of presidency we will end up with.
True!
-
I suppose we could settle on Clinton is not guilty like Blair is not a war criminal.
-
The only person I saw in the presidential campaign hinting that democracy was a shit idea was Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, after the presidential campaign, and in Europe, the political elite, the unaffected and the fascist left think democracy is a shit idea because they lost, and they are vey, very bad losers. I did not realise how much so. I have no idea how far it needs to go before it sinks in for them.
-
I am of the opinion that all candidates for high office, like President of Prime Minister, should be subjected to a mental health test to see if they are mentally fit for the job. I have heard Ronald Reagan was suffering from dementia during his last tenure in office, and his wife was making his decisions for him with the help of astrology! ::) If that was true, how scary is that?
-
He may not be so bad after all.....
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-president-elect-donald-trump-says-will-take-1-as-salary-with-no-vacations-1625065?pfrom=home-topstories
He is taking it very seriously....!
-
I am of the opinion that all candidates for high office, like President of Prime Minister, should be subjected to a mental health test to see if they are mentally fit for the job. I have heard Ronald Reagan was suffering from dementia during his last tenure in office, and his wife was making his decisions for him with the help of astrology! ::) If that was true, how scary is that?
Not scary at all - as long as she was using Russell Grant! ::)
-
This is a very good article on the issues the Democrats and indeed Labour currently have
https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
-
I'm still trying to grapple with the idea that the 'left behind' have voted in right-wing governments, in order to get more jobs and higher wages, and so on. Eh?
I suppose with someone like Trump, you can see a kind of logic - he is a business man, who will get things done, despite five bankruptcies.
Now Europe seems to be going into a right-wing phase, with tons of white nationalism, hatred of foreigners, down with the Jews Muslims. As the man said, Volksverräter ausgestoßen aus der deutschen Volksgemeinschaft, enemies of the people will be cast out from the German community! Off we go then. See you in hell.
-
Meanwhile, after the presidential campaign, and in Europe, the political elite, the unaffected and the fascist left think democracy is a shit idea because they lost
I'm sorry, could you give some examples of anybody in the political elite, the unaffected (do you mean disaffected?) or the "fascist" left who thinks democracy is a shit idea? I haven't seen anybody claim that in any serious way.
On the other hand, the president elect would not commit to respecting the result if he lost.
and they are vey, very bad losers.
Now you are doing exactly what the left did to Trump supporters. You are belittling their concerns. People are genuinely very frightened about what Trump might do.
If you are a Muslim or Mexican in the USA you are probably shitting yourself about deportation right now.
If you are gay and married, you are probably concerned that Trump will declare your marriage void.
If you are at all worried about climate change, you are probably scared that Trump will tear up the Paris agreement.
If you care about education, you are probably worried that the new Education secretary will declare creationism as science.
If you are poor and ill, you are probably worried about Trump eviscerating Obamacare.
People are not just poor losers, they are frightened.
-
Ad_O, I'd say the elite know just what they are doing, and until Soros and the Rothschilds et al stop pulling the strings, not a lot is going to change.... Trump or no Trump.
What is so terrible about the Rothschilds and, particularly, George Soros?
-
Belittling concerns eh?
Oh the irony.
-
Another good piece
http://reaction.life/clinton-smug-liberals-lost-culture-war/
-
What is so terrible about the Rothschilds and, particularly, George Soros?
With their immense wealth they have the power to make politicians their zionist puppets. Soros has been funding the anti Trump protests.
http://anonhq.com/george-soros-funded-moveon-org-organized-anti-trump-protests/
-
Bernie Sanders interviewed on R4 this morning. Consensus is he would have won easily but he wouldn't quite say it.
-
Another good piece
http://reaction.life/clinton-smug-liberals-lost-culture-war/
Sums it up for me.
-
With their immense wealth they have the power to make politicians their zionist puppets. Soros has been funding the anti Trump protests.
http://anonhq.com/george-soros-funded-moveon-org-organized-anti-trump-protests/
Why are you reporting what even your stated source says us a rumour as a fact?
-
This is also excellent. Taken in conjunction with the earlier Iain Martin piece it underlines that this isn't about some huge tectonic change in politics but that if you start thinking that you are the bees knees you forget about what you should actually be doing. When the President of the USA is talking about who can enter toilets, there is something wrong in choosing priorities.
https://www.ft.com/content/b26899a6-aa58-11e6-a0bb-97f42551dbf4
-
Bernie Sanders interviewed on R4 this morning. Consensus is he would have won easily but he wouldn't quite say it.
I think the consensus here is mainly from people who support Sanders. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he couldn't have won but I think there is a big difference between running in the primaries and in the main presidential election. A Sanders candidacy would have united the parts of the Republicans who found Trump difficult.
-
http://www.anonews.co/trump-on-syria/
-
I have just read elsewhere that Trump wants his children to have access to classified material.
He wamts security clearance for them.
-
I have just read elsewhere that Trump wants his children to have access to classified material.
He wamts security clearance for them.
If true it sounds like the early stages of setting up a dynasty by dealing himself a handful of trumps.
-
The business of climate change for Trump
http://tinyurl.com/ztjstwx
-
Not racist at all!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37985967
-
Why all the 'secrecy', JK. There have only been conservative presidents since Bill Clinton (in fact, I'd suggest that the US has never had a non-conservative President - they've just been closer to or further away from the global understanding of right-wing [as opposed to left-wing]).
It is the people behind the scenes that are the ones with the power and these haven't changed. That's why Obama has been such a flop because they were the ones setting the tone.
-
Going back to Trump, the crucial difference is authoritarian rule, isn't it? I see worrying parallels between the treatment of Jews in the 30s, and Muslims today, but I don't think Le Pen, Farage and Trump are actually advocating internment and so on. As I said earlier, the economies are too robust in Europe and the US, whereas in the 20s and 30s the economies were smashed. Of course, the authoritarian stuff wasn't just about minorities.
A force is going on now which is having a similar effect to that of the 1930's. The system then, reparations and the crash, had created a downward spiral in the world's GDP and economies. Neo-Liberalism, globalization and quantitative easing have created a system that is sucking the world economies dry because it has failed. The people are suffering and at some point they will rebel against their neo-feudal lords.
-
I haven't seen that. I think he did get close to fascist-type comments, and there are parallels with Jews in the 30s, but still, he is not another Hitler. Of course, he could turn into one, if there are big economic upsets, or another 9/11.
If things become polarized, and with all those guns lying about, then a minor civil war could breakout. The anti-Trump protests were pretty feisty and there's been some white supremacist outbursts; all brewed up by Trump's rhetoric and expectations.
-
Here's one hoping Le Pen wins next year. Another kick in the teeth of the current system. We have been forgotten by the elite. We want out countries, our continent and our culture back. I have no desire to walk into Helsinki and feel like I'm in downtwon Baghdad or Mogadishu. Down with the EU, down with the system. Down with Soros and the Rothschilds. The people are rising.
I believe Finland is 100 years old soon. Someone is giving you a mountain as a gift, do enjoy it!
-
One suspects they'd be better off properly funding their pensions and health insurance.
How? When the markets are rigged!!!
-
It is the people behind the scenes that are the ones with the power and these haven't changed. That's why Obama has been such a flop because they were the ones setting the tone.
you do know your post contradicts itself?
-
Not racist at all!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37985967
I thought it was funny
-
In fairness, Trump can't be responsible for the tweets of some of his supporters.
It was a horrible thing to say about Michelle Obama who is a dignified and first lady who hasn't really put a foot wrong. I feel a bit sorry for Trump's wife who isn't going to find it easy to step into the role.
Ad_o, I understood Soros was not a Zionist. He has actually been accused of antisemitism by Zionists, I don't believe that's true but that's a label often stuck on people who are critical of Israel as he has been.
The site you linked to smacks of conspiracy theories.
-
John Oliver's take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06XdjbVIM
I think his comments on social media - Facebook in particular are pretty good. 44% of Americans get their news from Facebook, which is pretty frightening because Facebook just feeds you what you want to read.
-
In fairness, Trump can't be responsible for the tweets of some of his supporters.
Yes he can. His campaign has legitimised this kind of nonsense.
I feel a bit sorry for Trump's wife who isn't going to find it easy to step into the role of first lady.
I agree, especially following Michelle Obama.
-
Yes he can. His campaign has legitimised this kind of nonsense.
I agree, especially following Michelle Obama.
you really are an intolerant bigot
-
you really are an intolerant bigot
Would you like to try saying something intelligent instead of calling the people you disagree with names?
-
John Oliver's take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06XdjbVIM
I think his comments on social media - Facebook in particular are pretty good. 44% of Americans get their news from Facebook, which is pretty frightening because Facebook just feeds you what you want to read.
It would appear that Facebook may be aware of the problem.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37967783
-
I thought it was funny
that's because you are racist
-
A friend was telling me yesterday that There is a large number of law suits pending against Trump, going back years. Fraud, non-payment of huge bils, etc. Anyone know anything about this?
-
A friend was telling me yesterday that There is a large number of law suits pending against Trump, going back years. Fraud, non-payment of huge bils, etc. Anyone know anything about this?
Hurrah, oh, wait a minute, President Pence, oops!
-
In fairness, Trump can't be responsible for the tweets of some of his supporters.
It was a horrible thing to say about Michelle Obama who is a dignified and first lady who hasn't really put a foot wrong. I feel a bit sorry for Trump's wife who isn't going to find it easy to step into the role.
Ad_o, I understood Soros was not a Zionist. He has actually been accused of antisemitism by Zionists, I don't believe that's true but that's a label often stuck on people who are critical of Israel as he has been.
The site you linked to smacks of conspiracy theories.
Didn't say he was responsible for the comments of his supporters. Was just picking up the person in the article saying it wasn't racist.
-
A friend was telling me yesterday that There is a large number of law suits pending against Trump, going back years. Fraud, non-payment of huge bils, etc. Anyone know anything about this?
I have heard that too.
-
Hurrah, oh, wait a minute, President Pence, oops!
Not necessarily. I believe that the meeting of the Electoral College which validates and proclaims the election result has not taken place yet.
-
Not necessarily. I believe that the meeting of the Electoral College which validates and proclaims the election result has not taken place yet.
And they will go with Pence in this situation
-
you really are an intolerant bigot
Walter, what Jeremy presented was a reasonable point of view but in any case on here we criticise the post, not insult the poster.
-
Would you like to try saying something intelligent instead of calling the people you disagree with names?
pot/kettle?
what I've been doing on this thread and on another is attempting to show how easy it is for ordinary people who we share our daily lives with can rapidly turn against each other because we experience life differently.
I've been playing devils advocate. It seems to have produced some interesting results.
Although I do agree with some of the things Trump said in his campaign, and some of the things Farage says, I have been called an idiot and a racist on these threads , nothing can be further from the truth.
If I have offended anyone , please accept my apologies, however you can see how easily it can be done
-
I thought it was funny
I didn't find it at all funny, I thought it was very nasty.
-
It certainly was nasty, however Walter says, above, he has been playing devil's advocate so we don't really know what he thinks.
-
In fairness, Trump can't be responsible for the tweets of some of his supporters.
It was a horrible thing to say about Michelle Obama who is a dignified and first lady who hasn't really put a foot wrong. I feel a bit sorry for Trump's wife who isn't going to find it easy to step into the role.
Ad_o, I understood Soros was not a Zionist. He has actually been accused of antisemitism by Zionists, I don't believe that's true but that's a label often stuck on people who are critical of Israel as he has been.
The site you linked to smacks of conspiracy theories.
The women who tweeted it wasn't just a supporter though, but someone in government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/michelle-obama-ape-in-heels-facebook-post-causes-outrage/
Although the USA has free speech, they are still expected to behave with decorum in positions of authority.
She got the sack!
-
The women who tweeted it wasn't just a supporter though, but someone in government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/michelle-obama-ape-in-heels-facebook-post-causes-outrage/
Although the USA has free speech, they are still expected to behave with decorum in positions of authority.
She got the sack!
I'm pleased to hear it.
-
pot/kettle?
what I've been doing on this thread and on another is attempting to show how easy it is for ordinary people who we share our daily lives with can rapidly turn against each other because we experience life differently.
I've been playing devils advocate. It seems to have produced some interesting results.
Although I do agree with some of the things Trump said in his campaign, and some of the things Farage says, I have been called an idiot and a racist on these threads , nothing can be further from the truth.
If I have offended anyone , please accept my apologies, however you can see how easily it can be done
Yes, my initial gut reaction to seeing the comment about Michelle Obama when it first came out, was to say ( privately at home) some very unflattering things about Melania. Mainly because of how the comment was set. (Context)
That's also how differences grow.
The moral of that I guess is to go and have a cup of tea and not post until time has passed to reflect.
☕️
When people post "gut" reactions, is when you get that sort of comment in the first place , I guess.
My work emails are famous, don't do them very often, but have had enough experience to know giving the "gut reaction" when you are beyond exasperation isn't always the best idea :o
My manager lives in dread in case I sound off about some perceived unfairness. :o
We joke about it ;D
-
Rose
very wise :)
-
Rose: The moral of that I guess is to go and have a cup of tea and not post until time has passed to reflect.
Definitely Rose, sensible as always (you'd make a great mod).
-
Walter, what Jeremy presented was a reasonable point of view but in any case on here we criticise the post, not insult the poster.
But, but Jeremy called me stupid.....
Where is my safe space, boo hoo.
-
you do know your post contradicts itself?
You do know your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? Sadly I fear you don't.
-
In fairness, Trump can't be responsible for the tweets of some of his supporters.
It was a horrible thing to say about Michelle Obama who is a dignified and first lady who hasn't really put a foot wrong. I feel a bit sorry for Trump's wife who isn't going to find it easy to step into the role.
Ad_o, I understood Soros was not a Zionist. He has actually been accused of antisemitism by Zionists, I don't believe that's true but that's a label often stuck on people who are critical of Israel as he has been.
The site you linked to smacks of conspiracy theories.
I think Trump's wife use to be a lap dancer or something like that.
Tarts are renown for being able to accommodate almost anyone and anything. ;D
-
I think Trump's wife use to be a lap dancer or something like that.
Tarts are renown for being able to accommodate almost anyone and anything. ;D
oooh, I do like a tart.
-
oooh, I do like a tart.
A Washington Tart, with a little wall around it.
-
Victoria Plum tart is de-licious.
Anyway, being a lap dancer doesn't make someone a tart, so there.
-
A Washington Tart, with a little wall around it.
a Washington tart with a little WALTER around it
-
But, but Jeremy called me stupid.....
Where is my safe space, boo hoo.
In which post did I call you stupid?
-
I think Trump's wife use to be a lap dancer or something like that.
She was a fashion and swimwear model.
-
She was a fashion and swimwear model.
Oh. I saw a photograph of her seemingly dancing in not very much and I thought that the whole point of the news clip was to highlight her sordid past.
-
Past is past. She has been married to Donald Trump for quite a few years and they have a son.
-
In which post did I call you stupid?
I think it was me you called stupid and idiot
-
And they will go with Pence in this situation
But Pence was not a candidate in the election. No one has voted for him. The Electoral College can only consider declared presidential candidates, it cannot appoint someone who was not on the list.
-
In which post did I call you stupid?
#512
-
#512
Technically I didn't call you stupid, I said you were being stupid to claim Clinton was as bad as Trump. I apologise, I should have worded it better e.g. "the idea that Clinton is as bad as Trump is utterly stupid" to make it clear that it was the statement that was stupid not the person.
-
But Pence was not a candidate in the election. No one has voted for him. The Electoral College can only consider declared presidential candidates, it cannot appoint someone who was not on the list.
The chief role of the VP is to take over if the president is incapacitated. If Trump is incapacitated, Pence will take over under the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if people didn't vote for him (although the constitutional rule means technically they did since the president/vice president combination come as a package), it's the law.
-
The chief role of the VP is to take over if the president is incapacitated. If Trump is incapacitated, Pence will take over under the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if people didn't vote for him (although the constitutional rule means technically they did since the president/vice president combination come as a package), it's the law.
Correct - see Presidents Johnson and Ford as examples - the latter being particularly unusual as he wasn't on the Nixon ticket in 1972, but became VP when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, then president following Nixon's resignation in 74.
-
The chief role of the VP is to take over if the president is incapacitated. If Trump is incapacitated, Pence will take over under the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if people didn't vote for him (although the constitutional rule means technically they did since the president/vice president combination come as a package), it's the law.
I'm not saying you are wrong but as Trump is not technically the president until the electoral college makes their decision, does that still hold?
Weirdly I think is possible also for the Democrats to ditch Clinton and propose another candidate, even a Republican, to be voted for by the college! Not that it will happen but it just goes to show what a strange, to us, system they have!
-
I'm not saying you are wrong but as Trump is not technically the president until the electoral college makes their decision, does that still hold?
Weirdly I think is possible also for the Democrats to ditch Clinton and propose another candidate, even a Republican, to be voted for by the college! Not that it will happen but it just goes to show what a strange, to us, system they have!
My understanding is no it doesn't hold, but were Trump to be indicted and somehow barred before the college meets on 12th December, I suspect there would've abstentions in the college which means it would pass to the House of Representatives who could only choose either Trump or Clinton. I then suspect the Republicans to ensure that neither gets confirmed, and then the Senate gets to vote on the VP which would be Pence, and then he would by default become President.
All a bit moot, as I don't think there is a chance that anything will happen against Trump till well after 12th December
-
This is quite scary
http://tinyurl.com/zfjj33e
-
Scarier than clicking on links with no idea where they are going to land you?
-
One of the interesting things about the Trump win is that it seems to shatter the neo-liberal set of policies favoured by the Clintons and Obama, and much of the Republican party, I would think. Hence, his hostility to free trade, which Clinton famously championed.
However, Trump also scored with his ferocious racist and misogynist stances, which presumably went down well with some of the 'left behind', that is, the white ones.
However, it leaves the US in a right pickle, it seems to me. No doubt Trump will cobble together some economic measures, for example, helping the rich pay less tax, but whether he can really bring jobs back to the rust belt is in doubt, especially as automation has played a part. However, he seems to be promising massive spending on infrastructure - Keynesian!
I suppose there is a plus side, that Trump is notoriously inconsistent. Who knows whether he will really do some of the things he has promised? But in any case, the right wing have been unleashed, so that minorities and women are no doubt pretty scared.
-
The chief role of the VP is to take over if the president is incapacitated. If Trump is incapacitated, Pence will take over under the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if people didn't vote for him (although the constitutional rule means technically they did since the president/vice president combination come as a package), it's the law.
I thought, from the context of SusanDoris's earlier post, that we were discussing what would happen if Trump were to stand down before his election were confirmed.
-
I reckon we saw the real Trump when he came back from Mexico during the campaign. We saw the façade of Trump whilst he engaged with the Mexican PM (or whatever they are called) but when he came back he reiterated that he was going to build the wall and the way he did that told me that that was the real Trump. What we are seeing now is the façade Trump in order to give himself time to build a power base in Washington. All vulnerable leaders play the compromise card early on when they are newly in power and still too weak to lay down the law. This would mean that what he said in the campaign essentially sets out his true position. Corbyn did a similar thing when he first became Labour leader and still has the hope that he can infest the Labour power points with his people.
-
I reckon we saw the real Trump when he came back from Mexico during the campaign. We saw the façade of Trump whilst he engaged with the Mexican PM (or whatever they are called) but when he came back he reiterated that he was going to build the wall and the way he did that told me that that was the real Trump. What we are seeing now is the façade Trump in order to give himself time to build a power base in Washington. All vulnerable leaders play the compromise card early on when they are newly in power and still too weak to lay down the law. This would mean that what he said in the campaign essentially sets out his true position.
My reckoning is the opposite.
Trump ramped up the rhetoric to get elected. In office he will be much more moderate. Lets not forget that, regardless of his rather offensive personality, a successful businessman. He won't have achieved success without be a deal maker and being pragmatic.
So the wall is already becoming a fence, and the suggestion that the Mexican's will pay is being quietly dropped. In due course the physical fence will become a metaphorical fence, meaning tougher immigration rules. The reality too is that it would be implausible impractical to actually build a wall along the whole of the Mexico/US border. Or at least impractical to build one that would actually work, in other words preventing people crossing.
-
My reckoning is the opposite.
Trump ramped up the rhetoric to get elected. In office he will be much more moderate.
Judging by the people he is picking for government, I don't think that assertion can be supported.
Lets not forget that, regardless of his rather offensive personality, a successful businessman. He won't have achieved success without be a deal maker and being pragmatic.
He's been bankrupt four times. He routinely bullies subcontractors into accepting less money than they contracted for. Some of his companies are scams. Even his personal wealth is contentious. Some people have speculated that the reason he does not release his tax returns is because he is not nearly as rich as he would like us to believe.
He is not really a successful businessman.
So the wall is already becoming a fence, and the suggestion that the Mexican's will pay is being quietly dropped. In due course the physical fence will become a metaphorical fence, meaning tougher immigration rules. The reality too is that it would be implausible impractical to actually build a wall along the whole of the Mexico/US border. Or at least impractical to build one that would actually work, in other words preventing people crossing.
The reality is that the wall/fence would be far too expensive and cross through far too many republican constituencies for it to get through Congress.
-
My reckoning is the opposite.
Trump ramped up the rhetoric to get elected. In office he will be much more moderate. Lets not forget that, regardless of his rather offensive personality, a successful businessman. He won't have achieved success without be a deal maker and being pragmatic.
So the wall is already becoming a fence, and the suggestion that the Mexican's will pay is being quietly dropped. In due course the physical fence will become a metaphorical fence, meaning tougher immigration rules. The reality too is that it would be implausible impractical to actually build a wall along the whole of the Mexico/US border. Or at least impractical to build one that would actually work, in other words preventing people crossing.
My assessment is based on the earnestness and underlining passion in which he said it. As I said the rhetoric now is his façade one for appeasing his way to not just the White House but getting his roots deeply embedded into the system. The wall is a minor aspect of his wishes, I believe he has more personal and egotistical plans ahead.
-
Judging by the people he is picking for government, I don't think that assertion can be supported.
He's been bankrupt four times. He routinely bullies subcontractors into accepting less money than they contracted for. Some of his companies are scams. Even his personal wealth is contentious. Some people have speculated that the reason he does not release his tax returns is because he is not nearly as rich as he would like us to believe.
He is not really a successful businessman.
The reality is that the wall/fence would be far too expensive and cross through far too many republican constituencies for it to get through Congress.
Surprisingly, I agree with most of that. If only you could open your eyes and see the EU, the way you see Trump, in its truly evil light.
-
Surprisingly, I agree with most of that. If only you could open your eyes and see the EU, the way you see Trump, in its truly evil light.
You must have your eyes closed tight shut, if you believe the EU is evil! ::)
-
Evil is everywhere, floo, it lurks in corners, unseen. Aaargh.
-
You must have your eyes closed tight shut, if you believe the EU is evil! ::)
Evil is relative. Whatever hurts someone is 'evil' in their eyes.
-
Oh joy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38027519
-
America under Trump will make even North Korea look good!
-
That really is an alarming BBC news article but most of it is not surprising.
Kanye West saying he would have voted for Trump does surprise me. "Would have..", could he not vote?
Jeremy (about DT): He's been bankrupt four times. He routinely bullies subcontractors into accepting less money than they contracted for. Some of his companies are scams. Even his personal wealth is contentious. Some people have speculated that the reason he does not release his tax returns is because he is not nearly as rich as he would like us to believe.
He is not really a successful businessman.
I too heard that from a couple of sources.
Apparently he lost a lot of the money he got from his father.
-
If all that is true, I wouldn't be surprised, Trump doesn't seem to be a very honest person! Why hasn't he been brought to court, the Americans are normally very quick to sue?
-
I suppose he manages to stay on the right side of the law and anyway it would take someone even more rich to successfully sue him.
-
I suppose he manages to stay on the right side of the law and anyway it would take someone even more rich to successfully sue him.
Or perhaps he uses similar strategies to the late (and unlamented) Savile - bullying potential complainants with threats of dire consequences if try to complain.
-
You must have your eyes closed tight shut, if you believe the EU is evil! ::)
You must have closed your mind off if you can't.
-
Or perhaps he uses similar strategies to the late (and unlamented) Savile - bullying potential complainants with threats of dire consequences if try to complain.
A really sinister idea but wouldn't surprise me in the least.
-
Or perhaps he uses similar strategies to the late (and unlamented) Savile - bullying potential complainants with threats of dire consequences if try to complain.
Could be!
-
Points!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-jewish-muslim-registry-president-elect-rights-adl-anti-defamation-league-a7426341.html
-
Excellent, I wish there were more like that man.
-
Good analysis
http://reaction.life/trump-media-genius-winding-liberal-left/
-
Good analysis
http://reaction.life/trump-media-genius-winding-liberal-left/
I agree with this - especially this part:
"Meanwhile, the liberal left needs surely to realise that the obsession with snowflake identity politics is an electoral and cultural dead end."
Trump's election did seem like a significant portion of the population celebrating being able to openly say what had previously been policed by not-so-liberal liberals, and a rejection of this particular aspect of 'liberal' culture, while reclaiming a culture that a significant proportion of Americans were comfortable to be a part of. The 'liberals' need a new game plan.
-
Far better to be a liberal than a right wing bigot!
-
I too heard that from a couple of sources.
Apparently he lost a lot of the money he got from his father.
The most reliable way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one.
Anyway, he just settled a lawsuit about Trump University to avoid embarrassment. There are probably a lot of people with grievances against Trump thinking "I could get a piece of that now".
-
Far better to be a liberal than a right wing bigot!
That's exactly what these so called 'liberal' are, bigots.
-
I agree with this - especially this part:
"Meanwhile, the liberal left needs surely to realise that the obsession with snowflake identity politics is an electoral and cultural dead end."
Trump's election did seem like a significant portion of the population celebrating being able to openly say what had previously been policed by not-so-liberal liberals, and a rejection of this particular aspect of 'liberal' culture, while reclaiming a culture that a significant proportion of Americans were comfortable to be a part of. The 'liberals' need a new game plan.
I agree with you. But lets put it into context here. What the 'liberals' have done is to try to control the populous by making certain ideas a taboo and unmentionable i.e. closing down debate on certain topics and ideas. This is exactly what the Nazis and the Soviet Union, and others, tried to do when applying their restrictive ideology so that they got the minimum of opposition and challenge to what they wanted to do - even using threats, false charges and even assassinations. This is exactly what the EU does and this is why EU member states have the same approach and policy in controlling the people. So what I say to the 'liberals' is not change and rethink your ideas and attitudes and approach but fuck off!!!
-
This is exactly what the EU does and this is why EU member states have the same approach and policy in controlling the people.
But so are the 'non-liberals' such as UKIP, the Tories, Labour, the SNP, the Lib-Dems., etc. If anything, its a characteristic of representative democracy.
-
Some interesting articles at the w/e, arguing that the Trump win, and the possibility of a Le Pen win, are being greeted by ISIS rapturously. You can see their argument - if Trump really does crack down hard on Muslims, the IS position is confirmed, that the West hate Muslims, and want to persecute them.
Still, it's basically guesswork. On the ground, it affects both Syria and Iraq, where the Sunni tribes have sometimes supported AQ and IS. If either Assad or Trump go on a revenge mission against the tribes, expect the IS recruiting sergeants to be working day and night. Think N. Ireland and internment.
On the other hand, IS are losing militarily. Funny world, eh?
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/isis-is-gloating-about-donald-trumps-presidential-win/
-
But so are the 'non-liberals' such as UKIP, the Tories, Labour, the SNP, the Lib-Dems., etc. If anything, its a characteristic of representative democracy.
UKIP hasn't closed down debate they have opened it up. The Tories, Labour and LibDems, especially the leaders and top people in them are all EU sycophants and so play this EU game, and the SNP being lefties try and play this type of game.
-
Some interesting articles at the w/e, arguing that the Trump win, and the possibility of a Le Pen win, are being greeted by ISIS rapturously. You can see their argument - if Trump really does crack down hard on Muslims, the IS position is confirmed, that the West hate Muslims, and want to persecute them.
Still, it's basically guesswork. On the ground, it affects both Syria and Iraq, where the Sunni tribes have sometimes supported AQ and IS. If either Assad or Trump go on a revenge mission against the tribes, expect the IS recruiting sergeants to be working day and night. Think N. Ireland and internment.
On the other hand, IS are losing militarily. Funny world, eh?
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/isis-is-gloating-about-donald-trumps-presidential-win/
Funny indeed! I can't stop laughing. :(
-
UKIP hasn't closed down debate they have opened it up. The Tories, Labour and LibDems, especially the leaders and top people in them are all EU sycophants and so play this EU game, and the SNP being lefties try and play this type of game.
Jack, I seem to remember that the media regularly carried articles that debated the pros and cons of the EU and of other international groupings. Don't recall many, if any, since the immediate fall out from the Brexit vote. Are you saying that the main parties have instructed the media not to discuss the matter? As for UKIP opening debate up, where was the opportunity within UKIP to discuss whether remaining or leaving was the best thing to do?
-
http://tinyurl.com/hslzxgn
-
Jack, I seem to remember that the media regularly carried articles that debated the pros and cons of the EU and of other international groupings. Don't recall many, if any, since the immediate fall out from the Brexit vote. Are you saying that the main parties have instructed the media not to discuss the matter? As for UKIP opening debate up, where was the opportunity within UKIP to discuss whether remaining or leaving was the best thing to do?
You didn't mention the media in your last post and so I made no comment on it but you respond as if I did? The media do what the media do, they aren't running for some form of government.
You don't seem to understand the process here. UKIP etc. are not meant to argue with themselves just to present a position for others to provide a counter argument. UKIP never tried to close down a certain argument or idea as some of the others have tried to do.
-
Far better to be a liberal than a right wing bigot!
My point was that the feel good factor of championing individuality and identity is an easy win for liberals - it makes them feel like they are doing something great and meaningful. But maybe in the process there was some complacency about addressing the tougher issues around funding and motivating voters to re-train to keep up with the effects of global competition.
Many of those voters seem to have felt alienated by the lack of focus on their needs and presumably they felt rejected that attention was diverted away from their lack of access to employment that allows them to put food on the table and gives these people self-sufficiency and self-respect. I suppose they see that as liberals dismissing their identity, whereas Trump celebrated their identity, hence he got their votes even though he did it by appealing more to their emotions rather than facts, statistics or logic. Calling them right-wing bigots isn't going to get their votes.
It raises an interesting question - how do liberal politicians who can cope with the bumps that go with changing demographics and culture in a changing world appeal to people who want to live in a past where they were more assured of their place, influence and privilege because they had less people to compete against, and who do not want to see their culture change? There is a similar resistance to change in other communities in other parts of the world.
-
I agree that calling people names doesn't help, but isn't it important to say that there are many right-wing currents in Europe and the US today, and we are half-way towards fascism? It reminds me of the 30s, in fact, except that we don't have mass unemployment and hyper-inflation. It's important to warn.
-
Yes it is important to say - especially as people should not be stopped from expressing opinions.
Having said it, I am wondering how to persuade people that nationalism is going to have limited success and a lot of costs in a global economy. But I suppose different people have different measures of success. There were people who voted who define success as not losing cultural identity even if it costs them economically.
-
Yes it is important to say - especially as people should not be stopped from expressing opinions.
Having said it, I am wondering how to persuade people that nationalism is going to have limited success and a lot of costs in a global economy. But I suppose different people have different measures of success. There were people who voted who define success as not losing cultural identity even if it costs them economically.
Well, 'cultural identity' is a nice sounding phrase, which can mean practically anything. Have you ever read this: '“If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group.' Mein Kampf.
-
Well, 'cultural identity' is a nice sounding phrase, which can mean practically anything.
Agreed. How do you appeal to people who are told to respect other people's cultural identity but feel their own cultural identity is not being respected? It's a minefield and not sure who came up with this idea of respect for cultural identity. When I was growing up in Britain in the 70s it seemed less complicated - integrating was part of the process of moving to another country unless you moved there as conquerors / colonisers.
Have you ever read this: '“If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group.' Mein Kampf.
Apparently racial theories appeal to some people's vanity - how do you combat vanity?
-
Well, I remember what Joe Hill said, don't mourn, organize.
-
Well, 'cultural identity' is a nice sounding phrase, which can mean practically anything. Have you ever read this: '“If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group.' Mein Kampf.
give it a rest , and that's being polite
-
give it a rest , and that's being polite
Touches a nerve?
-
I agree with you. But lets put it into context here. What the 'liberals' have done is to try to control the populous by making certain ideas a taboo and unmentionable i.e. closing down debate on certain topics and ideas. This is exactly what the Nazis and the Soviet Union, and others, tried to do when applying their restrictive ideology so that they got the minimum of opposition and challenge to what they wanted to do - even using threats, false charges and even assassinations. This is exactly what the EU does and this is why EU member states have the same approach and policy in controlling the people. So what I say to the 'liberals' is not change and rethink your ideas and attitudes and approach but fuck off!!!
I'm with you Jack, like your passion.
-
Touches a nerve?
my teeth itch!
-
my teeth itch!
What strange teeth you have. Have you consulted a dentist?
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/election-hack-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Just like the anti brexit lot. Never give up and accept a result....! ::)
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/election-hack-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Just like the anti brexit lot. Never give up and accept a result....! ::)
Well it's not quite the same is it?
If the presidential election had been fought on a simple win by count of numbers as Brexit was then Clinton would now be president-elect. As it is you have more people voted for Clinton than Trump yet he is the president elect. I note Farage is claiming Trump's victory as a huge rejection of the existing system - when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It's just the quirk of an antiquated system that needs overhauling or replacing, namely the electoral college.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/election-hack-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Just like the anti brexit lot. Never give up and accept a result....! ::)
And don't forget, Sriram, before the election Donald Trump had stated that the election was rigged in favour of Mrs Clinton. He maintained that her victory would be the result of an unfair system, which he would contest.. Now that he has won - due entirely to the existence of an unfair system - he is strangely quiet.
Given the amount of noise he made beforehand, one would think that, had he any integrity, he would refuse to accept a result in which his share of the popular vote was 2 million votes fewer than that of the loser.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/election-hack-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Just like the anti brexit lot. Never give up and accept a result....! ::)
Do you not think that, if the vote was rigged, Something Ought To Be Done?
-
I see Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won, has ordered a recount!
-
I see Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won, has ordered a recount!
And if they find that Hillary won it then what? You think the Trump supporters will just say, "Ok, that's fair."......?
-
Do you not think that, if the vote was rigged, Something Ought To Be Done?
Except that Hilary's camp has said that they have studied the results and have been unable to find any dramatic anomalies.
-
Except that Hilary's camp has said that they have studied the results and have been unable to find any dramatic anomalies.
Except that, if the vote was rigged do you not think that something ought to be done?
-
Except that, if the vote was rigged do you not think that something ought to be done?
If there are no dramatic anomalies, it suggests that the vote wasn't rigged. That was my point. I think that HC's folk would have worked through the results with a fine toothcomb and would have pre-emptied Dr Stein's appeal if there had been anything to appeal against. Can you imagine the embarrassment if the recounts show that Trump won by a greater margin than at first thought?
-
Never mind the embarrassment if Clinton's majority keeps going up and up. Well, correct that, I don't think Trump will be embarrassed at all. It's a scam, you see.
-
If there are no dramatic anomalies, it suggests that the vote wasn't rigged. That was my point.
"Suggests" ok.
But if it was rigged do you think that something ought to be done?
That was my question.
-
Well, for what it's worth (no comments please!), I think if a vote is seriously believed to have been rigged, it should be thoroughly investigated and exposed as such; if a different outcome would have altered the election outcome, the people should be encouraged to vote again.
However, the reality is that those saying it was rigged are likely to be booed off as 'sore losers'. There would have to be decent grounds before an investigation was started and it would need to yield some hard evidence pretty quick. That would be difficult.
So, regardless of rights and wrongs, I don't believe it will happen.
-
Except that Hilary's camp has said that they have studied the results and have been unable to find any dramatic anomalies.
How about answering the question, which did not mention the "Hillary camp"?
-
If there are no dramatic anomalies, it suggests that the vote wasn't rigged.
Oh for Dog's sake, Hope, the question started off with a hypothetical. It does not assert that the election actually was rigged.
That was my point.
Which is spurious in the context of the question I asked.
I think that HC's folk would have worked through the results with a fine toothcomb and would have pre-emptied Dr Stein's appeal if there had been anything to appeal against.
You forget political considerations. There would be no point in Hillary questioning the results unless she is pretty sure that she really was robbed of the presidency.
Can you imagine the embarrassment if the recounts show that Trump won by a greater margin than at first thought?
Exactly.
-
Thought the current direction of the thread was all about the claims of DT, and subsequent suggestions of fixing and miscounts by the Green candidate.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38126438
Trump gets crazier by the day!
-
God loves a pussy grabber
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sarah-palin-god-helped-trump-win-a7447281.html?cmpid=facebook-post
-
Palin is as crazy as Trump!
-
Palin is as crazy as Trump!
No I think quite a bit crazier actually.
-
No I think quite a bit crazier actually.
No I think just more stupid.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38194371
This proves how unsuited Trump is to be president!
-
If he is going to make any attempt to implement the program he proposed to the US electorate he will have to stand up to Chinese bullying tactics on issues far hotter than Taiwan.
-
If he is going to make any attempt to implement the program he proposed to the US electorate he will have to stand up to Chinese bullying tactics on issues far hotter than Taiwan.
And what do you suggest he does?
-
I daresay there is an arrangement possible where he can talk and act tough for the cameras but things can continue as before behind the scenes.
-
I daresay there is an arrangement possible where he can talk and act tough for the cameras but things can continue as before behind the scenes.
I doubt if China adheres to such protocols and the rhetoric coming from Trump is a little more than just firm posturing, it is aggressive and threating and could quite easily be misread in the negative direction. I don't think his business approach to matters is going to translate too well in the political arena.
-
Well let's see who he appoints as SoS and if they can rein him in or better handle Chinese response. Likely to be a very rough ride.
-
Well let's see who he appoints as SoS and if they can rein him in or better handle Chinese response. Likely to be a very rough ride.
A difficulty with the president of the United States is that - unlike the UK prime minister - he isn't first-among-equals, he is on his own. His "cabinet" members, constitutionally, are only advisers or assistants. They have no executive power of their own, they can only act with the authority of the president. The president's chief of staff may be more influential.
My fear is that something close to absolute power may go to Donald Trump's head. We shall see.
-
A difficulty with the president of the United States is that - unlike the UK prime minister - he isn't first-among-equals, he is on his own. His "cabinet" members, constitutionally, are only advisers or assistants. They have no executive power of their own, they can only act with the authority of the president. The president's chief of staff may be more influential.
My fear is that something close to absolute power may go to Donald Trump's head. We shall see.
He is certainly giving the impression that it will. :o
-
One member of the electoral college lays out why he won't vote for Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
-
Article from May by Robert Kagan. I hope it is not too prophetic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?utm_term=.4d0a2e632f7a
-
Article from May by Robert Kagan. I hope it is not too prophetic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?utm_term=.4d0a2e632f7a
I cannot read this article because, it would appear, I have an ad-blocker installed. Ant chance of a precis?
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38269257?ocid=socialflow_twitter
https://m.youtube.com/?gl=ES&hl=es#/watch?v=_8mduTEvnU0
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38273933
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38273933
It's a difficult one this as I wouldn't trust many of the participants as far as I could overthrow them.
-
Perhaps Trump is the new 'Manchurian Candidate'. :)
-
Perhaps Trump is the new 'Manchurian Candidate'. :)
Could be, everything about Trump is surreal!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38273933
Even if it is true then it's no worse than what the Yanks have done in other countries. Wiffs of double standards.
-
For once I agree with you.
-
Even if it is true then it's no worse than what the Yanks have done in other countries. Wiffs of double standards.
That doesn't make it OK though.
-
That doesn't make it OK though.
No it doesn't.
-
Trump's nepotism but it's OK of course
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38564469
-
I suspect Trump will try to use his presidency as a means of adding a few more billions to his coffers.
-
I suspect Trump will try to use his presidency as a means of adding a few more billions to his coffers.
I think he's on record as saying he expects to make money out of the presidency. It hasn't started and it's already viewed as the most corrupt presidency ever.
-
I think he's on record as saying he expects to make money out of the presidency. It hasn't started and it's already viewed as the most corrupt presidency ever.
It is very scary indeed, especially if Putin has a hold over him!
-
Scottish Sunday Herald TV preview of the inauguration makes the news
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scottish-paper-describes-trump-inauguration-as-return-of-the-twilight-zone/
-
Just bizarre
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/01/seven-of-donald-trumps-most-bizarre-responses-to-gove-in-times-interview-today/
-
A cuckoo in the nest. And they never play by the rules.
-
Blog on the P-E's mother and link to Lewis
http://whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/from-sea-to-shining-sea-how-donald.html
-
I am, more and more often sitting in front of the news saying WTF.
The two most powerful leaders (arguably) of the World in a tawdry debate about prostitutes. Putin practically extolling the qualities of Russian prossies.
I give up. I don't even care about the rights and wrongs of it. Just stop already. Seriously. We are all fucked.
-
Putin seems to be having fun. For all we know he could have planted those stories about Trump as disinformation so he could deny them, and seem to be supporting Trump, when it suited him.
The Russians have probably hacked Democrat servers, but wouldn't they also have hacked into the Republicans and Trump's business systems?
-
At least great art has been created!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scotland-inspired-poem-created-for-donald-trump-inauguration-1-4340260
-
The Russians have probably hacked Democrat servers, but wouldn't they also have hacked into the Republicans and Trump's business systems?
Almost certainly, but they weren't looking to sabotage Trump.
-
Exactly, they will just use any intel collected when it suits them to do so.
-
Oh ffs!
http://people.com/bodies/inauguration-kathy-najimy-muslim-women-headscarves/
-
Oh ffs!
http://people.com/bodies/inauguration-kathy-najimy-muslim-women-headscarves/
I would be more inclined to say "oh ffs!" had not the presidential candidate and by tomorrow the most powerful individual in the world at the helm of the world's dominant superpower not said that he wanted to ban all future Muslims from entering the country until it (or they; it was never clear) could figure out "what the hell was going on."
-
I would be more inclined to say "oh ffs!" had not the presidential candidate and by tomorrow the most powerful individual in the world at the helm of the world's dominant superpower not said that he wanted to ban all future Muslims from entering the country until it (or they; it was never clear) could figure out "what the hell was going on."
And that seems like a false dichotomy to me. That you might dislike Trump's rhetoric does not mean that it makes any sense to pursue a worthless protest which only has a the benefit of supporting misogynistic form of control.
-
My granddaughter ( 8 ) had been watching the news about Trump, and burst into tears, saying, "He is so scary and horrible!" :o
-
My granddaughter ( 8 ) had been watching the news about Trump, and burst into tears, saying, "He is so scary and horrible!" :o
Out of the mouths ...
-
Out of the mouths ...
Incredible that kids of that age have an opinion on the issue, but apparently it is being discussed by kids at our granddaughter's primary school.
-
Incredible that kids of that age have an opinion on the issue, but apparently it is being discussed by kids at our granddaughter's primary school.
It's the same if you've ever watched Gogglesprogs.
-
My granddaughter ( 8 ) had been watching the news about Trump, and burst into tears, saying, "He is so scary and horrible!" :o
Yes, so did I.
-
Incredible that kids of that age have an opinion on the issue, but apparently it is being discussed by kids at our granddaughter's primary school.
Children aren't stupid, just inexperienced.
-
Children aren't stupid, just inexperienced.
It is adults who are stupid; they should have the experience to know better - about anything not just politics!