Trump Triumphs

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

America's population is 320 million, that makes it impossible to elect a candidate representative of everyone's views. Most of the protest against Trump is not over the more extreme 'potential policies' such as deporting all the muslims etc. Despite opinions to the contrary, America does have extensive checks and balances and extreme policies are unlikely to go through. I personally think that the left has taken Trumps comments out of context and sensationalised then to seem worse anyway. Yes he's quite old and still has a bit of misogyny and racism within him but when you actually go to the actual comments he made and look at the context he said it in, I don't think this notion that 'the end of the world is nigh' can be substantiated.

 

Let's see how he does and then if he starts doing things that significantly threat people, well invoke the 2nd amendment.... oh wait, liberals don't want guns.

 

With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and a newly minted Supreme Court judge coming, exactly how many checks and balances are there left?

 

There is a point regarding the sensationalism - that's one of the cornerstones of politics, after all - but to a degree I can certainly understand at least a little fear.

 

And, once again, you can make a point regarding all of his social policies depending on which side of the fence you sit (and goodness knows I and others have debated that on here often enough), but the way environmental policies are being framed is one thing that should cause anyone not totally lackadaisical about the future a bit of pause for thought. It wasn't considered a key issue during the campaign because identity politics and peoples wallets were more important...but all those issues rely on there actually being a stable, non-polluted environment in which they can actually be argued about.

 

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

Trump hasn't done anything yet though! Any social injustice in America at this stage is thanks to Obama's administration. Hence the post I appreciated rightly states to give it a chance.

The actions his administration are looking to take seem pretty clear, judging by both campaign remarks and some early stuff he's already done. There's not much ambiguity there - his entire platform has relied on that, so I'm not sure I understand the wait and see stance. There isn't much room for anything other than agreement or disagreement - that's the way it's being framed.

[Guest MattP]

That's the words to use, pathetic politically motivated attention seeking.

 

No protests when Obama dropped his bombs, when Russia massacred Cities, not even a march when elected representatives here turned a blind eye 1,400 British children were being beaten, drugged and raped.

 

White Republican says something though and all the lunatics come out to tell us how evil they are.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and a newly minted Supreme Court judge coming, exactly how many checks and balances are there left?

 

There is a point regarding the sensationalism - that's one of the cornerstones of politics, after all - but to a degree I can certainly understand at least a little fear.

 

And, once again, you can make a point regarding all of his social policies depending on which side of the fence you sit (and goodness knows I and others have debated that on here often enough), but the way environmental policies are being framed is one thing that should cause anyone not totally lackadaisical about the future a bit of pause for thought. It wasn't considered a key issue during the campaign because identity politics and peoples wallets were more important...but all those issues rely on there actually being a stable, non-polluted environment in which they can actually be argued about.

 

The actions his administration are looking to take seem pretty clear, judging by both campaign remarks and some early stuff he's already done. There's not much ambiguity there - his entire platform has relied on that, so I'm not sure I understand the wait and see stance. There isn't much room for anything other than agreement or disagreement - that's the way it's being framed.

Republican views and what the left and the media portray Donald Trump to be are worlds apart. Listen to Trey Gowdy and how he articulates social justice issues and tell me he will help build this wall. You are raising points that made up the debate, the debate has finished and Trump won, the next thing to do is debate Trumps actions.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

Republican views and what the left and the media portray Donald Trump to be are worlds apart. Listen to Trey Gowdy and how he articulates social justice issues and tell me he will help build this wall. You are raising points that made up the debate, the debate has finished and Trump won, the next thing to do is debate Trumps actions.

Which is what I'm doing. Starting with his administration (not sure if he wants it or not) getting ready to wipe out the EPA, which has bigger long term consequences than any other action his administration could take.

 

TBH I think we're talking past each other a bit here regarding proactive and retroactive judgement. Perhaps we disagree on how much ambiguity there is about the future actions of this administration in many areas.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

And when I have portrayed this as neo-liberalism at any point?

 

Trump's policy so far is miles away from neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism. 

 

You haven't - that's not what I wrote. I was saying what's weird is that you spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy seeking out and ridiculing extreme neoliberalistic attitudes, reactions and opinions rather than acknowledging the issues that these people are hysterical about as real concerns under a Trump presidency at least in some light rather than just idiots to be mocked.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

You haven't - that's not what I wrote. I was saying what's weird is that you spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy seeking out and ridiculing extreme neoliberalistic attitudes, reactions and opinions rather than acknowledging the issues that these people are hysterical about as real concerns under a Trump presidency at least in some light rather than just idiots to be mocked.

Anyone with genuine concerns should be treated with respect. We both this week saw the senators do that in a brilliant way to one of his selections using the proper process.

 

Marching against democracy, setting fire to cars or pooing on a picture of a Trump in the street does deserve to be mocked. 

 

Those people are more of a danger to our freedoms we enjoy than the Donald is.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Anyone with genuine concerns should be treated with respect. We both this week saw the senators do that in a brilliant way to one of his selections using the proper process.

 

Marching against democracy, setting fire to cars or pooing on a picture of a Trump in the street does deserve to be mocked. 

 

Those people are more of a danger to our freedoms we enjoy than the Donald is.

The first two are fair points - the last comment really isn't in my opinion and is kinda the point I'm badly trying to make!

 

I'm far more scared of what Trump has the power and blindness to do which is what I thought we'd be putting the most focus on in these threads than the silly barstewards setting limo's alight and chucking a few bricks through McDonalds window....

 

 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

Trump hasn't done anything yet though! Any social injustice in America at this stage is thanks to Obama's administration. Hence the post I appreciated rightly states to give it a chance.

Not entirely, Obama had to rectify the eight years under DoubleYah (shudder!) and the effect of many of the policies implemented back then can still be felt today.

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, Benguin said:

How to be a left wing nutjob:

 

Step 1: Say something devoid of logic.

Step 2: Personally attack the person you don't agree with.

Step 3: Get corrected.

Step 4: Switch to victim mode.

That's pretty much how trump responds to any criticism isn't it?

[Alf Bentley]

6 hours ago, Benguin said:

Trump hasn't done anything yet though! Any social injustice in America at this stage is thanks to Obama's administration. Hence the post I appreciated rightly states to give it a chance.

 

If any injustice in the USA is thanks to Obama, then presumably any injustice in the UK is thanks to the Tories? Obama in power 2009-17, Tories in power 2010-17....

 

I don't believe that for a minute. For a start, it completely ignores the impact of the 2008 Crash, which took place under Bush & Brown.

Also, many problems are down to long-term structural issues - globalisation moving unskilled jobs to developing countries, automation of work, the trend towards greater inequality in the developed world, offshore tax avoidance limiting funds for social investment etc.

 

Fair enough. We have to wait and see what Trump does - and some of it might be good (e.g. large-scale investment in infrastructure). But people are certainly justified in feeling pessimism and trepidation as they wait to see....

 

 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If any injustice in the USA is thanks to Obama, then presumably any injustice in the UK is thanks to the Tories? Obama in power 2009-17, Tories in power 2010-17....

 

I don't believe that for a minute. For a start, it completely ignores the impact of the 2008 Crash, which took place under Bush & Brown.

Also, many problems are down to long-term structural issues - globalisation moving unskilled jobs to developing countries, automation of work, the trend towards greater inequality in the developed world, offshore tax avoidance limiting funds for social investment etc.

 

Fair enough. We have to wait and see what Trump does - and some of it might be good (e.g. large-scale investment in infrastructure). But people are certainly justified in feeling pessimism and trepidation as they wait to see....

 

 

Nah social injustice in the UK is the Lib Dems fault. That was their only job as coalition partners.

[Benguin]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If any injustice in the USA is thanks to Obama, then presumably any injustice in the UK is thanks to the Tories? Obama in power 2009-17, Tories in power 2010-17....

 

I don't believe that for a minute. For a start, it completely ignores the impact of the 2008 Crash, which took place under Bush & Brown.

Also, many problems are down to long-term structural issues - globalisation moving unskilled jobs to developing countries, automation of work, the trend towards greater inequality in the developed world, offshore tax avoidance limiting funds for social investment etc.

 

Fair enough. We have to wait and see what Trump does - and some of it might be good (e.g. large-scale investment in infrastructure). But people are certainly justified in feeling pessimism and trepidation as they wait to see....

 

 

I think you've completely missed the point in my posts. The Obama comment is tongue in cheek, given that Trumps only just got into office we can't blame any social injustice on him...yet.

[Benguin]

29 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That's pretty much how trump responds to any criticism isn't it?

I'm not sure that's the case at all but your point is?

[The Doctor]

19 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I'm not sure that's the case at all but your point is?

Then you've never been on Twitter... The point is to brand that as the behaviour of left wing nut jobs is massively hypocritical when the person who most fulfills those criteria is the extremist rights "God emperor" 

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Then you've never been on Twitter... The point is to brand that as the behaviour of left wing nut jobs is massively hypocritical when the person who most fulfills those criteria is the extremist rights "God emperor" 

Despite me considering extremist on the right as equally deplorable as those on the left, go on humour me.

[Finnegan]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

That's the words to use, pathetic politically motivated attention seeking.

 

No protests when Obama dropped his bombs, when Russia massacred Cities, not even a march when elected representatives here turned a blind eye 1,400 British children were being beaten, drugged and raped.

 

White Republican says something though and all the lunatics come out to tell us how evil they are.

 

Not really marching against democracy. Voicing their disgust at an absolutely awful human being getting inaugurated as the president of the United States.

 

The man is vile, I can appreciate their desire to want to demonstrate.

 

No idea why they're matching in Sydney, London and everywhere else, mind. 

 

 

[Jonno84]

Some of His facial exspreasions crack me up like on the news when he WS trying to sing that my way song on stage with his wife

[Jonno84]

He's a nob but no need for smashing shop windows and setting bins on fire just the usual anarchists using him as an exsuse

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Jonno84 said:

He's a nob but no need for smashing shop windows and setting bins on fire just the usual anarchists using him as an exsuse

 

Smashing windows isn't anarchy it's stupidity.

 

The vast majority of today's protests were just peaceful protest. You have crowds of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people (probably millions, globally) you're going to have a fair few idiots in there.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Benguin said:

I think you've completely missed the point in my posts. The Obama comment is tongue in cheek, given that Trumps only just got into office we can't blame any social injustice on him...yet.

 

I got and agreed with your point that Trump can't be blamed for the state of the nation as he has only just taken over (though we can be pessimistic about him, given his statements). 

 

I didn't appreciate that your comment about Obama was meant to be humorous. Never mind! People don't always get my humour either! 

[Benguin]

 

 

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not really marching against democracy. Voicing their disgust at an absolutely awful human being getting inaugurated as the president of the United States.

 

The man is vile, I can appreciate their desire to want to demonstrate.

 

No idea why they're matching in Sydney, London and everywhere else, mind. 

 

 

What is their aim if it's not to get rid of Trump? If they are trying to get rid of Trump then they are indeed marching against democracy given that the democratic process resulted in Trumps inauguration.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

 

 

What is their aim if it's not to get rid of Trump? If they are trying to get rid of Trump then they are indeed marching against democracy given that the democratic process resulted in Trumps inauguration.

Their aim is to voice distaste and possibly cause enough public backlash to stop some of this administrations policies, not to remove him as President (with the exception of a few). I think most of them are aware that this administration is in place for the duration, it's just a matter of making sure policy is challenged.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Their aim is to voice distaste and possibly cause enough public backlash to stop some of this administrations policies, not to remove him as President (with the exception of a few). I think most of them are aware that this administration is in place for the duration, it's just a matter of making sure policy is challenged.

I completely disagree however I'll go along with that being the case and ask you how that changes anything? The democratic process got him into power on the back of his proposed policies. They have every right to protest but at this stage it doesn't help anything, Trumps in power because of a democratic process and for him to listen to the minority and change his plans would be to turn his back on what the people of America want.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I completely disagree however I'll go along with that being the case and ask you how that changes anything? The democratic process got him into power on the back of his proposed policies. They have every right to protest but at this stage it doesn't help anything, Trumps in power because of a democratic process and for him to listen to the minority and change his plans would be to turn his back on what the people of America want.

The minority? The minority and the way the system works alongside it got Trump into power, don't forget.

 

I think that if enough people do express their displeasure at the policies this administration has lined up, then perhaps they might - just might - listen. I agree that's a long shot though.

 

And if you're seriously expecting women and minority groups to throw their hands up in the air and accept what the white Christian boyos in his party and his support want to do to them for the next four years then I think that is a mistake.

[FireFox]

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

I completely disagree however I'll go along with that being the case and ask you how that changes anything? The democratic process got him into power on the back of his proposed policies. They have every right to protest but at this stage it doesn't help anything, Trumps in power because of a democratic process and for him to listen to the minority and change his plans would be to turn his back on what the people of America want.

Not sure you can call the process truely democratic. 'The people of America' didn't elect Trump. The States did.

 

 

Also this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html