Trump Triumphs

[Nick]

15 hours ago, MattP said:

Nice read in the Spectator from Douglas Murray regarding the protest, I think he's spot on now when it comes to us not having enough fascists to satisfy demand, it's certainly the case that it's undeniably poetic about the fact that in order to sustain the grandiloquent phoniness of our own time people are unwittingly reaching back to the most grandiloquent phoniness of earlier times.

 

At the risk of coming across all Holden Caulfield, this is a seriously phony age. Everywhere you look there are people objecting to things they think other people have said or would like them to have said. This past Sunday provided a fine example when in Washington and various other Western capitals some people decided that a fine response to the Trump administration is to pretend that it is ‘anti-women’ in some way.

Various politicians, Guardian journalists and others without lives walked around for a day tilting furiously at this imaginary enemy. Some took their daughters with them, as though it is a good idea to inebriate the next generation with the same cocktail of phantoms and lies. I have said many times that when it comes to fascism in the modern West there is a serious supply and demand problem: there aren’t enough fascists to meet the demand. Now relations between the sexes appear to be reaching a similar imbroglio. The women marching on Sunday behaved as though the new American President is going to legalise rape, or perhaps make rape compulsory. Their main – perhaps only – justification for this stance is one unarguably ugly tape recording of a private conversation which took place more than a decade ago. March against an ugly off-record boast from over a decade ago by all means, if you absolutely have nothing better to do. But why make out that the new President is going to ‘legitimise assault’ or ‘make rape ok’? Other than, that is, in order to get out all those ‘Get off my Bush’ placards from a decade ago that had such a very profound impact on the last Republican Presidency.

It caused me some amusement, I must say, to see that one co-chair of the American march at the weekend was Linda Sarsour – a young woman who I had the misfortune of meeting a couple of years ago. The fact she was involved and spoke speaks louder than her co-convenors could possibly know. For it is obvious from even a moment spent listening to Sarsour that for this self-styled ‘Palestinian-American activist’ the ‘American’ part is purest camouflage. Sarsour is a Palestinian activist who evidently loathes America. At any and every opportunity she attacks the country and defends its enemies. So she consistently presents investigations into Muslims on terror charges as an example of ‘Islamophobia’ among other inherent prejudices on the part of law enforcement. She would appear to be one of those people who wants to dismantle law and order as the type most of us enjoy in order to usher in a form of law of quite another kind. When people talk about Trump taking back women’s rights several decades it’s worth that the people doing the complaining are happy to be led by people like Sarsour.

 

Meanwhile at a protest in Germany some feminists decided to do the full ‘Allah Akbar’ business in a sort of open mic, freestyling way, presumably as some sort of display of intersectionality. Personally if I were a Muslim seeking to take offence nothing would be more likely to make me come across all choppy-choppy than a bunch of women waving vagina signs doing poor cover versions of the call to prayer.

Which brings me to WH Auden and Madonna. Like a radical feminist and the Muslim call to prayer, the two are not natural bedfellows. But lies and phoniness have a tendency to reach a confluence on occasion. When I watched Madonna’s speech I felt just such a happy confluence occur. All the public attention on her speech has centred on her claim that she had thought ‘an awful lot about blowing up the White House’. But what made my ears **** up was later in her speech when Madonna said ‘we cannot fall into despair’ and you just knew that a line from a poetry anthology was coming on. Sure enough Madonna went on to say, ‘As the poet WH Auden once wrote, on the eve of World War II, “We must love one another or die”.’ The crowd didn’t go as wild for the line as they did for her earlier repetitions of ‘F— you’. But once Madonna started declaring ‘I choose love’ the crowd got going. The Auden line allowed Madonna to ask the crowd if they were with her and then to join in shouts of ‘We choose love’.

I don’t know what WH Auden would have thought of Madonna. Like a lot of us he would probably have enjoyed some of the early stuff and thought she’d gone off rather from around the time of ‘Sticky Sweet’ on. But at least we now know what Madonna thinks about WH Auden, which is not very much. Because what anybody who cares about Auden would know is that the line Madonna quoted is the line of his that he hated most. It comes from, ‘September 1st, 1939’ – a poem he said he left England in order not to write again. For the rest of his lifetime he banned its inclusion in all collections of his work. Most of us think this is a little harsh, because portions of it – especially the final stanza – are deeply memorable and moving. But on the overall point the poet was right. The poem unarguably suffers from a sort of insincerity and indeed phoniness. Its portentousness has always appealed to a type of person who cites it in order to flatter themselves that they live in an era precisely akin to that in which Auden found himself in that dive on 52nd Street. But the build-up does not excuse the climax that Madonna ignorantly pillaged.

By Auden’s own admission, no line he ever wrote was more dishonest as well as almost meaningless as the one Madonna relayed. But as I say, these things have an almost happy tendency to cohere. Grandiloquent exaggerations were common enough in the 1930s. They are even more common – as well as infinitely less justifiable – today. But there is something undeniably poetic about the fact that in order to sustain the grandiloquent phoniness of our own time people are unwittingly reaching back to the most grandiloquent phoniness of earlier times.

 

 

 

 

Is everything okay at home, Matt?

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

Is everything okay at home, Matt?

 

 

 

I think Thracian has taken over his account 

[Darkon84]

12 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Considering it's been confirmed he won't be building it along the entire border I guess we already have.

 

 

 

 

 

 That video is fantastic, well played indeed. SNL, Seth Meyers etc take note...if you're going to take the piss, do it properly and make it genuinely funny like that. **** it, I'm watching it again!

[Mike Oxlong]

http://news.sky.com/story/mays-presents-to-trump-a-scottish-cup-and-jam-10742783

 

May's gift to Trump on her forthcoming visit

 

Two Head of States, One Cup 

[foxy boxing]

8 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

http://news.sky.com/story/mays-presents-to-trump-a-scottish-cup-and-jam-10742783

 

May's gift to Trump on her forthcoming visit

 

Two Head of States, One Cup 

knowing trump he'll sign an executive order to search for the holy grail!

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Is everything okay at home, Matt?

Not really, that's not for here though.

 

It was a copy and paste, I certainly can't write as eloquently as Douglas Murray.

 

 

[Nick]

Just now, MattP said:

Not really, that's not for here though.

 

It was a copy and paste, I certainly can't write as eloquently as Douglas Murray.

 

 

 

Ah it made me smile as it seemed a little from left field even for one of your indulgent poetic rants!

 

 

 

[Parafox]

The media have picked up on Trump's view on torture, particularly waterboarding. He was asked if he thought torture worked. He replied that he believed absolutely it did.

 

This response has now been mutated into Trump wants to torture people.

 

We all know that torture works to extort information from people. That doesn't make it right or legal.

 

Trump, as much as I disagree with his politics, was only being truthful and direct in his response to the question, "does torture work"? He did not at any time say he would re-instate torture. Time will tell. I guess but I doubt that form of info gathering will ever be (publicly) condoned. Covertly, who will know?

 

A lot of other politicians would have fudged the question and delivered some PC response without being forthright in their answer.

 

Maybe that's why Trump has caught the populist view. He speaks his mind and doesn't hide behind PC, keep everyone happy, responses. He is brutally, controversially, openly honest with his views.

 

Is that a good thing, given how little we know about what our politicians ACTUALLY think or believe?

[Itsthejoeker]

Guess we know how we're saving another £350m a week...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Parafox said:

The media have picked up on Trump's view on torture, particularly waterboarding. He was asked if he thought torture worked. He replied that he believed absolutely it did.

 

This response has now been mutated into Trump wants to torture people.

 

We all know that torture works to extort information from people. That doesn't make it right or legal.

 

Trump, as much as I disagree with his politics, was only being truthful and direct in his response to the question, "does torture work"? He did not at any time say he would re-instate torture. Time will tell. I guess but I doubt that form of info gathering will ever be (publicly) condoned. Covertly, who will know?

 

A lot of other politicians would have fudged the question and delivered some PC response without being forthright in their answer.

 

Maybe that's why Trump has caught the populist view. He speaks his mind and doesn't hide behind PC, keep everyone happy, responses. He is brutally, controversially, openly honest with his views.

 

Is that a good thing, given how little we know about what our politicians ACTUALLY think or believe?

I would say that agreeing such a method works implies that you would approve of its use if you agreed with the results that it provided, yes? In any case, he's wrong with his belief anyway - torture isn't anywhere close to 100% effective as a method of extracting information, for a variety of reasons.

 

I'm sure that a lot of people do enjoy his honesty. Some folks have always liked the big brash undiplomatic guys, normally because they want to live vicariously through them. However...can't it be said that the content of such words, even when - in fact especially when spoken honestly - should be examined and challenged when necessary, rather than being caught up in the ego tornado?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Itsthejoeker said:

Guess we know how we're saving another £350m a week...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

Nah, the Tories know letting US firms have a go at the NHS and it being publicly revealed is one of the really really few things that might get them to lose in 2020. I don't think they're that stupid.

[Parafox]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would say that agreeing such a method works implies that you would approve of its use if you agreed with the results that it provided, yes? In any case, he's wrong with his belief anyway - torture isn't anywhere close to 100% effective as a method of extracting information, for a variety of reasons.

 

I'm sure that a lot of people do enjoy his honesty. Some folks have always liked the big brash undiplomatic guys, normally because they want to live vicariously through them. However...can't it be said that the content of such words, even when - in fact especially when spoken honestly - should be examined and challenged when necessary, rather than being caught up in the ego tornado?

That's a good response TBF. But will Trump accept any detailed examination of what he says about anything? I feel he will railroad his views and policies through in any event. Thing is, he hasn't condoned it. but has agreed that it is effective. If it wasn't it wouldn't be so widely used by so many nations over the years. including the UK.

[Parafox]

2 minutes ago, Parafox said:

sThat's a good response TBF. But will Trump accept any detailed examination of what he says about anything? I feel he will railroad his views and policies through in any event. Thing is, he hasn't condoned it. but has agreed that it is effective. If it wasn't it wouldn't be so widely used by so many nations over the years. including the UK.

Also, the fact is, he responded honestly to a question, but that then was taken out of context by the press and is being used to vilify him. Agree or disagree, he did not condone torture. He responded that America would use whatever was legal to garner intelligence against those that threaten them. Whether that pans out to be the case in the future remains to be seen and he will be judged by his actions rather than his rhetoric.

 

To be clear, I am not pro-Trump in any way, I'm just trying to put an unbiased view on what he said,

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Parafox said:

That's a good response TBF. But will Trump accept any detailed examination of what he says about anything? I feel he will railroad his views and policies through in any event. Thing is, he hasn't condoned it. but has agreed that it is effective. If it wasn't it wouldn't be so widely used by so many nations over the years. including the UK.

 

3 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Also, the fact is, he responded honestly to a question, but that then was taken out of context by the press and is being used to vilify him. Agree or disagree, he did not condone torture. He responded that America would use whatever was legal to garner intelligence against those that threaten them. Whether that pans out to be the case in the future remains to be seen and he will be judged by his actions rather than his rhetoric.

 

To be clear, I am not pro-Trump in any way, I'm just trying to put an unbiased view on what he said,

I certainly agree with the first post, which is why vociferous challenging is absolutely necessary. Though from what I've read (as I said above) torture produces as much bad intel as good intel. Often the point of violent torture (as opposed to spoken interrogation) is to drive home dominance, not to glean any useful information.

 

I think the press are just drawing the same conclusion that I did - that agreeing it is effective means that you are at least interested in its use given the right circumstances. Of course that is subject to the usual media tricks, but there you go.

[Parafox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

I certainly agree with the first post, which is why vociferous challenging is absolutely necessary. Though from what I've read (as I said above) torture produces as much bad intel as good intel. Often the point of violent torture (as opposed to spoken interrogation) is to drive home dominance, not to glean any useful information.

 

I think the press are just drawing the same conclusion that I did - that agreeing it is effective means that you are at least interested in its use given the right circumstances. Of course that is subject to the usual media tricks, but there you go.

But agreeing that it can be effective does not condone it's use.

 

[Webbo]

I'm not condoning torture but I can see the idea behind it. There's not a lot you can threaten a suicide bomber with. If you're prepared to die it's no good threatening to execute you. If you promise a long life of suffering that might deter.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

But agreeing that it can be effective does not condone it's use.

 

No, but agreeing a course of action is effective at a particular task does (at the risk of repeating myself) beg the opinion that the person saying it would be ok with it being used sometime somewhere.

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I'm not condoning torture but I can see the idea behind it. There's not a lot you can threaten a suicide bomber with. If you're prepared to die it's no good threatening to execute you. If you promise a long life of suffering that might deter.

I'm sure as a threat it carries weight. I just doubt its effectiveness as a tool for obtaining useful actionable intelligence.

[Alf Bentley]

 

Looks like Steve Bell thinks any US-UK deals might be more favourable to the Americans. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/jan/26/steve-bell-uk-us-theresa-may-donald-trump-cartoon

 

[Webbo]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

I'm sure as a threat it carries weight. I just doubt its effectiveness as a tool for obtaining useful actionable intelligence.

I wouldn't argue with that.

[Alf Bentley]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

In any case, he's wrong with his belief anyway - torture isn't anywhere close to 100% effective as a method of extracting information, for a variety of reasons.

 

 

The many miscarriage of justice cases over recent decades (Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Cardiff 3) support you on this.

 

In all those cases, innocent people signed confessions under duress and spent years in prison, while the true murderers went free.

Depending on the definition, they weren't even "tortured" in the most extreme sense (waterboarding etc.), merely subject to extreme coercion.

 

If the CIA started to torture me and handed me a typed confession that I was a Coventry City fan and a member of ISIS under its supreme leader Sheikh Webbo Al-Webbo, I'd be begging for a pen! 

 

 

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

I'm not condoning torture but I can see the idea behind it. There's not a lot you can threaten a suicide bomber with. If you're prepared to die it's no good threatening to execute you. If you promise a long life of suffering that might deter.

 

Even ignoring the moral arguments, I wonder how effective the existence of torture would be? If a terrorist or suicide bomber had last-minute doubts or was cornered by the police, they might be more inclined to pull the pin on their suicide vest or to engage in a shoot-out with the police if they thought they faced torture. The security forces might get more info by capturing them alive. Of course, it isn't a simple calculation as they might fear torture by their own side if they provided info, or might have been brainwashed into believing they'd be tortured by the police even if they wouldn't be. Depending on what crimes someone has already committed, the legal system / security forces can offer incentives to get captive suspects to spill the beans about other crimes or criminals: protection/identity change, reduced sentence etc. 

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The many miscarriage of justice cases over recent decades (Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Cardiff 3) support you on this.

 

In all those cases, innocent people signed confessions under duress and spent years in prison, while the true murderers went free.

Depending on the definition, they weren't even "tortured" in the most extreme sense (waterboarding etc.), merely subject to extreme coercion.

 

If the CIA started to torture me and handed me a typed confession that I was a Coventry City fan and a member of ISIS under its supreme leader Sheikh Webbo Al-Webbo, I'd be begging for a pen! 

 

 

 

Even ignoring the moral arguments, I wonder how effective the existence of torture would be? If a terrorist or suicide bomber had last-minute doubts or was cornered by the police, they might be more inclined to pull the pin on their suicide vest or to engage in a shoot-out with the police if they thought they faced torture. The security forces might get more info by capturing them alive. Of course, it isn't a simple calculation as they might fear torture by their own side if they provided info, or might have been brainwashed into believing they'd be tortured by the police even if they wouldn't be. Depending on what crimes someone has already committed, the legal system / security forces can offer incentives to get captive suspects to spill the beans about other crimes or criminals: protection/identity change, reduced sentence etc. 

The simple solution to the second paragraph would be don't tell anyone about the torturing. It's not like USA security forces can't make people they consider a risk just disappear. If Al-Baghdadi don't know he's going to have his fingers chopped off after having second thoughts then he won't be inclined to go boom. 

 

Although after saying that I feel I need to point out I'm strictly against torture, there are better ways of getting information than resorting to the same barbarism we claim to be against. 

[stripeyfox]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The many miscarriage of justice cases over recent decades (Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Cardiff 3) support you on this.

 

In all those cases, innocent people signed confessions under duress and spent years in prison, while the true murderers went free.

Depending on the definition, they weren't even "tortured" in the most extreme sense (waterboarding etc.), merely subject to extreme coercion.

 

If the CIA started to torture me and handed me a typed confession that I was a Coventry City fan and a member of ISIS under its supreme leader Sheikh Webbo Al-Webbo, I'd be begging for a pen! 

 

 

 

Even ignoring the moral arguments, I wonder how effective the existence of torture would be? If a terrorist or suicide bomber had last-minute doubts or was cornered by the police, they might be more inclined to pull the pin on their suicide vest or to engage in a shoot-out with the police if they thought they faced torture. The security forces might get more info by capturing them alive. Of course, it isn't a simple calculation as they might fear torture by their own side if they provided info, or might have been brainwashed into believing they'd be tortured by the police even if they wouldn't be. Depending on what crimes someone has already committed, the legal system / security forces can offer incentives to get captive suspects to spill the beans about other crimes or criminals: protection/identity change, reduced sentence etc. 

I might cough to the ISIS bit but they'd have to pump me harder to admit to being a Cov fan!
 

[BlueSi13]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Looks like Steve Bell thinks any US-UK deals might be more favourable to the Americans. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/jan/26/steve-bell-uk-us-theresa-may-donald-trump-cartoon

 

Vile.  Although it's what we've come to expect from the Guardian.

 

But it's interesting.  What this is suggesting is that the PM, being a woman, is naturally inclined to whore herself out in order to get what she wants.

 

I for one am looking forward to those thousands of 'feminists' getting back on the streets to protest the disgusting depiction of women in the left-wing Daily Mail.  Wait...silence?  Thought as much.

[Mike Oxlong]

Looks like the special relationship may be more "special" than we thought

 

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-porn-star-gaffe-leaves-white-house-red-faced-10744370

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Vile.  Although it's what we've come to expect from the Guardian.

 

But it's interesting.  What this is suggesting is that the PM, being a woman, is naturally inclined to whore herself out in order to get what she wants.

 

I for one am looking forward to those thousands of 'feminists' getting back on the streets to protest the disgusting depiction of women in the left-wing Daily Mail.  Wait...silence?  Thought as much.

 

A matter of taste. Steve Bell's style is too crude and unsubtle for some, but I don't mind a bit of crudity.

 

I don't think he's suggesting that May is whoring herself out to Trump as a woman. I think he's suggesting that she's whoring our nation out politically. A matter of opinion, obviously

 

If he's "vile", then he's vile to everyone, male or female, Tory, Lab or whatever.

 

Here's one of Blair:

 

and Corbyn: