President Trump & the USA

[the fox]

Dollarstore Lara croft

Edited 17 October 2018 by the fox

[Jattdogg]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Unfortunately a lot more given the depth of our trade with them. 80 billion I think was the figure I saw in the UK.

 

Would you go to the North West and tell them all you will destroy their industry and communities? I couldn't.

 

What has happened is clearly terrible and the Saudis have to answer for it, but why punish our own people? 

Its time governments  stand for whats right. I know its nots like every country has a clear conscience here. But this was a sick joke and brazen. Trying to blame it in on a general is laughable. They effed up royally.

 

Glad canada said what they did about the saudis.  About time countries back us and tell the saudis to lump it. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

First of all, the phrase "When they go low, we go higher" was coined by Michelle Obama in 2016, who was First Lady at the time.

But she has/had little to no political power or influence in the grand scheme of things, so it was meant as an inspiration more than anything.

 

I'm disappointed in the Dems that they are now abandoning that credo, instead go even lower. That's just shameful.

None of their representatives have openly come out and shamed the protesters, Antifa or their actions. Only Bernie Sanders to some extent, and that only after broadly endorsing the need for standing up and fight still.

 

1

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I think the argument still holds water though - the people in charge right now are looking to bury anything of the legacy of the people in the White House before who thought that way. I agree that it's frustrating that there's a fair bit of stooping to low levels going on, but when there's no intent on compromise from those who do go low as a result of being nice it's difficult to stick to it, I guess.

 

12 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

How much of that "anger" is real and how much is fake/fabrication? We've got proof that some of these outrages have been staged, with protesters paid off.

And what is there really to be "angry" about? No war initiated by the US (no air raids like under Obama) as of right now, unemployment continues to dwindle and the economy continues to thrive.

The Democrats in my eyes care more about social justice warriors, pandering to minorities and loudmouthing everybody to the right of them more than anything, I want to see real political issues to be addressed by them and real policies to be brought forward.

It's their job as the opposition to criticize the GOP for their failures, not to get lost in skirmishes that only act as smokescreens.

 

2

Good question. Most likely I'd say it's somewhere between the two - probably some of this is staged (or at least being used), but some of it is also people who are genuinely pissed off at what is going on.

 

 

What do they have to be angry about? Well, gerrymandering, voter suppression, continuing encroachment of fundie belief into various state lawmaking areas, the possible overturning of Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges with a more loaded Supreme Court, leaders seeming to hold the views of a lot of women in contempt, failure to discuss inordinate police brutality against people of colour...and above all (and most dangerously IMO) the scientific and environmental policy of this administration that puts more value on a dollar now than on all of human future. Honestly, this administration could be the most socially progressive in the world on these factors and more and their attitude towards the environment would still make them need to be voted out because of those policies alone, for the sake of everyone's future. (The Dems do need to talk more about policy and they can start there.)

 

As has been said before, the economy is about the only thing that's going relatively well under this administration, and Trump needs to hope that's what 2020 is fought on.

 

12 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

As for the "women and minorities have been treated shit for so long in the past" argument - did (white) men fare any better? Wars, infant mortality, lack of education, violence, shit jobs, poverty affected everybody. Great ages for men also, sure. And I'm not convinced you can claim women and minorities in general were worse off, they pretty much had their place in society and understood their roles as it was demanded at the times. How much of it was real oppression and how much of it simply people trying to get by, sharing traditional duties to the best of their knowledge?

The mortality rate among women was also high because of child birth complications and the lack of sanitary tools - but hey, let's blame patriarchy for the failings of a (technological) progress that wasn't fast enough back then.

 

Some people are just too eager to rewrite history. Scary.

 

 

4

Well, yes - at least some of them did. They were the decision makers, and they had power over the lives of practically everyone else, so yes.

 

Of course, race and gender wasn't the only dividing line, you had to be rich and often of a particular class, too - you'd say that your average white coal worker/factory drone/soldier had it pretty much as bad as those of different skin colour or his wife, but then at least he could own property, have at least some choice of professions, and actually call the shots in his own household. Women and those of a different skin colour had no such power, no such choice (little as it was) for a very long time. Not all of one demographic had real power...but all who had power were of that one demographic.

 

Yes, women and people of colour had their place in society - and that was to serve those perceived by those with power as their betters. To listen, be obedient, and abandon practically any freedom of choice in the name of "getting by". Yes, I'd say that was reasonably oppressive - what would be called "traditional roles" almost always were (and are) because they place such value on hierarchy, shutting up and putting up with it.

 

Talking of rewriting history - portraying that women and people of colour were not worse off than white guys (at least most of the time) when such enforced roles are known to have existed, is exactly that.

[leicsmac]

12 hours ago, MattP said:

Unfortunately a lot more given the depth of our trade with them. 80 billion I think was the figure I saw in the UK.

 

Would you go to the North West and tell them all you will destroy their industry and communities? I couldn't.

 

What has happened is clearly terrible and the Saudis have to answer for it, but why punish our own people? 

What do the UK and US trade with them, I wonder? Is it all about the oil? Is that the only reason they're getting a truckload of American and British weapons every month with a big bow on top?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the US and UK could start being a little less reliant on it?

[MC Prussian]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I think the argument still holds water though - the people in charge right now are looking to bury anything of the legacy of the people in the White House before who thought that way. I agree that it's frustrating that there's a fair bit of stooping to low levels going on, but when there's no intent on compromise from those who do go low as a result of being nice it's difficult to stick to it, I guess.

 

Good question. Most likely I'd say it's somewhere between the two - probably some of this is staged (or at least being used), but some of it is also people who are genuinely pissed off at what is going on.

 

 

What do they have to be angry about? Well, gerrymandering, voter suppression, continuing encroachment of fundie belief into various state lawmaking areas, the possible overturning of Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges with a more loaded Supreme Court, leaders seeming to hold the views of a lot of women in contempt, failure to discuss inordinate police brutality against people of colour...and above all (and most dangerously IMO) the scientific and environmental policy of this administration that puts more value on a dollar now than on all of human future. Honestly, this administration could be the most socially progressive in the world on these factors and more and their attitude towards the environment would still make them need to be voted out because of those policies alone, for the sake of everyone's future. (The Dems do need to talk more about policy and they can start there.)

 

As has been said before, the economy is about the only thing that's going relatively well under this administration, and Trump needs to hope that's what 2020 is fought on.

 

Well, yes - at least some of them did. They were the decision makers, and they had power over the lives of practically everyone else, so yes.

 

Of course, race and gender wasn't the only dividing line, you had to be rich and often of a particular class, too - you'd say that your average white coal worker/factory drone/soldier had it pretty much as bad as those of different skin colour or his wife, but then at least he could own property, have at least some choice of professions, and actually call the shots in his own household. Women and those of a different skin colour had no such power, no such choice (little as it was) for a very long time. Not all of one demographic had real power...but all who had power were of that one demographic.

 

Yes, women and people of colour had their place in society - and that was to serve those perceived by those with power as their betters. To listen, be obedient, and abandon practically any freedom of choice in the name of "getting by". Yes, I'd say that was reasonably oppressive - what would be called "traditional roles" almost always were (and are) because they place such value on hierarchy, shutting up and putting up with it.

 

Talking of rewriting history - portraying that women and people of colour were not worse off than white guys (at least most of the time) when such enforced roles are known to have existed, is exactly that.

I guess the Republicans could or should give Obama more credit for what he did with lowering the unemployment rate especially, Medicare is a touchy subject, I like the idea behind it, but the implementation was a bit awful.

 

Let's also not forget that the country's debt levels have risen tremendously under Obama, nearly doubling it in the space of his eight years at the helm.

I do hope the GOP does something about this, but the trend sadly shows in the same direction.

 

I don't see any need for "compromise" in the US, given its political system. With only two major parties, it all descends into petty insults, no matter who's in charge - the difference is that to me, the tone has grown a lot more populist in the past twenty, thirty years, not at least thanks to the US media. We have two parties who share the power every four or eight years, and these two sides know each other very well. It's a circus for circus sake.

 

As for "those who are going low", that's your subjective view of the Republicans. I would like to see you criticize the other side for going even lower, when the country needs a civil and objective discussion about political and social issues more than ever. And I do think the Republicans are the ones who come across as more tolerant and more level-headed in terms of discourse at present, I hardly ever see Dems inviting GOP members to a forum and debating them the old-fashioned way. Shouting down and interrupting discussions and daily life isn't the way forward, I'm afraid.

 

The Dems are now focusing on social justice and support for minorities more than anything, emphasize feelings over facts, desperately trying to hold on to those precious votes, sweeping red-hot topics such as immigration under the rug in deliberate fashion in the process. Elizabeth Warren's attempt to portray herself as "one of them" with her laughable DNA test promo was the icing on the cake, and it has backfired badly.

 

A lot of the "anger issues" you mention are based on subjective views and feelings, and not facts. Gerrymandering exists on both sides. Fundamentalist beliefs in governmental positions exists on both sides - see the post about Democratic Socialist and Deep State activities a few pages back. Or look at the issue with Antifa and the infiltration of college and university campuses with (extremist) left-wing views.

Where's the "voter suppression"? How large-scale is it? Would you go as far as agreeing that it is systemic, deeply burned into the American soul and that it's a measure taken by both the Democrats and Republicans alike?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/america-history-voter-suppression-donald-trump-election-fraud

What you are dwelling on is a type of scaremongering, an attempt at painting a dark picture, using hypothetical scenarios to lambast conservatives.

"Contempt for women" - is this really tied to a particular party only? Where are the facts? Is it systemic or based on a few separate examples?

How about the Minnesota attorney general candidate Keith Ellison abusing his own wife and no Democrat condemning him?

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race

Where was the Dems' outrage over Bill Clinton's sexual adventures whilst in office? Take a look at this list here for additional sexual harrassment stories on the Dems' side:

https://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

Where's the outrage here, where's the media coverage on the more liberal side? Where's "we believe all women" just because? It's easy to hit out against "the others" - however, you should clean up your own closet first.

Police brutality against blacks isn't solely a vice of white police officers, recent studies show black cops are just as likely to shoot their own brethren as their white counterparts:

https://psmag.com/social-justice/black-cops-are-just-as-likely-as-whites-to-kill-black-suspects

Again, not a race issue, but a police issue and an issue abused politically for a particular purpose.

 

Let the Supreme Court do its job for a start, then examine its findings and rulings once they come to fruition. Kavanaugh hasn't even properly started working yet.

I don't particularly like him as a person, but I think the Trump hate is exaggerated and aims at the man more than his actions, which is fatal and unproductive. His reign ought to be judged objectively, calmly and without rose-tinted glasses, at the end of his first term in 2020 - or should he actually be re-elected - in 2024.

 

And to finish off this post, going back in time, the feudal system and the Catholic Church dominated Western societies for centuries, oppressing anyone who wasn't "born this way", that includes men and women alike. Again, anyone who claims this was down to "patriarchy" has a very sick kind of humour and a twisted way of looking at history, trying to rewrite it as they go along. How can white men be enslaved by white men when they are all part of that very same "patriarchy"?

Social, political and living conditions at the time need to be considered, too. It's a must. In the end, apart from a privileged few, most men and most women endured some of the worst hardships in life in very bad sanitary conditions, a life in poverty, under oppression, ill-educated, wasted in wars, dying during childbirth, not getting older than 30, 40, hit by some of the worst plagues ever recorded in human history.

 

We have come a long way ever since. I agree we can still do better, and we are. Worldwide poverty is decreasing by the day. Some of the biggest challenges I can see are finding a solution to climate change and how we manage to feed an ever-increasing global population (especially in Africa, Arabia and Asia), political stability and economic prosperity on the African continent and a reformation of Islam (just like with the Protestants and Calvinists opposing Catholic rule in the 16th century).

Edited 18 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[Jattdogg]

I understand what can happen if ties with the saudis were impacted but there comes a point where you cannot sit by doing nothing and watch these things happen.

 

Brazen order from the crown prince and everyone knows it.  He has got to go and its a simple response from every country to ask for it.

 

I mean look what putin and his cronies have done in Crimea not to mention poisonings in England.  The longer you let this stay the course the more they will do it.

 

The kingdom has 1000 crown princes and kings ready to fill the void left by these two jokers. I bet they are all having a laugh at us for having 0 balls and worried about "jobs" and "oil prices".

 

I understand you have to dance with the devil to a point but this is like blowing the devil. Get off your knees sons! 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I guess the Republicans could or should give Obama more credit for what he did with lowering the unemployment rate especially, Medicare is a touchy subject, I like the idea behind it, but the implementation was a bit awful.

 

Let's also not forget that the country's debt levels have risen tremendously under Obama, nearly doubling it in the space of his eight years at the helm.

I do hope the GOP does something about this, but the trend sadly shows in the same direction.

 

I don't see any need for "compromise" in the US, given its political system. With only two major parties, it all descends into petty insults, no matter who's in charge - the difference is that to me, the tone has grown a lot more populist in the past twenty, thirty years, not at least thanks to the US media. We have two parties who share the power every four or eight years, and these two sides know each other very well. It's a circus for circus sake.

 

 

First off, thanks for making your replies so comprehensive. It's always good to have to defend your own point of view.

 

I certainly agree with the circus comment - there seems to be an awful lot of mud but then the same two parties seem to take turn and turn about running the show so there's not really much change in the system itself.

 

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

As for "those who are going low", that's your subjective view of the Republicans. I would like to see you criticize the other side for going even lower, when the country needs a civil and objective discussion about political and social issues more than ever. And I do think the Republicans are the ones who come across as more tolerant and more level-headed in terms of discourse at present, I hardly ever see Dems inviting GOP members to a forum and debating them the old-fashioned way. Shouting down and interrupting discussions and daily life isn't the way forward, I'm afraid.

 

The Dems are now focusing on social justice and support for minorities more than anything, emphasize feelings over facts, desperately trying to hold on to those precious votes, sweeping red-hot topics such as immigration under the rug in deliberate fashion in the process. Elizabeth Warren's attempt to portray herself as "one of them" with her laughable DNA test promo was the icing on the cake, and it has backfired badly.

 

2

What is the actions of Trump on Twitter (and on the TV) as well as his support if not "going low"? I would have thought that reasonably self-evident rather than merely subjective. Don't see Spencer and his merry men being particularly civil, tolerant or level-headed when they're on the march with tiki-torches, either (or running people down with cars - yes, all of these folks are Repubs or at least Trump supporters, we're not doing No True Scotsman here).

 

I definitely agree that there needs to be more level-headed discourse around and corners of the Dems seeking to answer fire with fire isn't going to do much other than make more fire. Sooner or later, you've got to do what you needed to at the start and talk - both of the extremes on both sides need to figure that out.

 

Is "supporting minorities" really a bad thing? Immigration is definitely a hot topic...but why? What drives someone to fear another person and their own culture so much - from both ends? I mean, it's a more and more connected world these days and at the end of the day if you cut someone in half they all look the same.

 

NB. While we're talking about "emphasizing feeling over facts", the Repubs are, and have been for the last few decades, in hock to the fundie Christian community - almost the ur-example of such.

 

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

A lot of the "anger issues" you mention are based on subjective views and feelings, and not facts. Gerrymandering exists on both sides. Fundamentalist beliefs in governmental positions exists on both sides - see the post about Democratic Socialist and Deep State activities a few pages back. Or look at the issue with Antifa and the infiltration of college and university campuses with (extremist) left-wing views.

Where's the "voter suppression"? How large-scale is it? Would you go as far as agreeing that it is systemic, deeply burned into the American soul and that it's a measure taken by both the Democrats and Republicans alike?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/america-history-voter-suppression-donald-trump-election-fraud

What you are dwelling on is a type of scaremongering, an attempt at painting a dark picture, using hypothetical scenarios to lambast conservatives.

"Contempt for women" - is this really tied to a particular party only? Where are the facts? Is it systemic or based on a few separate examples?

How about the Minnesota attorney general candidate Keith Ellison abusing his own wife and no Democrat condemning him?

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race

Where was the Dems' outrage over Bill Clinton's sexual adventures whilst in office? Take a look at this list here for additional sexual harrassment stories on the Dems' side:

https://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

Where's the outrage here, where's the media coverage on the more liberal side? Where's "we believe all women" just because? It's easy to hit out against "the others" - however, you should clean up your own closet first.

Police brutality against blacks isn't solely a vice of white police officers, recent studies show black cops are just as likely to shoot their own brethren as their white counterparts:

https://psmag.com/social-justice/black-cops-are-just-as-likely-as-whites-to-kill-black-suspects

Again, not a race issue, but a police issue and an issue abused politically for a particular purpose.

 

Let the Supreme Court do its job for a start, then examine its findings and rulings once they come to fruition. Kavanaugh hasn't even properly started working yet.

I don't particularly like him as a person, but I think the Trump hate is exaggerated and aims at the man more than his actions, which is fatal and unproductive. His reign ought to be judged objectively, calmly and without rose-tinted glasses, at the end of his first term in 2020 - or should he actually be re-elected - in 2024.

2

All politics is subjective - there are no facts, only popular opinion. You want facts, look for a harder science.

 

Each article in turn here:

 

- The Grauniad article specifically mentions that though voter suppression has a history from both parties, the Repubs currently are engaged in more of it. One example happening right now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/claims-of-voter-suppression-and-illegals-in-georgia/2018/10/16/2daf5e20-d161-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0ca0b90931c4

 

There is a reason that Repubs would go out of their way to make it difficult for minority voters to get registered to vote: they won't vote for them. You might say that there have been accusations that Dems are using this to try to get dead and otherwise ineligible people voting, and that might, might be correct - but there's much more evidence for the former than the latter.

 

- Vox and Ranker articles: I hope that Ellison is investigated fully and if it's found he did abuse this lady, that he's punished accordingly. While it's pretty damn awful to see so many blokes without a moral compass, at least when they are caught - sometimes when they're merely accused - most of them have the decency to resign. How many Repubs have resigned when faced with matters of sexual misconduct?

 

- PSMag article: That finding doesn't surprise me much, it stands somewhat to reason that black cops would shoot and kill as much as white cops, because this is a problem with the police as an institution in their treatment of people of colour, not just by white cops. As the study in the article finds, it's an institutional problem wrt race - I apologise if I hadn't made my viewpoint on that matter clear before.

 

Some of the reaction towards Trump has certainly been OTT, and the anger I speak of here I don't necessarily always share - like I said, such is often unproductive. But, subjective as such feelings are, that they are being expressed means that for the sake of a solution they should be answered - with, as you say, calm and reasoned response, not derisive dismissal and cries of "loser" and "tired of winning, then?" as seems to have been the forte recently.

 

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

 

And to finish off this post, going back in time, the feudal system and the Catholic Church dominated Western societies for centuries, oppressing anyone who wasn't "born this way", that includes men and women alike. Again, anyone who claims this was down to "patriarchy" has a very sick kind of humour and a twisted way of looking at history, trying to rewrite it as they go along. How can white men be enslaved by white men when they are all part of that very same "patriarchy"?

Social, political and living conditions at the time need to be considered, too. It's a must. In the end, apart from a privileged few, most men and most women endured some of the worst hardships in life in very bad sanitary conditions, a life in poverty, under oppression, ill-educated, wasted in wars, dying during childbirth, not getting older than 30, 40, hit by some of the worst plagues ever recorded in human history.

 

We have come a long way ever since. I agree we can still do better, and we are. Worldwide poverty is decreasing by the day. Some of the biggest challenges I can see are finding a solution to climate change and how we manage to feed an ever-increasing global population (especially in Africa, Arabia and Asia), political stability and economic prosperity on the African continent and a reformation of Islam (just like with the Protestants and Calvinists opposing Catholic rule in the 16th century).

 

Right, exactly. The Church and various other institutions ruled the roost for the longest time.

 

And now, I ask: what was the demographic of every single person in each and every one of these powerful organisations?

 

Again, I'm not saying that as a white guy you weren't likely going to get shafted (especially if you were poor and/or of the wrong social class), but if you were a woman or a person of colour that wasn't just likely - it was a certainty. Like it or not, those institutions were run by white men, for the benefit of other white men - that's practically the definition of a "patriarchy".

 

If you think the demographic of the people calling the shots all being the same is purely incidental because they didn't look after all white men in the same way then fair enough - we'll have to disagree and leave it at that.

 

We have indeed come a long way and there's a lot to be happy about.

 

One final question: with your remark about climate change, what do you think of the policy of the current administration with respect to that? Do you think it important, or not?

[Buce]

So, on the one hand he condemns Saudi violence against a journalist, on the other he applauds a Republican Senator’s violence against a journalist. 

 

He is a hypocrit and scum of the lowest order. He defiles the Presidency and drags the reputation of the US through the mud. I don’t think I’ve ever disliked a politician more, and I lived through the Thatcher years. 

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

So, on the one hand he condemns Saudi violence against a journalist, on the other he applauds a Republican Senator’s violence against a journalist. 

 

He is a hypocrit and scum of the lowest order. He defiles the Presidency and drags the reputation of the US through the mud. I don’t think I’ve ever disliked a politician more, and I lived through the Thatcher years. 

 

According to reports the journalist was subjected to torture before he was killed ....   he had his fingers and limbs chopped off and was then beheaded ...   but was still alive when they sawed him up and disposed of the body.        Sounds horrific ...   but which part was still alive ????

[Countryfox]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

I don’t think I’ve ever disliked a politician more, and I lived through the Thatcher years. 

Jeez Bucey ...   you must REALLY dislike him !! ...

[Jattdogg]

Wont lie. When i check this thread i hope to see news that he has resigned or been forced out or fukced off to mars.

 

The state of America is a national embarrassment to the world. Im ashamed they are my neighbours right now

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Jattdogg said:

Wont lie. When i check this thread i hope to see news that he has resigned or been forced out or fukced off to mars.

 

The state of America is a national embarrassment to the world. Im ashamed they are my neighbours right now

 

Breaking news ! ...   President Trump to head space mission to Venus .....     

 

"I always liked Star Trek " ...   said Trump during a recent meeting with his Heads of State ...

 

 

[Jattdogg]

5 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Breaking news ! ...   President Trump to head space mission to Venus .....     

 

"I always liked Star Trek " ...   said Trump during a recent meeting with his Heads of State ...

 

 

 

Lol

 

 

Just saw that clip of him talking about bodlyslamming a reporter/journalist. 

 

What a horrible thing to say given whats going on today in saudi. Im no fan of annoying reporters but that is disgraceful behavior.

 

 

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

 

Lol

 

 

Just saw that clip of him talking about bodlyslamming a reporter/journalist. 

 

What a horrible thing to say given whats going on today in saudi. Im no fan of annoying reporters but that is disgraceful behavior.

 

 

He's a horrible man ....   like Putin and many other world leaders ...      makes Theresa May look like a saint but even she is vilified all the time.

 

What chance have we got.

[Jattdogg]

5 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

He's a horrible man ....   like Putin and many other world leaders ...      makes Theresa May look like a saint but even she is vilified all the time.

 

What chance have we got.

Well i can start the brigade over here in Canada while you lads take over the UK.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

So, on the one hand he condemns Saudi violence against a journalist, on the other he applauds a Republican Senator’s violence against a journalist. 

 

He is a hypocrit and scum of the lowest order. He defiles the Presidency and drags the reputation of the US through the mud. I don’t think I’ve ever disliked a politician more, and I lived through the Thatcher years. 

Well, that's a bit of a weird comparison. The Republican congressman attacked the reporter, slammed him to the ground, then punched him - allegedly due to biased coverage. He later admitted to the wrongdoing and had to do community service, pay a fine and undergo anger management classes.

But to put it in the same boat as Kashoggi being tortured, then cut into pieces whilst he was still conscious doesn't sit well with me.

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

cut into pieces whilst  still conscious doesn't sit well with me.

Me neither.

[Buce]

21 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, that's a bit of a weird comparison. The Republican congressman attacked the reporter, slammed him to the ground, then punched him - allegedly due to biased coverage. He later admitted to the wrongdoing and had to do community service, pay a fine and undergo anger management classes.

But to put it in the same boat as Kashoggi being tortured, then cut into pieces whilst he was still conscious doesn't sit well with me.

 

The difference is in the degree of violence - the principle is the same. 

 

And for the President of the USA to glorify violence  against a jounalist - regardless of its level - is indefensible, though I’m sure you will try. 

Edited 19 October 2018 by Buce

[MC Prussian]

31 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The difference is in the degree of violence - the principle is the same. 

 

And for the President of the USA to glorify violence  against a jounalist - regardless of its level - is indefensible, though I’m sure you will try. 

Nope, sorry.

Not going to defend Trump over that comment - and I've made it perfectly clear that I'm not a fan of his as a person/character.

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

He is a hypocrit and scum of the lowest order. He defiles the Presidency and drags the reputation of the US through the mud. I don’t think I’ve ever disliked a politician more, and I lived through the Thatcher years. 

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Kim? I get someone hating Trump but a bit of perspective surely.

 

He's not even the worst US President of my time. The decisions taken by Bush did more damage to the country. 

 

We'd be balls deep in Syria by now had Hillary been elected, some people forget that.

[bovril]

I think he's the most reprehensible human of all the US presidents but as stated above he has some way to go before matching the damage done by Dubya on the World stage. 

[lifted*fox]

'but he's not as bad as x was' shouldn't be the yard-stick we measure world leaders with.

 

he's an absolute bin-fire of a human being and the damage he's doing will still be felt in decades time - long after he is dead and buried.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Kim? I get someone hating Trump but a bit of perspective surely.

 

He's not even the worst US President of my time. The decisions taken by Bush did more damage to the country. 

 

We'd be balls deep in Syria by now had Hillary been elected, some people forget that.

 

 

Of course there is no comparison to those mentioned - dictators all - and neither did I make one. My dislike for him is as a person; he is completely lacking in class and only his money sets him apart from the chavviest of trailer trash. He is stupid and boorish and completely demeans the office of the Presidency.

[lifted*fox]

Trump would have no issues with being a dictator on the level on Hitler, Stalin, Kim, etc. the difference is that Trump is nowhere near as clever as any of those men.

 

if he saw a window of opportunity i'm sure he'd take it and he's doing his best to fill positions around him with weak men who won't stop him. 

 

he has all the classic traits of a dictator but unfortunately the USA isn't a country in total desperation across the board where a proper dictator can flourish - YET. 

 

 

[RumbleFox]

If the best defence you can offer about someone is "He's not as bad as Hitler or Stalin and his behaviour was not as bad as killing a journalist" then you probably know you've got a cvnting massive nobber on your hands.  X

Edited 19 October 2018 by RumbleFox