President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

Beeb cameraman gets shoved around, the WH issues mealy-mouth blanket condemnation, Twitter talking heads either say he had it coming or deflect by saying it's a Dem stooge.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47219957

 

Just another day.

[leicsmac]

And a rather splendid social media find earlier on - wish I'd wrote it tbh because it says everything I want to say about the guy (especially the punching down part):

 

"Someone on Quora asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.

A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

[Guest MattP]

Get a grip Democrats, the lunatics in your party are on the verge of handing him another term.

 

Edited 13 February 2019 by MattP

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Get a grip Democrats, the lunatics in your party are on the verge of handing him another term.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

Averaged out, 1 point shy of where he was two months ago and over 6 points shy of his personal best (Jan 25 2017), if we take averaging all polls in the way 538 does as representative.

 

An uptick, yeah, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[MC Prussian]

On 30/01/2019 at 01:17, leicsmac said:

And in todays "America is a post-racial society, honest, look a black guy became President, right?" news:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47048042

Why submit redacted phone records, though?

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/jussie-smollett-empire-chicago-attack-phone-records-police-505732161.html

 

Also, the alleged attack took place in an area inhibited mostly by black people and gays.

 

So, could it be that either the attack did not take place at all or the motive isn't a racial one?

[The Doctor]

On 08/02/2019 at 14:54, MattP said:

If you spur economic growth everybody benefits, that's tried and tested formula.

 

Proposing policy that costs more that the GDP of the nation is funny though - not to mention effectively telling Hawaiians they are stuck on their island for eternity if they keep voting Democratic.

 

If you want to do something about climate change though stop flying and driving your car unless it's absolutely necessary, if you can't do that you are the problem. 

 

The elephant in the room on this issue it its going to involve wealthy Westerners telling the poorest people in the planet they are going to have to get even poorer.

Eh no. For any real success it's gonna have to involve eating the rich (which is a solid plan, they've never done a days work in their life and have just grown fat off the exploitation of the poor so their meat will be nice and tender). Simple fact of the matter is 100 companies contribute 70% of all carbon emissions. Don't pretend this is something that the poorest face the brunt from trying to fix. It's something created by the capitalist classes, and given their corruption of government by use of lobbyists to prevent action that would make them only filthy rich rather than obscenely rich, they're the ones who need to suffer to ensure our collective survival. It's not about adopting anarcho-primitivism like a better groomed Unabomber, it's about killing off the fossil fuels industry and going nuclear 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Eh no. For any real success it's gonna have to involve eating the rich (which is a solid plan, they've never done a days work in their life and have just grown fat off the exploitation of the poor so their meat will be nice and tender). Simple fact of the matter is 100 companies contribute 70% of all carbon emissions. Don't pretend this is something that the poorest face the brunt from trying to fix. It's something created by the capitalist classes, and given their corruption of government by use of lobbyists to prevent action that would make them only filthy rich rather than obscenely rich, they're the ones who need to suffer to ensure our collective survival. It's not about adopting anarcho-primitivism like a better groomed Unabomber, it's about killing off the fossil fuels industry and going nuclear 

You might be right, but that isn't the plan of anybody at the minute and it's unlikely to be.

 

At the minute all the talk is being delivered by those on private jets, at places like the Oscars, Davos etc

 

The policies talked about are less flights, taxes on meat, more expensive cars etc - all things that will hurt the poorest in society. 

 

So forgive me for being sceptical that we aren't on the verge of a debate on the things you mention.

[The Doctor]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

You might be right, but that isn't the plan of anybody at the minute and it's unlikely to be.

 

At the minute all the talk is being delivered by those on private jets, at places like the Oscars, Davos etc

 

The policies talked about are less flights, taxes on meat, more expensive cars etc - all things that will hurt the poorest in society. 

 

So forgive me for being sceptical that we aren't on the verge of a debate on the things you mention.

Unfortunately the case, not least since idiots decided that the best alternative to governments corrupted by billionaires was to just ditch the pretence and put corrupt billionaires in charge, but also because the capitalist classes will never voluntarily give up their control, preferring to be emperors of the wasteland than citizens of prospering planet, and there's too many apologists who still believe in myths like trickle down economics and "the existence of billionaires isn't inherently immoral" to just start wheeling out the metaphorical guillotines

[ealingfox]

36 minutes ago, MattP said:

You might be right, but that isn't the plan of anybody at the minute and it's unlikely to be.

 

At the minute all the talk is being delivered by those on private jets, at places like the Oscars, Davos etc

 

The policies talked about are less flights, taxes on meat, more expensive cars etc - all things that will hurt the poorest in society. 

 

So forgive me for being sceptical that we aren't on the verge of a debate on the things you mention.

 

The poorest in society tend not to fly regularly, eat much meat or drive cars.

 

It would impact the middle classes more.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

The poorest in society tend not to fly regularly, eat much meat or drive cars.

 

It would impact the middle classes more.

In Dicaprio's documentary about it he went to India and the woman he was speaking with asked him how can he tell India not to use fossil fuels when they have millions using cow shit as fuel for fires to cook on.  Fair point I thought

Edited 14 February 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[ealingfox]

40 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

In Dicaprio's documentary about it he went to India and the woman he was speaking with asked him how can he tell India not to use fossil fuels when they have millions using cow shit as fuel for fires to cook on.  Fair point I thought

 

Absolutely. I'll add that the wealthiest also have the capacity to enact carbon offsetting alongside their indulgences, but who does and who doesn't do that I couldn't tell you.

Edited 14 February 2019 by ealingfox

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Why submit redacted phone records, though?

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/jussie-smollett-empire-chicago-attack-phone-records-police-505732161.html

 

Also, the alleged attack took place in an area inhibited mostly by black people and gays.

 

So, could it be that either the attack did not take place at all or the motive isn't a racial one?

We'll likely never know the real truth of what happened unless the matter goes through a courtroom (and maybe not even then), but given the current political climate and what has been presented so far I'm still going to say the balance of probability favours this being a racially motivated assault than either a random assault or a false flag.

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

You might be right, but that isn't the plan of anybody at the minute and it's unlikely to be.

 

At the minute all the talk is being delivered by those on private jets, at places like the Oscars, Davos etc

 

The policies talked about are less flights, taxes on meat, more expensive cars etc - all things that will hurt the poorest in society. 

 

So forgive me for being sceptical that we aren't on the verge of a debate on the things you mention.

Wouldn't be entirely sure of that, but the Doc makes some good points in his response.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

The poorest in society tend not to fly regularly, eat much meat or drive cars.

 

It would impact the middle classes more.

What are you defining as "the poorest in society" here?

 

If flights, petrol and meat become more expensive it will hurt the poor more than the middle class as the latter will still be able to afford it, the poorest most probably won't.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Unfortunately the case, not least since idiots decided that the best alternative to governments corrupted by billionaires was to just ditch the pretence and put corrupt billionaires in charge, but also because the capitalist classes will never voluntarily give up their control, preferring to be emperors of the wasteland than citizens of prospering planet, and there's too many apologists who still believe in myths like trickle down economics and "the existence of billionaires isn't inherently immoral" to just start wheeling out the metaphorical guillotines

This is the bit I don't get tbh - I mean, I get the wanting power if the world goes all Mad Max part, but since when is them maintaining power or even surviving at all in such a world anywhere close to a guarantee? Do they really think they can stand against everything that will get thrown at them by the changes to the planet?

 

Not only is it ridiculously self-centred, it's also illogical.

[ealingfox]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

What are you defining as "the poorest in society" here?

 

If flights, petrol and meat become more expensive it will hurt the poor more than the middle class as the latter will still be able to afford it, the poorest most probably won't.

 

The people in society who are the poorest. You?

 

My point is the poorest cannot afford these things as it is. So they are unlikely to care all that much as it doesn't make a difference.

 

Even looking at the sliding scale, I would posit that a tax of say £100 on each flight, it's not going to stop a family on lower income going on their one holiday each year. But it is more likely to make a middle class couple think differently about their 3 or 4 international breaks per year.

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

The people in society who are the poorest. You?

 

My point is the poorest cannot afford these things as it is. So they are unlikely to care all that much as it doesn't make a difference.

 

Even looking at the sliding scale, I would posit that a tax of say £100 on each flight, it's not going to stop a family on lower income going on their one holiday each year. But it is more likely to make a middle class couple think differently about their 3 or 4 international breaks per year.

I probably meant the working poor to be honest, not the people actually living on the street. I know people who would be described as being in "relative poverty" who save up for a foreign holiday, it's often cheaper than a week away here now, a increase in flight prices would be a disaster for them (under what you say there an extra £500 for a family of five would be unaffordable for some), I also think those families should be allowed to eat things like lamb and beef on a Sunday roast as week instead of having to do chicken every week as taxation makes it more difficult.

 

I don't know any middle class famiiles that have four international holidays a year, if you were a couple though it probably wouldn't make that much difference. (£800 quid a year to a middle class couple v £500 a year to a family of five on the breadline, I think the latter is suffering far more)

[Jattdogg]

Has he fcuked off yet?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47247726

 

Remember who established this precedent when the Dems turn around and use this for the Green New Deal and gun control in due course, Repubs.

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47247726

 

Remember who established this precedent when the Dems turn around and use this for the Green New Deal and gun control in due course, Repubs.

Very bad idea Donald.

 

He should take a look at the Speaker here to see the damage you can do changing precedent. 

[ealingfox]

17 hours ago, MattP said:

I probably meant the working poor to be honest, not the people actually living on the street. I know people who would be described as being in "relative poverty" who save up for a foreign holiday, it's often cheaper than a week away here now, a increase in flight prices would be a disaster for them (under what you say there an extra £500 for a family of five would be unaffordable for some), I also think those families should be allowed to eat things like lamb and beef on a Sunday roast as week instead of having to do chicken every week as taxation makes it more difficult.

 

I don't know any middle class famiiles that have four international holidays a year, if you were a couple though it probably wouldn't make that much difference. (£800 quid a year to a middle class couple v £500 a year to a family of five on the breadline, I think the latter is suffering far more)

 

I actually had £100 per flight in total in mind rather than £100 per person per flight, which would be £800 per year v £200 per year, but it's inconsequential as neither of us know what the terms of these measures would be nor are we qualified to decide them.

 

Again I think you're pretty out of touch if you think families on lower incomes can afford lamb or beef every week as it is. Your victim complex slant is pretty weird, nobody is saying anyone isn't allowed anything.

 

I don't agree that introducing such measures would impact the poorest in society the most and it certainly isn't a given but we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

I actually had £100 per flight in total in mind rather than £100 per person per flight, which would be £800 per year v £200 per year, but it's inconsequential as neither of us know what the terms of these measures would be nor are we qualified to decide them.

 

Again I think you're pretty out of touch if you think families on lower incomes can afford lamb or beef every week as it is. Your victim complex slant is pretty weird, nobody is saying anyone isn't allowed anything.

 

I don't agree that introducing such measures would impact the poorest in society the most and it certainly isn't a given but we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.

We will.

 

I find it genuinely baffling anyone wants to increase costs on anything for the working or middle classes to be honest, if that means I have a victim complex then so be it, it's a pretty good one to have.

[Bobby Hundreds]

16 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Has he fcuked off yet?

His BMI is now above 30. Can't be long surely?

[The Fox Covert]

33 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

His BMI is now above 30. Can't be long surely?

BBC news article this morning reports that he presented a letter from his doctor, claiming that he would be 'the healthiest individual ever elected'. It turned out that he had written the letter himself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47243351?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2lgt/donald-trump&link_location=live-reporting-story

The letter isn't shown in the report but I would expect an absence of sentences with more than six words and a few grammatical and spelling mistakes.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Very bad idea Donald.

 

He should take a look at the Speaker here to see the damage you can do changing precedent. 

It's like he doesn't look ahe-

 

Oh...right.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Donald Trump getting stick for his weight

 

It seems the rage towards Trump is Calaban's rage at seeing himself in a mirror