Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 31 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 365 Fun & Games
- 86 BA Predictor Threads
- 28 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 280 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 110 Current West Ham
- 198 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 25 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 379 Match Threads
- 53 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 35 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 86 Completed Transfers
- 53 Internationals
- 46 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 107 Football Chatter
- 42 Football Chatter
- 260 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
;ok
I think that both parties carry ultimate responsibility here, most/many Republicans do not like Trump but they were terrified that if they let him stand as an independent, he would have attracted enough of their voters to ensure that Hillary got in - and they really could not stomach that,
The Democrats were so in love with the idea that Hillary was going to win and break the glass ceiling that they were blinded and totally failed to notice just how unpopular a candidate she really was.
At the end of the day, with Obama stepping down, there were 16 or 17 candidates in the republican side who were willing to put their hat in the ring and go for the top job, on the Democratic side, we really only saw Hillary and feel the burn Bernie.
The writing should have been clear to see as actually, Bernie gave Hillary a real run for her money, despite being a bit of a marginal candidate himself, surely the Democrats should have opened the race up and encouraged a couple of capable up and comers that they surely must have within their ranks.
Therefore, my take is that both major parties have done the electorate a significant disservice which has resulted in the swearing in of Donald J Trump into the office of President of the United States.
Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought it possible.
That's not me saying you are sexist or racist, btw, before you say that I am. I'm legitimately asking, because that is how it reads.
Despite the broad mindedness of today's more rounded, tolerant and educated population, a strong element still exists, deep within the DNA that responds very positively to an America First message - the tragedy is that amongst many of those who support that message, they have a very narrow interpretation of what exactly constitutes, America.
Just for clarity, this is purely an observation of mine covering behavior I see around me, it is not directed at anyone in particular.
;sofa
That is not really a fair question, after all there are plenty of discriminatory policies that have been advanced and been put in place with legal standing in the UK for the 'betterment' of society that a lot of people seem to go along with and happily accept on the basis of the 'ends justifying the means', particularly when they or their section of society is benefitting from it.
IMO it doesn't matter how you badge it or spin it discrimination is still discrimination and should not be tolerated in any form - and putting in place policies and legislation that gives one section in society an advantage over another (even with the best intentions) is just wrong, particularly using the argument "we have been discriminated against for years so its only fair it now works the other way around" - two wrongs don't make a right. In the long run it only causes resentment by the new sections of society being or who feel they are being discriminated against. Trying to excuse it or justify it be prefixing it with an additional word such as 'positive' to give it some sort of legitimacy is a cop out - there is never a justified excuse for discrimination.
The only rule/law their should be is the everyone, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, age or background shall be treated as equal.
That is one of life's principles I have learned, particularly through my travels, so on meeting someone for the first time I will always treat then in the way I would expect them to treat me. If subsequently they don't, I will change the way I treat them but still remain cordial (if possible).
Unfortunately, the Trump campaign did cite it as precedent. In support of a registry instead of as a warning.
I agree with you on so much of that. But, to me at least, it is clear that this is a different administration than what we (or rather, I) have seen before.
Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that because it's happened before in some manner or other we shouldn't be angry about it now. It's like the whole "Hilary was worse" argument. The past is the past, and hypotheticals don't matter now. The fact is the (arguably) most powerful nation in the world is being run by someone with a neoNazi whispering in his ear.
It comes back to a discussion from yesterday, on another thread.
Judges should absolutely NOT be influenced in execution of their duties by their religious beliefs.
And I think anyone who thinks judges should, is utterly wrong. So to vote for a President in order to ensure that happens, is imo wrong.
Not sure what you mean by 'Here we go again'.
I challenged your claim that anyone who disagreed with you was 'anti-life' and you have done nothing to answer that.
You don't have to, if you don't want to, but don't refer to my post AND ignore it - that doesn't make sense.
However, I don't think it should be relevant when considering a point of law.
I was marginally comforted by what Gorsuch said in accepting the nomination:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So high values Trump puts in American history and upholding those values. In fact ANYONE believing that laws should be put in place because of their own personal religious views are in fact anti-American, because you want to go against the foundation on which your country was built.
So year, the pro-life, christian view, which wants to impose it's view on the population...no very american in anyway shape or form.
The constitution only ever seems to be an issue when someone wants to control gun laws.
I personally don`t have any time for any religious beliefs/doctrines (although I have an interest in the ideas of the anabaptists and quakers) and believe that in the wrong hands any religious doctrine can be used to coerce and terrorise people (as has been proved time and again through recent history).
America has a totally different outlook with regards to the individual and the rights accorded to the individual than we have in Europe (although Thatcher did her best to convince us that greed is good) and I think it is hard to judge the reasoning and motivation of what drives Americans from an English/European perspective. Even down to what me may consider "obviously wrong" and "just not cricket".
As I`ve said before, Trump is a particularly unpleasant man, but I feel that people are getting a little hysterical in their condemnation. Trump has put a temporary ban on people coming into America from particular countries. Obama dropped more bombs on the middle east than any other president. Where were the protesters with witty placards then? Again, I`m not defending Trump, but I think a lot of condemnation and rhetoric stems from him not being "cool".
The knives are out for Trump, and I personally don`t think anything he does or achieves will be recognised or acknowledged because of the rabid hatred people have for him.
Religion and politics (politicians) are the twin evils that seem to divide us (normal people) but apparently we can`t live without either. Or so we are told. Strange World.
My point was 'forcing others'.
I'd like any politician to be a moral, reasonable, reflective person, and Christians can certainly be that.
If an individual Christian wants to have qualms about abortions fair play to them.
To say America is 'predominantly Christian' isn't really enough, since different groups have such widely differing opinions of what being Christian entails.
I define myself as a Christian (and as a normal person, by the way), but my faith has nothing whatsoever to do with the briimstone and hellfire preachers typical of the southern US, and their emphasis on Old Testament texts.
Nothing I have seen Trump do or say strikes me as particularly 'Christian', and in many instances quite the opposite.
If a Christian becomes president, and says 'I am going to create laws which force people to conform to my view of morality/ethics', I think that is tyranny.
As to dismissing people's objections to Trump as stemming from him not being 'cool' - seriously? You think that's what people have a problem with?
If Trump ends up being the President who helps to heal US society, reduce crime and poverty, and increase real living standards for the poorest Americans, I'll be cheering him from the rafters, but I'm not going to practice rafter climbing just yet.
Grey - I did not say "anyone who disagreed with you (me) was 'anti-life' " I was simply referring to Clinton.
"President who helps to heal US society, reduce crime and poverty, and increase real living standards for the poorest Americans"
To heal society may be a stretch, he has already reached out to many sectors but unfortunately those that responded were ridiculed - I would however be disappointed if he does not surprise you on the others
Is there nothing in your past that you would not find embarrassing now & have your views not changed over the years?
And it has been consistent for years before that.
And he's still doing it.
And he's never renounced those views.
And never apologised for them.
And all that time he was an adult.
Don't try to portray it as a few foolish things he said as a teenager, and ha now grown out of.
Well. Do, if you like.
But you'll convince no-one, because it's not true.
You are trying to justify the unjustifiable, imo.
I regret things I did when I was younger, yes. But you're talking about the last six months as a world leader. It's not the same thing.
Also, none of the things I regret involve derogatory comments about people because of the colour of their skin, their religion, their disabilities, their gender, their nationality. And that's because I have never done those things because they are totally abhorrent to me.
And Trump is sexist please..