American Election Discussion

PrestonHammer

I don't support Trump in any way. The thing is not enough people liked Clinton and Trump got in by default. If the Democrats had put up a better candidate who campaigned on the issues instead of pointing out Trumps faults, that candidate would have won.

alderz

That's besides the point now though, Preston. Now it's about the fact that he is in power, and we should be focussing on what he is doing now, not that Hilary was also bad.

And the point isn't that some Muslims can travel. You don't think it's causing rising tensions? You don't think it's got the potential for creating a dangerous climate?

Simon

Why is it that you only respond with things other people have done instead of addressing any of trumps behaviours? Someone else has done something offensive? Of course they have. That doesn't make his policies ok, or not offensive.

MrsGrey

You really haven't got a clue, have you?

There was a march. It was about one thing.

Some other people felt like they didn't want to join in.

That doesn't means the march was discriminating against the 2nd group.



Here's an example that might make it easier for you to grasp.

Tony Drump says, vegetarians are twonks. And says he likes to stamp on vegetarian sausages.

Vegetarians organise a protest march to say vegetarians aren't twonks and Drump is prejudiced against vegetarians. And they dress up as vegetarian sausages.

Some vegans say they didn't want to join in, because the march is focused on vegetarianism, and they would prefer to dress up as lettuces.

Now, if you can in all logic suggest that the vegans are being discriminated against by the protest march ... well, words fail me.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

NEoldiron said:

Is there are any correlation between Brexiteers on this forum and Trump supporters or at least people who think it's ok what he's done so far?

I don't believe so NE, although comparisons are being drawn and certain sections of the media are trying to make the link, it is very tenuous IMO. I agree there are common themes, but the way they are viewed and the actions of the countries and their administration are very different, as is the attitude of the majority those who voted leave as opposed to the American voters who vote for Trump.

I know what you are pointing at, but your opinion of what type of person voted leave (and their attributes, or lack of) have, in my experience always been very wide of the mark, yes there are some that may actually fit in with how you view them, but many more don't.

I am assuming you have the same view about those who voted for Trump.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

alderz said:

Adme

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.

Alderz, I am not saying that because it has happened before it is ok to do it again or that people should not be angry about it, I agree that the past is the past and that is where it should be left. That is not to say we cannot learn for the mistakes and try to stop them being repeated, unfortunately this seems to be a difficult concept for humans to accept because people who want power will use whatever means they can to get it.

simonc

alderz - Trump if kicked, kicks back, it has obviously worked very well for him in business & having a foreign policy built on strength not weakness would for me be a positive.
Would i have said some of the things he has - no, but other than the obvious grabbing comment from several years ago I don't get the outrage. What he has said & done has been in response to one unreasonable attack or another.
As you rightly point out he is the President now so would it not be reasonable to allow him to perform the job he was elected to do?

alderz

So, are you saying that him being elected means he can do whatever he likes and people should let him get on with it? Because that seems like a terrible idea. Are people not allowed to be opposed to him?

And to argue that it's ok because people have antagonised him strikes me as dangerous. That someone would respond offensively if other people wind him up makes me think they might not be the best person to deal with the more abrasive foreign leaders.

Remember when Trump spent years unreasonably attacking Obama for anything that came into his head? Remember when Obama lashed it and mocked him? No? Well that's funny isn't it.

PrestonHammer

The man has a very thin skin, too thin to be any good as a world leader. He can't take any form of criticism and just lashes out via twitter.

chicagohammer

On a lighter note

One of my favorite signs spotted at the March after the inauguration. It was a picture of Trump with the slogan

"You're so vain, I bet you think this march is about you"

Well it made me laugh

;biggrin

NEoldiron

Chicago ;lol

Onme'
"but your opinion of what type of person voted leave (and their attributes, or lack of) have, in my experience always been very wide of the mark, yes there are some that may actually fit in with how you view them, but many more don't."

In your opinion.

Another question. In your opinion, did Farage's support for Trump make a contribution towards his victory.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mr G. Pretty much agree with everything you said in your last post apart from the "cool" bit. I don`t think people are judging him and protesting about him for being "uncool", I just think that his perceived "uncoolness" will count against him. If you are "cool" you can get away with much more, such as dropping a record number of bombs on the middle east (I.E. MUSLIMS) without so much as a cross tweet from Lily Allen et al (I haven`t checked this as I don`t twitter, I assume I am right though) and yet a temporary ban, yes temporary, on immigrants from nations identified as "dangerous" by Obama has caused much consternation and placard waving. I would guess that if Obama had proposed the same legislation and explained his reasons in a calm dignified manner there would be very few people on the streets decrying a "racist" president. Again, I would like to point out that I am not supporting Trump, I am consistent in my displeasure at all politicians, Capitalist apologists, dictators, oligarchs etc etc. I just think that there are certain double standards being applied. I also find it a little odd that the queen should be saved from the embarrassment of meeting Trump when she has lived with someone of a similar persuasion for 65 years, in theory they should get on like a house on fire.

MrsGrey

MadCap, imo you can't take this ban as an isolated incident. It has to be set against his campaign comments about banning Muslims.

Secondly, much is being made of it being 'Obama's List'. As if that somehow absolves Trump from any criticism. BUT, Obama's administration identified risks from those countries. And put in place security measures that have been 100% successful at preventing terrorist attacks on American soil from those countries.

So, again imo, Trump has made an ideological decision, rather than one based in the reality of the situation. And against the background of his expressed desire for a Muslim Ban and Muslim register.

On a separate point, I reject your allegation of double standards. Because you are hypothesising how people would have behaved in a situation that never actually happened. And you have hypothesised that double standards would have been at work. But that's all in your head ;ok

TheMadcapLaughs

If it is an ideological decision, I.E. a ban on all Muslims, then why are there glaring omissions in the countries chosen. Also, is it better to ban Muslims or bomb Muslims. Obama in theory has perpetrated worse crimes against Muslims and yet escapes condemnation. That to me is double standards. The list doesn`t absolve Trump, but the list in itself could be deemed racist as all the countries on the list are predominantly Muslim. Why wasn`t France on the list, there seems to be a predominance of terrorist atrocities perpetrated in France, and yet all French people (as far as I can understand) are allowed access to America. As I have said, I in no way support this piece of legislation, and in no way support Trump, and like the protesters I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslims, but I will check first to see if the Muslim I am standing next to is likely to be "droned".

TheMadcapLaughs

You are correct in as much as I did use a hypothetical situation and I have no idea how people would have reacted to the same order from Obama. But it is a generally held rule that "cool" people like Obama have an advantage over social misfits and small handed oddballs like Trump in terms of presentation. The same thing presented by two different people can be interpreted in conflicting ways by the listener due to preconceived conceptions the listener may have of the presenter, and if the presenter is not previously known by the listener by what first impressions we draw from the presenter. Put it this way, the same message delivered by Obama would hold more gravitas than the exact same message delivered by Trump. This isn`t right, but it is true.

OutcastLondoner

TheMadcapLaughs said:

If it is an ideological decision, I.E. a ban on all Muslims, then why are there glaring omissions in the countries chosen. Also, is it better to ban Muslims or bomb Muslims. Obama in theory has perpetrated worse crimes against Muslims and yet escapes condemnation. That to me is double standards. The list doesn`t absolve Trump, but the list in itself could be deemed racist as all the countries on the list are predominantly Muslim. Why wasn`t France on the list, there seems to be a predominance of terrorist atrocities perpetrated in France, and yet all French people (as far as I can understand) are allowed access to America. As I have said, I in no way support this piece of legislation, and in no way support Trump, and like the protesters I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslims, but I will check first to see if the Muslim I am standing next to is likely to be "droned".

Obama has been criticised for it but his method of operating meant it didn't always get attention from the wider public. I also don't think Obama's ills take away from Trump's. I don't think you can separate the actions from the rhetoric they're couched in; the atmosphere and aggressiveness that Trump has set up around his programme makes it more dangerous. Trump has not even been in office 2 weeks and there have been air strikes already he's banning and bombing Muslims.

The ban has omissions because it was based on the existing list, that doesn't mean it can't expand. There have been quite a few people from countries not on the list who have also been deported as well, so the list is not limited. Palestinians living in the US have also been advised not to leave the country because it's not clear whether they would also be banned - they're not on the list because Palestine isn't a recognised state.

I don't get why you seem to think Trump isn't going to use drones, they already have carried out drone strikes.

TheMadcapLaughs

I also read somewhere that the executive order wasn`t so much about the content, but was issued as a test to see how far and how hard he could push. I hadn`t heard of presidential executive orders or memorandums before, It`s an odd concept that in a country that prides itself on democracy that a chap can be elected with a minority of the popular vote and then wield such power with the stroke of a pen.
Without going over old ground, this is why (IMO) authority/power/control should never be held by a small central elite. It is dangerous and power 100% corrupts. Even if Trump is impeached or assassinated the same system exists and is in place for the next Trump, or worse. Why are people protesting against Trump but not questioning the process and apparatus that got him there. The World is now run by a very small elite of very rich and very powerful people, most of them are not even elected (not that it makes much difference). The people on the streets are protesting against one unpleasant man, who or what are they going to replace him with. Hilary?

OutcastLondoner

TheMadcapLaughs said:

I also read somewhere that the executive order wasn`t so much about the content, but was issued as a test to see how far and how hard he could push.

...

Why are people protesting against Trump but not questioning the process and apparatus that got him there. The World is now run by a very small elite of very rich and very powerful people, most of them are not even elected (not that it makes much difference). The people on the streets are protesting against one unpleasant man, who or what are they going to replace him with. Hilary?

1) It can be both. The content still very much matters, a lot of people are really suffering. If it's a test, it doesn't mean this is the furthest – he's seen plenty will still support and defend him, that authorities will disobey judges, so he can go further.

2) Because that's a big leap you're asking people to make. Should people not protest these policies then? They should just let them happen? Must protest always offer the solution? That doesn't really sound consistent with the anarchism you propose. On one hand you're saying people shouldn't accept the system, on the other hand you're saying what's the point of protesting the system at it's worst.

alderz

MadCap

I think that, had the policies not been so obviously inflammatory, you would have seen more protests about the way in which the system works. Lots of people are angry at the system (largely because of the result), but it feels like they are almost fire fighting at the moment and will hope to reach the bigger issue in the longer term. The sad thing about the system is that it probably won't change because people suddenly don't have a problem with it when they're candidate wins on those grounds. It's like Trump criticising the system in the past for a lack of majority voting, but now championing it. That is typical of people in these situations, once you get what you want it's easy to forget the wider issues at foot.

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

But it is a generally held rule that "cool" people like Obama have an advantage over social misfits and small handed oddballs like Trump in terms of presentation.

What generally held rule? Where? By whom. Sorry, I think that's an unfounded generalisation.

TheMadcapLaughs said:

The same thing presented by two different people can be interpreted in conflicting ways by the listener due to preconceived conceptions the listener may have of the presenter, and if the presenter is not previously known by the listener by what first impressions we draw from the presenter. Put it this way, the same message delivered by Obama would hold more gravitas than the exact same message delivered by Trump. This isn`t right, but it is true.

You are contradicting yourself here, it seems to me.

And also, no, it isn't true.


You are these assertions. But all they are is your opinion.

alderz

"Small handed oddballs" ;lol

MrsGrey

madcap, the reason why Obama's message holds more gravitas is simple. It's because Obama actually has more gravitas.

(Gravitas = dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner. Not descriptions that spring to mind when you think of Trump. Recent example 'bad dudes',' bad hombres', 'I will study this dumb deal!')

TheMadcapLaughs

Outcast, I`m not sure either way if Trump will use drones, in all likelihood he will and I bow to your superior knowledge of the middle east and the current situation. In my view Trump is not the problem, or Obama or Farage or May or Sturgeon, but the systems we find ourselves currently operating under. My main problem with the established parties of whatever colour or persuasion is that they want and advocate more of the same. A significant proportion of people in The West don`t want more of the same. Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Liberal free market economies, globalisation, mixed economies etc etc have all failed a significant proportion of our populous. People are looking for alternatives, so called anti establishment figures. Normally I would support demonstrations and shows of public disorder (Jefferson positively encouraged civil disobedience) but I fear that the current round of demos and placard waving is of a reactionary kind, not revolutionary. A hankering after the old ways (dear old Hilary) It is the old ways that a significant proportion of the population have rejected. Each and every country, territory, county, town, I don`t care how you define a geographic region, should endeavour to be as self sufficient as is technically possible. There is nothing wrong with Americans buying American and the British buying British. The ONLY reason everything is made in China now is that we ran out of people and resources to exploit here, in The West. People want to feel part of the community they live in, valued, they want to contribute to THEIR community, to be part of things, not cast aside. It is impossible under the current structures with the current set of priorities to make things work for the majority of people. The populist parties have recognised this and exploited this alienation and have been the only people savvy enough to have appealed to it. Don`t blame Trump, or Farage or Le Pen but blame the numpties who have steered us down this path for the past 40 years regardless. That is the root of the problem, not Trump (abhorrent as he is).

TheMadcapLaughs

MrsGrey said:

madcap, the reason why Obama's message holds more gravitas is simple. It's because Obama actually has more gravitas.

(Gravitas = dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner. Not descriptions that spring to mind when you think of Trump. Recent example 'bad dudes',' bad hombres', 'I will study this dumb deal!')

Mrs G, my point was that it could be exactly the same message word for word but would be interpreted in different ways, looked at more seriously from Obama than Trump.

chicagohammer

I believe that the phenomonem of unconscious bias is very real and is something that we all are subject to, the trick is to recognize that and try to see through it.

TheMadcapLaughs

Outcast. Yes, people have every right to protest and good on them for doing it. I would hope that most protesters would have an alternative solution to offer up if questioned as to their motives. I could be way off the mark here, but I think most of the protesters are "anyone but Trump" and as much as I admire their fortitude and in many cases wit (some good placards there) I think there motivation is misplaced. As for my Anarchism, it based purely and simply on the fact that I contend that no man (sorry Mrs G, other types of gender (more than I thought) are available) has the right to command another man. That is where all my beliefs stem from.
I believe in total equality of sex and race, and if people must believe, of religion to. The very earliest proponents of total flatline (I think I have invented a new word) equality were anarchists, the first feminists were anarchists, the first "internationalists" were anarchists. Their very definition of justice is equality. On this basis most anarchists reject the concept of private property, as it is from this that most inequality stems. I should be on the streets manning the barricades and waving a witty placard as I type. In fact I may just

MrsGrey

chicagohammer said:

I believe that the phenomonem of unconscious bias is very real and is something that we all are subject to, the trick is to recognize that and try to see through it.

I am happy to admit that I am biased to prefer someone in a role that they are qualified for.

I am also happy to admit that I prefer the leader of a country (be it PM, President or AN Other type) to have a serious demeanour, rather than one which is more suited to an internet troll.

However, I don't let style blind me to substance.

MrsGrey

;nonono I've just read something that has left me gobsmacked.

I was just reading a news article about a different topic, and I followed a link, and another. And came across something which I wasn't aware of before.

Sorry if you already know this, but during the campaign, Trump actually urged his supporters at a rally to beat up protestors.

And when some of his supporters DID beat up a protestor, at a different rally, he said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

He encourages violence, and thinks people exercising their Constitutional rights to protest deserve to be beaten up?

OutcastLondoner

Madcap, I don't think everyone's motivation is "anyone but Trump" it's that people generally are going to be motivated by issues rather than complete ideologies. Trump through his campaign and in his first week has signed 18 executive orders and presidential memos that make many people feel threatened - on refugees, healthcare, abortion, the wall, the pipeline – so they are motivated to fight those things. Because it has been such a bombardment of orders passed down, people do feel like they would take anyone, because while they lived with the system before they had never felt like someone was using the system to command them what to do so heavily.

Obama also signed a lot of actions but there is a difference. Obama's were to stop torture, close Guantanamo/other overseas prisons, and a bunch other human rights and government transparency stuff. Many of Trump's heavily restrict personal/social freedoms.

Moojor

Without checking the all the information regarding where Obama agreed air strikes against but I'm going to guess it was military targets who had been identified as actual threats.
That is a world of difference from banning every single person from a certain country because of their religious beliefs. You can not compare the two things.

OutcastLondoner

No the drone policy that was expanded during Obama's presidency was horrible. They claimed they only struck military targets but at least hundreds of civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. The policy is horrible and underreported because drones keep western soldiers safe - so they're not newsworthy. I don't think that should be understated.