Maybe vitriol was too strong a word and I do respect that the vast majority of posters are responding as honestly as they can but some of the things said on here seem to me to be way over the top. For example to say he has no redeeming features as a human being is not something I would say as I don't personally know the man. I do know he is a very astute business man and from what I can gather an extremely generous employer. My niece who runs a hotel in Vancouver once worked for him. What sort of president he will make we will no doubt find out but I doubt he will be worse than Clinton would be.
Thornbury-no hard feelings because that was my quote.How about no redeeming features as a human being as far as I can see? My point is that everything that I've seen & read about the man so far has made feel a combination of sick & anger. Like I say,no hard feelings these are opinions.
Whatever his individual beliefs and how we interpret comments that he has made, the fact remains that IMO he is a good old fashioned bully.
He uses his financial wealth and position to intimidate and is ever ready to threaten legal action at the slightest opportunity.
Just last night, his campaign sued the Clark County Nevada registrar as they allowed a polling station to stay open for two hours after closing - just for clarity, only those individuals that got in line before the closing time were allowed to vote, this is common practice as it can take hours from someone to actually vote here.
There was a worry that people were allowed to join the line after closing which could be a concern but at 8.00 o clock the wait time was decreed as being two hours and the polling station did close at 10.
The polling station was a Mexican supermarket within a largely Latino community.
What worried me most is that apparently the Trump campaign asked for personal information on the poll workers on duty at the market.
Fortunately the judge denied the request and seeing how Trump won the night, I doubt there will be any further action, but it points to a bullying mentality and an intolerant, selfish temperament.
Really unfortunately from my point of view, we woke up this morning to the inevitable conclusion that bullying wins.
My worst fear last night was that the result was going to be so close that Trump would challenge every single impropriety, whether real or imagined, whether material or immaterial, and the prospect was frightening.
I was scared that he would be a disruptive influence for the next weeks and months, I am not that keen on Hillary but I hoped for that reason that she would crush him.
Never in the world did I imagine that he would actually not only win, but crush her.
Mrs Grey - I would hope that Trumps so called better relationship with Putin would de-escalate tensions in both areas, I think the writing is on the wall that Assad will stay as removing him would create another libya, Trump has committed to creating safe areas in the middle east for the refugees & I would hope he challenges other Middle Eastern countries to play their part. Syrian refugees seem to only go to Europe, Lebanon & Jordan there are other Shia and Sunni countries they could go too it seems like Europe is the preferred option I wonder why?
Perhaps because they want to live in an area free from institutionalised state religion?
I can relate to that.
Or maybe because they have family in a European country which could help them settle, offer a support network, help them adjust to anew home, rather than go to a foreign country where they know no one?
Seems like a sensible idea to me.
I can come up with other possibilities. Do you want to hear them?
Or was your question rhetorical, in the sense that you have already decided you know the answer based on lumping everybody into the same category, and will dismiss all alternative possible reasons?
Yeold mock all you will but 5% of 1.4trillion is 70billion that Hillary wasn't going to get her hands on. Then you put some of the remaining 95% to work in the USA & you start to see the picture. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/14/news/tax-us-companies-offshore-cash/ and thats just the top 50 companies
MrsG - Not dismissing anything just posing an open question and you raise some good points, though i think you left out a more obvious financial motive. I would love to hear your other thoughts that is an awful lot of people with family in Europe or that don't want to be Muslims anymore
On the latter, you assume they don't want to be Muslims anymore - but there is no reason why they can't want to both practise their faith and not live in a Muslim state.
On the family issue: I don't know the numbers. But I see no reason to doubt that with global migration and travel patterns, there shouldn't be huge numbers of folks with connections all over Europe.
And, so what if there is a financial motive. Isn't it perfectly laudable that someone wants to move to another country where they feel they stand a better chance of progressing economically, either because of their training and qualifications, entreprenuerial skills, or hard work?
70 billion please ? the figure will not get anywhere near that if they can get off with a 10% one off they will get away with more and they know it.
Not quite understanding you here I was using your 5% number when it is really 10% not 10% from 15% so if only 50 companies repatriate their overseas holdings that's a 140 Billion boost to the economy with the benefits of the money in the country still to come - no brainer
Re: removal of Assad. Syria is in a worse situation than Libya.
Why do people go where they go? Let's not muddle things: Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have millions.
Refugees follow the routes available to them because countries aren't offering them transport.
Iraq is no more stable. Israel/Palestine is not possible. Iran for many wouldn't be an option either. So they use the Mediterranean route, which leads to Europe, where people hope they can actually find security and live independently rather than in the grinding stagnation of a refugee camp. It's not much different for Afghans; every quarter the violence increases to levels beyond anything since the invasion.
I've been in long term refugee camps, where people aren't allowed to work and have to rely on unreliable sources of education, food and healthcare. It's easy to understand why people would want the leave.
Syrian refugees seem to only go to Europe, Lebanon & Jordan there are other Shia and Sunni countries they could go too it seems like Europe is the preferred option I wonder why?
According to the UN in February 2016 out of over 4.8m Syrian refugees
2,688,686 Turkey 1,048,275 Lebanon 245,543 Iraq 628,427 Jordan 119,665 Egypt
70 billion please ? the figure will not get anywhere near that if they can get off with a 10% one off they will get away with more and they know it.
Not quite understanding you here I was using your 5% number when it is really 10% not 10% from 15% so if only 50 companies repatriate their overseas holdings that's a 140 Billion boost to the economy with the benefits of the money in the country still to come - no brainer
Because they are part of the establishment that so called got a kick in, they are not going to cease to be that lol. They will be the ones telling Trump and Co, 10 % nah ? 5 % nah , 1 % nah ? how about nothing , sounds good to us. ;lol
Yeold even if you are right and i certainly dont agree (a democratic government will raise it again so better to get it all back now) the boost to the economy even without the tax money would be significant
I dont pretend to be a middle eastern expert Mrs G asked for opinion i offered one. As unpopular as it may be Removing support from the anti Assad rebels may be the only solution now.
I was transferred by the company i was working for when they opened a North Amerikan office
Fyi - the paperwork was a nightmare
I may not agree with Simonc on Trump but I can agree with him on this - I was also transferred by my company for organizational reasons
The process to acquire a Green Card and become formally a permanent resident here took seven years and cost my company in excess of $23,000 in legal fees alone.
This is what annoys me the most, are the Republicans and Democrats seriously claiming that those two idiots were the best candidates for their respective parties??? No matter which one won they were going to be the most untrustworthy and disliked (for a multitude of reasons) president in recent history.
I honestly believe that if the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate he would have destroyed Trump in the election... and none of this discussion would be taking place.
I dont pretend to be a middle eastern expert Mrs G asked for opinion i offered one. As unpopular as it may be Removing support from the anti Assad rebels may be the only solution now.
That would be a shame, as there is one small glimmer of hope in the region, and that is the autonomous area of Rojava. The Arab spring had one common theme running through it, and it is a common theme the World over, and that is humanities constant battle for freedom.
This is what annoys me the most, are the Republicans and Democrats seriously claiming that those two idiots were the best candidates for their respective parties??? No matter which one won they were going to be the most untrustworthy and disliked (for a multitude of reasons) president in recent history.
I honestly believe that if the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate he would have destroyed Trump in the election... and none of this discussion would be taking place.
Absolutely.
I get the feeling from this side of the pond, anyone but Clinton would have taken Trump to the cleaners in the election.
I think that Trump was voted in, and the UK voted for Brexit because mainstream politics has become homogenised, I think people have taken the view that whoever they voted for the past 40 years nothing has changed, in fact for a lot of people things have got a whole lot worse. Offer people something different (or the chance of something different) and they have taken the opportunity to grab it with both hands. The apparent smugness and complacency pre-vote of the mainstream participants and media, compared to the shock, indignation, and vitriol aimed at the people for daring to rail against the perceived accepted norms post-vote, proves (to me) how out of touch "the establishment" has become. I think that other countries with elections looming may be in for similar shocks. The attitude and arrogance of "What have you done?" (I.E. pointing the finger of blame AS EVER at normal people) should really be turned on its head, and maybe the politicians, and the rich and powerful they represent, should be looking at themselves with the very same question. The disappointment, for me, is the apparent lurch to the right. Maybe the left need to take a long hard look at themselves, stop pandering to big business and the middle ground, and go back to basics. May make them unelectable for a while but at least it will offer a REAL alternative and may REALLY hold the reactionaries to account. Looking for real change, for real people, within the current system died (if it were ever alive) in the 1980`s with Thatcher and Reagan and the whole unfettered free market, greed is good nonsense. ANYONE who has been in power since has just taken on the reins and carried on regardless. I may be wrong, but in my view this approach is positively wrong. Finally Mrs G pointed out that Trump thinks that climate change is a hoax. The majority of big business, until fairly recently, would have agreed. Until they discovered that the fragility of the planet could also be turned into big business and you could actually make lots of money from "being green". Saving the planet may even be turned in to some kind of franchise, like McDonalds. Great. I`m sure Trump will come around eventually. And finally, finally, Mr G. Are Trump and Blair REALLY that different?
Also being reported that almost half (46.9%) of eligible voters in the US did not go to the polls! Oh how different the result could have been. And I bet a lot of those who chose not to vote are the one's complaining that Trump won.
This is what annoys me the most, are the Republicans and Democrats seriously claiming that those two idiots were the best candidates for their respective parties??? No matter which one won they were going to be the most untrustworthy and disliked (for a multitude of reasons) president in recent history.
I honestly believe that if the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate he would have destroyed Trump in the election... and none of this discussion would be taking place.
At one point the Republicans had sixteen candidates, after the Iowa caucus at the beginning of February that was down to eleven, by the Indiana primary in May it was down to Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Trump.
The Democrats had six candidates, three of which withdrew before the primaries, Martin O'Malley quit after Iowa leaving Sanders and Clinton. Sanders won 23 states. Clinton 34.
Clinton was the choice of the registered Democratic Party voters just as the Trump was the choice of the Republican party voters, they might not have been the best but they won; the people have spoken.
Also being reported that almost half (46.9%) of eligible voters in the US did not go to the polls! Oh how different the result could have been. And I bet a lot of those who chose not to vote are the one's complaining that Trump won.
They don't make it easy in some states, my friend in West Virginia voted last week but her friend in Philly had to vote on Tuesday as there is no early voting in PA.
Let's not even discuss states where they try to stop certain types of people from voting. Oh, go on then....
Comments
My point is that everything that I've seen & read about the man so far has made feel a combination of sick & anger.
Like I say,no hard feelings these are opinions.
He uses his financial wealth and position to intimidate and is ever ready to threaten legal action at the slightest opportunity.
Just last night, his campaign sued the Clark County Nevada registrar as they allowed a polling station to stay open for two hours after closing - just for clarity, only those individuals that got in line before the closing time were allowed to vote, this is common practice as it can take hours from someone to actually vote here.
There was a worry that people were allowed to join the line after closing which could be a concern but at 8.00 o clock the wait time was decreed as being two hours and the polling station did close at 10.
The polling station was a Mexican supermarket within a largely Latino community.
What worried me most is that apparently the Trump campaign asked for personal information on the poll workers on duty at the market.
Fortunately the judge denied the request and seeing how Trump won the night, I doubt there will be any further action, but it points to a bullying mentality and an intolerant, selfish temperament.
Really unfortunately from my point of view, we woke up this morning to the inevitable conclusion that bullying wins.
Ho hum
I was scared that he would be a disruptive influence for the next weeks and months, I am not that keen on Hillary but I hoped for that reason that she would crush him.
Never in the world did I imagine that he would actually not only win, but crush her.
I can relate to that.
Or maybe because they have family in a European country which could help them settle, offer a support network, help them adjust to anew home, rather than go to a foreign country where they know no one?
Seems like a sensible idea to me.
I can come up with other possibilities. Do you want to hear them?
Or was your question rhetorical, in the sense that you have already decided you know the answer based on lumping everybody into the same category, and will dismiss all alternative possible reasons?
and thats just the top 50 companies
On the family issue: I don't know the numbers. But I see no reason to doubt that with global migration and travel patterns, there shouldn't be huge numbers of folks with connections all over Europe.
And, so what if there is a financial motive. Isn't it perfectly laudable that someone wants to move to another country where they feel they stand a better chance of progressing economically, either because of their training and qualifications, entreprenuerial skills, or hard work?
Out of curiosity, what took you to the States?
Why do people go where they go? Let's not muddle things: Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have millions.
Refugees follow the routes available to them because countries aren't offering them transport.
Iraq is no more stable. Israel/Palestine is not possible. Iran for many wouldn't be an option either. So they use the Mediterranean route, which leads to Europe, where people hope they can actually find security and live independently rather than in the grinding stagnation of a refugee camp. It's not much different for Afghans; every quarter the violence increases to levels beyond anything since the invasion.
I've been in long term refugee camps, where people aren't allowed to work and have to rely on unreliable sources of education, food and healthcare. It's easy to understand why people would want the leave.
2,688,686 Turkey
1,048,275 Lebanon
245,543 Iraq
628,427 Jordan
119,665 Egypt
Fyi - the paperwork was a nightmare
The process to acquire a Green Card and become formally a permanent resident here took seven years and cost my company in excess of $23,000 in legal fees alone.
And the paperwork was a nightmare.
;ok
I honestly believe that if the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders as their presidential candidate he would have destroyed Trump in the election... and none of this discussion would be taking place.
I get the feeling from this side of the pond, anyone but Clinton would have taken Trump to the cleaners in the election.
The disappointment, for me, is the apparent lurch to the right. Maybe the left need to take a long hard look at themselves, stop pandering to big business and the middle ground, and go back to basics. May make them unelectable for a while but at least it will offer a REAL alternative and may REALLY hold the reactionaries to account.
Looking for real change, for real people, within the current system died (if it were ever alive) in the 1980`s with Thatcher and Reagan and the whole unfettered free market, greed is good nonsense. ANYONE who has been in power since has just taken on the reins and carried on regardless. I may be wrong, but in my view this approach is positively wrong.
Finally Mrs G pointed out that Trump thinks that climate change is a hoax. The majority of big business, until fairly recently, would have agreed. Until they discovered that the fragility of the planet could also be turned into big business and you could actually make lots of money from "being green". Saving the planet may even be turned in to some kind of franchise, like McDonalds. Great. I`m sure Trump will come around eventually.
And finally, finally, Mr G. Are Trump and Blair REALLY that different?
The Democrats had six candidates, three of which withdrew before the primaries, Martin O'Malley quit after Iowa leaving Sanders and Clinton. Sanders won 23 states. Clinton 34.
Clinton was the choice of the registered Democratic Party voters just as the Trump was the choice of the Republican party voters, they might not have been the best but they won; the people have spoken.
Let's not even discuss states where they try to stop certain types of people from voting. Oh, go on then....
The Propositional Representation discussion raises it's head as in the UK elections.