I was discussing this with mates on Saturday and it would not surprise me, or at least if it was a close-run thing.
As we discussed, (and do bear in mind that we are pretty ignorant of the American political system), it is a two party system, like ours, and a lifelong Labour party supporter here is unlikely to suddenly vote Tory just because of, say, Jeremy Corbyn.
|
The issue will not be decided by the lifelong voters. It will be decided by the "unsures" and the "don't always votes".
This is why people keep saying that Trump needs to add minority and undecided support to his side, and he is struggling with this. That he will get the Republican vote is not disputed.
But he keeps p***ing off women and minority groups.
|
>> The issue will not be decided by the lifelong voters. It will be decided by
>> the "unsures" and the "don't always votes".
I'm not sure about that, these two are so 'marmite' that even life long voters of each party are either switching or not voting at all.
|
Unfortunately I think it will be close - some Americans seem to like what he says. Frightening is an understatement. Not only that he could become President but the people of the USA will vote for him. Says a lot about them!
Although some will vote for him because they really dislike Hillary Clinton, likewise there will be others that see that they have to vote for her even though they never vote for that party.
|
Our local gubberment elections tomorrow - public holiday as well! Yeehah!
There is a distinct possibility that after the past few years of scandal, mismanagement and corruption being exposed, the ruling party may lose some of the major cities - Joburg, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth.
However, the EFF, the Economic Freedom Fighters, a Guevaran-type bunch of 'seize the land' yobs are a threat. The poor populace are sick of the govt 'better days' lies, and may head to the bigger lies of the EFF, who make Robert Mugabe look like a liberal.
|
So Trump is suggesting the elections could be rigged.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36950083
Presumably if he loses they were rigged. If he wins they were not. Is that his position :-)
|
There are some things about the way many Americans think which I just don't get. For example, I could never understand why George W. Bush got elected, though of course that's largely irrelevant now.
But Trump as a serious presidential candidate? What on earth qualifies him? He's rich, which means a lot in America, because it shows he's successful, and that immediately confers unquestioned status, prestige and instant admiration. Why that should translate into the sort of political skills necessary for the most powerful man in the world escapes me.
His business interests include real estate, sport and media; several of his businesses have involved bankruptcies, which he has cynically used to limit his losses. He has failed to release his tax history.
He has been a member of the Republican Party, the Reform Party, then the Republican Party again.
Most strikingly, he is a demagogue with a big mouth into which he inserts his feet with predictable regularity - and people seem to love it.
The American wife of a good friend of mine - an intelligent and sophisticated lady - once said to me that if I met a lot of Americans the thing that would probably strike me is their naivety. Apparently, to many of them, "nuanced" is a word they like very much, but they have to think about it very carefully.
Our only hope is that, if this idiot gets elected, he will be surrounded by advisers who will somehow keep him in check.
|
I'm not so sure if U.S.Presidents have that much power.
If Trump is elected and that is a big if.The people who pulled the strings have a word with him and he be like a lapdog..;)
|
>>
>> Our only hope is that, if this idiot gets elected, he will be surrounded by
>> advisers who will somehow keep him in check.
>>
Like George W had?
And we all knew where that led, don't we?
Look on the bright side FP - Boris J didn't get into Number 10.
Imagine a Bojo/Trump agenda? It would have made George and Tony's love-in look like a picnic.
I've recently read a book called Idiot America. The de jure experts on terrorism and threats were all sidelined after 9/11, while the hawks went out and did exactly what they wanted.
|
I don't put Boris in the same box as Donald - not by a long way.
The former, despite his clownishness, is highly intelligent and educated. The eccentric persona is a deliberate construction - it deflects from the possibility that he might be regarded as an intellectual.
His career as a journalist and politician (and his private life) has been marked by duplicitousness, but his two terms as Mayor of London seem to me to have been largely successful.
Yes, I know Nick Clegg linked the two men by saying that Johnson was like "Trump with a thesaurus", but Boris is far more complex and skilful as a politician. We all know he - cynically - backed the wrong horse in the run-up to the referendum and had a hard time in the first few days of his current role as Foreign Secretary. But I bet Boris knows a hell of lot more about the world outside his own country than Donald does, and knows how to use that knowledge.
|
I keep hearing how intelligent Boris is but I don't yet see the evidence. He speaks a few languages, and I guess London was OK during his tenure, as he was voted back in, but I think to some extent, in the absence of any other distinguishing factor, people will often vote for the guy who has put himself out there e.g. on TV shows and zip wires.
A bit like Donald Trump really.
I was at a minor public school many years ago where the standards were really high, and the classroom clowns were usually making up for their comparative lack of intellectual ability. I know, because I was one :-)
It's quite a generalisation, but Americans as a race seem much less aware about "the world" than those of us in Europe - including many past presidents as well as Trump. It's simply not high on their agenda throughout their education.
The problem is that Clinton has "baggage" too which many people dislike, so for floaters it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Trump, like Farage, speaks well in public and says things which people, whether they openly admit it or not, resonates with them. In doing so he also alienates other people. He isn't stupid by a long way. He's taking a calculated gamble and playing the showmanship game to grab the popular vote - and my feeling is that if he gets into power he will self-moderate, in a not-dissimilar way to the way our Jeremy seems to have had some of his hard left edges knocked off.
|
Seems I was wrong and some prominent Republicans will be voting Democrat because of Trump. Let's hope that's the pattern.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36955519
|
I have often been heard to criticise our political system but how on earth did America end up with a choice between these two?
The run up to it takes forever and yet it carefully provides two candidates, neither of whom is fit to lead the country.
Pat
|
|
If Trumpet gets crowned I really do envisage a similarity with Kennedy.
|
|
I'm looking forward to Rich Hall's take on the election, Wednesday R4 18:30: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080z2zd
|
Spot on Pat.
I don't know either how they ended up with these two. The tragedy is that with all this latest Trump sex stuff the meaty news on what was in the leaked Hillary emails got completely lost. Maybe the timing was deliberate.
I suppose it is easy to focus on stupid sexist comments instead of the corruption and dealings of her campaign. I guess one requires a little bit more thought and analysis to spot which is beyond the capabilities of most people.
So whilst the prospect of a Trump victory looks terrible, from what I read, Hillary would be a complete disaster.
My personal view is that the whole first past the post electoral system is fundamentally flawed as over time it gives rise to a two party system with each being alternately voted in. Most people end up with a government they don't actually want at all - and we then celebrate that as a triumph of democracy.
If the US presidential elections are anything to go by there is nothing to celebrate.
|
|
The US would be better off with Trump, he's only laughable and embarrassing. Hillary is dangerous.
|
Which is the lesser evil I don't know.
It might be easier to keep Hillary honest although there is quite a lot of the night about her, and her lies are probably bigger ones.
Trump just lies repeatedly, if it goes unchallenged he gets away with it, and if confronted with the truth he says it was a mistake.
I'd also be concerned about the nasty social divisions that Trump feeds. Disturbing echoes of 20th century history.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 15 Oct 16 at 12:37
|
>>I'd also be concerned about the nasty social divisions that Trump feeds
A fair point, I hadn't considered that. Look at the problems here that the likes of Farage have fed.
|
|
Flip flops whatever he thinks will get him more votes / popularity. None will know where they stand. IF he thought segregation was a vote winner you would expect to see that on the agenda.
|
As I said, while we obsessing over Trump's sexual and crazy comments, our minds have diverted from what Hillary had been up to. Take a look at this wikileak from a few days ago
wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
Where in para 4 she is quoted saying:
"...While this military/para-military operation is moving >> forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region."
Wow! So the same Hillary of the Clinton Foundation that received some $25m from the Saudis and $1-5m from the Qatari's admits here that she knows the Saudis are also supporting ISIL.
|
Wow! So the same Hillary of the Clinton Foundation that received some $25m from the
>> Saudis and $1-5m from the Qatari's admits here that she knows the Saudis are also
>> supporting ISIL.
>>
The government is a big machine, quite often it's not black and white about who foundation or even governments take money from. There may will be elements that do support Daesh, however it might not be the same elements that have given her money, might be of course. having spent a reasonable amount of time in the middle east things are murky at best.
|
>> murky at best.
i.e. No transparency. A value we in the west we would value highly from government.
You seem to imply that this murkiness suits them so that we can't readily distinguish between the 'good' part and the 'bad'.
Presumably in this case the 'good' part supports the Clinton Foundation.
But given that
- it was founded and continued to run using a strategic partnership of royals with the Ichwan (Wahabian religious group)
- their reliogious ideology is indistinguishable from ISIS
- al qaeda originated in SA (Bin Laden etc)
- most of he 9/11 bombers were from there
I am left wondering what is the 'good' part?
|
There isn't transparency no, but I didn't mean that. More that they can be, what we'd call two faced, however they don't see it that way. More like everything is negotiable in the sense many flip from one 'side' to the other or often have a foot in both camps. There are wheels within wheels within wheels within etc.
No i didn't imply that, just that they have a certain way of going about things that is different from ours. Whether that suits them or not is another matter, one which is hard to judge. They've been doing it that way for a long time, and not used a system of governance that we'd recognise or want there's little it to compare it against.
What is the good part? Its the bit we deal with as and when it suits both parties and when we have the same or similar objectives.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 16 Oct 16 at 09:59
|
I think you are absolutely right Mark.
Loads of men say crass, stupid, offhand, sexist remarks - the latter being more prevalent 20 years ago. Although I don't condone it, or be like it, I accept a certain level of it is just what is - especially if one is taking stuff said in a different cultural period.
But, yes, Hillary is indeed really, really dangerous.
I also put corruption as a MAJOR failing of a leader. Higher than sexual, or other phobic talk.
Once you have a corrupt judiciary, or other key decision maker, you really are stuffed, and the Clinton Foundation and Hillary are really corrupt.
The other thing I tend to look at is how those closest to someone get on with them.
Trump's kids seem to get on with him ok as well as his employees - some of whom have served him for years and years.
As an example, I think of one of our clients. The boss is a really abrasive person in my estimation. I wouldn't want to cross him and I have heard of massive arguments in their office and so on. However, when I go around there and talk with the employees, they are really devoted to him because they say despite his toughness and rhetoric he actually cares about them and will sort out any of their "silly" needs.
What of those close to the Clintons or who have crossed them? If you believe the rumour mill there are reportedly around 50 people in the last 15 years who were to testify about the Clintons and who have died in "mysterious" circumstances. Suicide with two bullet holes to the back of the head kind of thing. They are really powerful already, exercising influence over the security services and major news channels.
The big question that one Wall Street journalist asked Trump is "What are you doing it for? What's in it for you?" He has the dosh, status, power etc.
Of course he replied, 'to make America great', and this may well be more attention seeking and cynical power grabbing, but then it could also be that for someone who has done everything else, he still feels that he lacks doing something good (even if by his own standards). Note this kind of mentality in Buffet, Gates etc. that for all the money and power they want to leave their mark on humanity in a "good" way.
Whereas what is Hillary's motive? A lifelong dream shared with Bill?
And what lengths will she go to to get it?
|
>> What of those close to the Clintons or who have crossed them? If you believe
>> the rumour mill there are reportedly around 50 people in the last 15 years who
>> were to testify about the Clintons and who have died in "mysterious" circumstances. Suicide with
>> two bullet holes to the back of the head kind of thing. They are really
>> powerful already, exercising influence over the security services and major news channels.
I have a small circle of friends and acquaintances and I can count a dozen or so deaths in the last 30 years. Now the Clintons are a couple of decades older and must have thousands of people that they connect with so there are going to be a larger number of deaths - I would like to see the stats in percentage terms to give it some meaning.
Also, at Deep Cut Barracks, Private Sean Benton (20 years of age), from Hastings, East Sussex, England, died from five bullet wounds in his chest - the army said he committed suicide - two bullets or five but there is a difference between the chest and back of the head!
BTW I think very few politicians are in it for "the greater good"!
|
>>BTW I think very few politicians are in it for "the greater good"!
We all have inherent selfish genes. Anyone for altruism?
|
>> Note this kind of mentality in Buffet, Gates etc. that for all the money and power they want to leave their mark on humanity in a "good" way.
I thought that happened, in the case of Gates, because he married a woman who knew something useful to do with a lot of money. That's just my impression though, I'm not familiar with the timeline.
|
>> The US would be better off with Trump, he's only laughable and embarrassing. Hillary is
>> dangerous.
>>
This MUST be the first time I have ever agreed with you!
|
Here's an amusing video on why the 'first past the post' electoral system is flawed:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
|
>> I have often been heard to criticise our political system but how on earth did
>> America end up with a choice between these two?
The voters chose them, mainly party members but not all.
|
>> I have often been heard to criticise our political system but how on earth did
>> America end up with a choice between these two?
At least they get to choose!
We don't elect our head of state and we don't get to elect our Prime Minister!
|
> At least they get to choose!
For all the good it did them this time! ;)
|
>> We don't elect our head of state and we don't get to elect our Prime
>> Minister!
I assume you say that as a good thing, in the circs.
|
A short piece on Hilary Clinton - from the man who gave us Brexit:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdFw3p0O8Ds
|
What an awful, awful man Farage is.
There's lots about Clinton which is bad, but listening to Farage just makes the skin crawl.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 15 Oct 16 at 20:49
|
|
I agree with his views on the Middle East though, at 0.40 in the video.
|
Generals gathered in their masses,
Just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
Sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
As the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
Poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight,
They leave that role to the poor.
Time will tell on their power mind,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait till their judgement day comes.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
Ashes where the bodies burning.
No more war pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement God is calling,
On their knees the war pig's crawling.
Begging mercy for their sins,
Satan laughing spreads his wings.
~ F. IOMMI, W. WARD, T. BUTLER, J. OSBOURNE
|
From the Internet:
Clinton: To Women: You can do anything!
Trump: To women, you can do anything!
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37722434
Sounds like the sort of person that would make a good despot!
|
>> Sounds like the sort of person that would make a good despot!
I suspect that's right. The comment in the debate almost amounted a threat to put his supporters on the streets on style of Brownshirts to enforce his side's dominance. And he does have those worrying echoes of the 1930s.
However, to be scrupulously fair if he lost by a few hung chads or egregious process in a couple of states a legal challenge would be perfectly legitimate.
|
|
I thought he was calmer and more organised in the last debate than before, hence more alarming.
|
A hard choice between these two not-nice people, BUT I hope Trump wins, just to see the horror on lefty establishment faces, both in the USA & here :-)
(Rather like the BBC presenters and "expert" commentators shocked mushes after Leave won the referendum!)
|
I don't particularly care about America but I hope Trump loses. He could do some damage to world relations. Not worth thinking about.... it could be really bad.
I think they should ask Obama to stay on for 6 months and start again with 2 new candidates.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 21 Oct 16 at 22:24
|
>> I think they should ask Obama to stay on for 6 months and start again
If only he could. The man's a towering statesman compared to those two.
|
|
Que sera, sera I guess Roger but that would be an expensive bit of schadenfreude for me.
|
|
Latest US poll looks good: Clinton 249 points, Trump 126, Toss-up 163.
|
>> Latest US poll looks good bad: Clinton 249 points, Trump 126, Toss-up 163.
>>
|
|
The Americans are so often just so embarrassing that one sometimes regrets having handed over world leadership to them.
|
|
Would you really welcome a Trump win Roger? I can understand not finding Hillary Clinton the most attractive candidate and she surely has her faults but being sane must make her favourite in most peoples books.
|
>> Would you really welcome a Trump win Roger?
>>
I can see what he means - almost. The temptation to annoy a lot of left-leaning pundits can sometimes be hard to resist, but there are limits.
|
>> Would you really welcome a Trump win Roger? I can understand not finding Hillary Clinton
>> the most attractive candidate and she surely has her faults but being sane must make
>> her favourite in most peoples books.
>>
Sane? Marx, Engels, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin were all "sane".
{Not sure about the current "Heaven Sent" leader in North Korea, though :-) }
Last edited by: Roger. on Fri 28 Oct 16 at 17:22
|
Marx and Engels cannot surely be grouped with the other three you mention.
As for Pol Pot Hitler and Stalin I suspect most people would classify them as insane for at least part of their lives
Trump almost certainly has a personality disorder which puts him well outside the range of normal attitudes and behaviour. Perhaps not insane but certainly deranged in my book
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 28 Oct 16 at 17:37
|
Trump is a strange character but Hillary is weird.
Best to vote for Micky Mouse the whole show is a farce anyway.I wouldn't be surprised if many Americans don't bother to vote they have lost belief in the political system.
|
|
The danger is some won't vote and then Trump managed to win! I know some will vote for him - don't see how I could ever want him as President. He was entertaining on the American Apprentice but that's as far as I'll go. I don't particularly like him.
|
It's blindingly obvious that he has very poor self-control.
He is also one of those people who can lie even when it's beyond doubt that he is lying. I've known a few people like that. They appear to believe what they are saying, even when it obvious. No sensible person would employ any of them to wash a car, let alone be PotUS.
I think he will probably win. We are entering a new Dark Age.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 28 Oct 16 at 19:42
|
>> We are entering a new Dark Age.
If he wins this is indeed the start of a new age. Let's hope everyones' Gods help us all :-)
If it was voting for Trump vs. say Obama then it is obvious who many would vote for. But Hillary is really disliked. Makes you wonder what both parties were thinking!
|
With the FBI involved again Trump is cock a hoop.
What a mess.
|
|
I would like to change my heading to "I *am* very afraid".
|
At first I must admit Trump looks the way out candidate.
Womaniser, probably dealings with the mafia in New York.
Then you hear about Hillary Clinton and she scares me more.This F.B.I chief is no mug there must be a good reason for him to bring these E mails up again.
|
|
Is he a Republican? Timing is rather fortuitous for Trumpy.
|
America loves to promote its democracy as the ultimate model of political governance. I was reading in some transatlantic newspaper (can't remember which) that thinking, intelligent, well-informed Americans (yes, there are some) worry that the current presidential contest and, even more so, the preceding contests by which the candidates were selected, shows American democracy to the world in the worst possible light.
On the one hand, a candidate so heartily loathed by large sections of the electorate for her supposed duplicity, dishonesty and self-service and on the other, the self-aggrandised multimillionaire with a suspect temperament and vast amounts of political ignorance which doesn't prevent him from having an extreme view about anything and everything.
And this is the best that the "greatest democracy in the world" can do? It's come up with two repulsive candidates that are almost equally loathed by the electorate - the crook and the buffoon.
It makes British politics seem almost attractive by comparison.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 15:53
|
FP. I think that sums it up quite well.
I asked my well educated American friend about the voting "system" and the choice of candidates.
She said the caucuses etc etc are just part of the complex process and most folks do not understand them.
Both candidates should be booted out.
She said most Americans appear not to be able to sort the facts from the trash and are not able to analyse things to a conclusion. This is one major reason why Trump appeals to these "sound bite" folks with little comprehension of what comes next.
It has been noted that Trump seemed to be amazingly prepared with a speech within minutes of the latest Hillary story appearing anywhere.
The " corrupt" system leaking details to the holier than thou Trump ?
|
>>>I asked my well educated American friend about the voting "system" and the choice of candidates.
She said the caucuses etc etc are just part of the complex process and most folks do not understand them.
Both candidates should be booted out.
She said most Americans appear not to be able to sort the facts from the trash and are not able to analyse things to a conclusion. This is one major reason why Trump appeals to these "sound bite" folks with little comprehension of what comes next.<<<
I have rewritten the above para with a very minor changes....
I asked my well educated friend about the voting "system" and the choice offered.
She said the issues etc etc are just part of the complex process and most folks do not understand them.
Both choices should be clarified.
She said most voters appear not to be able to sort the facts from the trash and are not able to analyse things to a conclusion. This is one major reason why Brexit appeals to these "sound bite" folks with little comprehension of what comes next.
|
> This is one major
>> reason why Brexit appeals to these "sound bite" folks with little comprehension of what comes
>> next.
>>
Is there a "Brexit angle" on everything then - a sort of moral yardstick that you can apply to everything from American voting patterns to adding the tea first or the milk?
Perhaps there's a converse moral to be drawn from the Remainers - safe, unadventurous folk who don't ask too many profound questions but just want things always to stay the same?
|
|
I rather looked upon Europe as an adventure, promising change and an escape from the closed mindset that has bedevilled this country for decades if not a century or more. It's the retreat into a parochial "little Englander" view that depresses me.
|
>> I rather looked upon Europe as an adventure, promising change and an escape from the closed mindset that has bedevilled this country for decades if not a century or more. It's the retreat into a parochial "little Englander" view that depresses me.>>
Isn't it rather the case that the EU mindset is the closed one, and the desire escape the EU an indicator of a more open one? I think those who voted to do so are more likely to be big British than little Englanders.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 8 Nov 16 at 01:19
|
>>I have rewritten the above para with a very minor changes....
Yawn...
|
|
Good post as so often CGN (the one timed at 17.36).
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 7 Nov 16 at 15:12
|
Unfortunately that's the choice when you get a pair of people without a set of morals between the two of them.
Pat
|
|
Whatever it was, it's now been removed.
|
|
Yes, YouTube have taken it down. It was a story that top Democrats, including the Obamas, have unfollowed Clinton on social media and asking if a new revelation re Hillary was about to break.
|
>> It was a story that top Democrats, including the Obamas, have unfollowed Clinton on social >> >>media and asking if a new revelation re Hillary was about to break.
>>
How can you 'unfollow' someone?
Is this in the same field as 'pre-order' and 'pre-reg'?
Bah! Humbug!
|
|
God, that sounded like it was worth watching...
|
Almost 319 million people and these two are the best they can find?
Doesn't give us a lot of hope for an election.
Pat
|
|
Looks like he's officially won it. Anyone on here surprised?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 07:42
|
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
and nobody really thought it would actually happen. Unless he rigged it of course.
|
|
I'm HAPPY in the knowledge that I wont be hearing Hillary Clinton's voice so much now. I'm pleased that Trump won the day, but I do wonder about the future of America's special relationship with Theresa May's pussy.
|
I called it right both on Brexit and Trump
A great, and financially painful, shame my share buying picks are so woefully wrong. Apart from those where I dabble in tiny amounts
|
|
Afraid? Now I'm scared stiff. God Save America!
|
|
Thanks, stiffer still, now. A salutary piece, however.
|
>> Thanks, stiffer still, now. A salutary piece, however.
>>
Yes, a good article. I hope those, who get worked up about immigration, note that it will increase when the lack of water, caused by climate change, causes mass movements of people in the future. We need to get used to it.
|
|
Hawking thinks humans will be extinct in 1,000 yeas. Optimist.
|
Would it have been any different if Hillary had won?
Obama already said we would be last in the que after Brexit regarding business with the States.
Whatever happens nobody has a answer what the future will bring.
I think it is more likely a war is on the cards.I hope not.
|
Unlike the UK, the American system means that many civil servants at the highest levels are political appointees. The USA will be governed by climate change deniers. Trump has not so far retracted or denied the plan to make muslims register and have their religion recorded as part of their identity; I don't believe that worked out very well when it was last tried.
I was, and remain, hopeful that the USA can be governed responsibly for the next four years, but the outlook is currently bleak. This man, his born again deputy, and the appalling republican party might well destroy the world. I don't think that is putting it too strongly.
|
Denying climate change and building a wall with Mexico.
Oh how ironic it would be if the scenario in "The Day After Tomorrow" came to pass and this time the Mexicans used the wall to keep the 'Mericans out.
Oh, sorry, forgot, the 'Mercans don't do irony.
On another point, the Attorney General in waiting is an alleged racist, claiming that the Klu Klux Klan are a good bunch of people and telling a black lawyer not to talk to white people like that!
Perhaps the Chinese have cursed us "To live in interesting times".
|
>>Whatever happens nobody has a answer what the future will bring.
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
~Sheikhspeare
|
Unfortenately we are controlled by a sick well organised group of people on this planet who know exactly what they are doing.Wars are a racket and there is plenty of money to be made out of it.
|
Good song Dog I was twenty in 69.
|
|
I was 15 Dutchie. I had the 'LP' from which that song comes from. Have it on CD now and like to play it now and then.
|
Now Trump pokes a stick in the China wasps nest re Taiwan.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38194371
Mr Trump's spokeswoman said he was "well aware" of US policy towards Taiwan.
Oh! That's OK then so can I now relax ?
|
You can relax Henry.
The next important figure for Trump to talk to annoying the Chinese will be the Dalai Lama of Tibet.
Last edited by: Dutchie on Sun 4 Dec 16 at 13:16
|
>> Oh! That's OK then so can I now relax ?
I'm acutely aware that if Obama had hacked off the Chinese by chatting to the president of Taiwan I'd be cheering, but I also suspect he'd have a decent idea of what he was doing in the process.
I suspect Trump was simply sounding out the possibility of building a hotel there.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 8 Dec 16 at 09:27
|
So does the new Air Force One cost $4bn but Boeing says that they have just spent $170m on design costs.
New 747s for airlines cost between $300m and $400m and there will be extra costs for special systems and they need to handle extra weight so who is lying?
Either Trump got a decimal point in the wrong place or he just made it up without checking the facts or was it deliberate?
Shares in Boeing temporarily fell 1%. If I were a regulator I would check to see if any purchases were made my anyone connected to Trump.
|
|
I think the budget is $3.2 bn for two. However a report says that the cost might rise to $4bn. Either way they will be expensive.
|
|
As AF1s primary purpose is as a mobile command center in a nuclear war it will have to be EMP hardened and need a bit more than a standard aircrafts systems and communications. It is a military aircraft with an in-flight refueling capability and far more kit than willl be made public, not just a posh paint job that the Pres gets to use as a taxi.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 8 Dec 16 at 08:27
|
>> As AF1s primary purpose is as a mobile command center in a nuclear war it
as this is car4play, I'd like to point out air force one is a call sign not an aircraft. ;)
|
Ok, Ok, I made the big mistake of assuming some common sense among the forum users.
Air force one is the callsign of whatever aircraft the US president is using.
Marine one is the callsign of whatever helicopter the US president is using.
The big blue and white plane the president uses is a Boeing 747 which the vast majority of people refer to as Air force one.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 8 Dec 16 at 10:24
|
|
Like i said as this is car4play... ;)
|
|
It needs the advanced technology to mysteriously disappear from radar screens and plunge into the deepest part of the Pacific taking a rogue President with it should the CIA deem it necessary. Triallled on MH370
|
Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma and a sceptic of climate science, has been chosen by Donald Trump as the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/07/trump-scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency
|
His Orangeness' latest tweet....
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time that the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"
I thought the idea was to get rid of them not build more to threaten people with!
With threats, you have to make good on them at some point or they are meaningless and the implication is terrifying!
|
|
Quite clearly they've a shortage of nuclear weapons. Perhaps we'll go back to hearing about such things as the bomber gap.
|
The end days are fast approaching ...
"the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken"
~Matthew 24
|
>> The end days are fast approaching ...
>>
>> "the sun will be darkened,
>> and the moon will not give its light;
>> the stars will fall from the sky,
>> and the heavenly bodies will be shaken"
>>
>> ~Matthew 24
>>
Crikey Dog, that's a bit dark!
The blokes a total fruit loop imho but is he mad enough to start a nuclear war!?
|
|
He doesn't have to be mad enough to start one , just incompetant enought to let things get out of control. Annnouncing changes in nuclear arms policy on 140 word Twitter messages doesn't inspire does it?
|
>> He doesn't have to be mad enough to start one , just incompetant enought to
>> let things get out of control. Annnouncing changes in nuclear arms policy on 140 word
>> Twitter messages doesn't inspire does it?
>>
Are you actually reading his tweets or just reports about them?
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
I think he's far smarter than most of the people who "think" they are smart by attacking him anonymously on their computers.
He knows exactly what he is doing.
Trump's brilliance is there for all to see in his choice of key people:
Peter Navarro, the man chosen by Donald Trump to lead a new presidential office for US trade and industrial policy, had this to say about China "The Chinese government is a despicable, parasitic, brutal, brass-knuckled, crass, callous, amoral, ruthless and totally totalitarian imperialist power that reigns over the world’s leading cancer factory, its most prolific propaganda mill and the biggest police state and prison on the face of the earth."
Carl Icahn will be a special adviser to the president-elect overseeing regulation. Icahn has been a persistent critic of government regulation, most recently “crazy regulations†at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
|
"He knows exactly what he is doing."
Very reassuring. Who would have thought.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 23 Dec 16 at 12:43
|
|
Be thankful that he can't have Curtis LeMay as an adviser.
|
And ... there's more:
"You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.
Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be famines and earthquakes in various places"
|
>> And ... there's more:
>>
>> "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you
>> are not alarmed.
>>
>> Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against
>> nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
>>
>> There will be famines and earthquakes in various places"
>>
Merry Christmas to you too!
|
|
You've been into The Revelations Of Saint John The Divine........and the number of the Beast is 666...........
|
An alternative:
"13. And when the trumpet shall sound one blast
14. And the earth with the mountains shall be lifted up and crushed with one crash,
15. Then, on that day will the Event befall.
16. And the heaven will split asunder, for that day it will be frail."
Surah 69:13-16
|
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Monday will be quieter with scattered showers and sunny intervals.
|
We're all doomed, doomed I tell you. The end is nigh [keep calm and carry on]
|
>> But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
>> the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall
>> melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be
>> burned up.
Still moving to the new bungalow, CGN?
|
I see that
"The schedule referred to the prime minister three times as "Teresa May", leaving out the "h" in her first name.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38771176
I see that Theresa "Congratulated the President on a stunning victory"
I understand he beamed at that ( cos he is well aware that stunning often refers to blondes.)
www.indy100.com/article/theresa-may-donald-trump-stunning-victory-cringe-right-now-7550336
What I have not seen is any comments at all in the press on her carefully chosen words.
I smiled and nearly spilt my drink as I am pretty certain he likes to think there is only one meaning to her " kind" words.
|
In about 24 hours, over one 1 million have signed the petition re Trumps'visit.
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928
Downing Street has rejected calls to cancel President Donald Trump's proposed state visit to the UK after a US clampdown on immigration.
A source said a rejection would be a "populist gesture", adding that the invitation had been accepted and scrapping it would "undo everything".
Who says they are out of touch with the people - " populist gesture" is a nice response. :-)
|
"Populist" does not equate with "of the people", nor with "democratic". It has a disapproving tone to it. It is in the same category as "knee-jerk reaction". It implies an ignorant response to something. However, I imagine Henry is being ironic.
And yes, I did sign the petition. Not that it will make any difference. And, in any case, didn't Clarkson et al. get over a million signatures as well? - which rather demeans the whole thing.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Mon 30 Jan 17 at 10:34
|
>> And yes, I did sign the petition. Not that it will make any difference.
>>
Yes, this one petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 calling for a 2nd EU Referendum has over 4.15 million signatures but I don't think it will get implemented.
|
Trump stinks and his self-delusional nature/NPD makes him a menace but I would not sign the petition.
The disapproval will hurt him, but it's up the the American people to deal with him and the UK government just needs to stay calm and play with a straight bat.
I expect the royal household is even now trying to work out how to arrange things so that at no time will Trump have the opportunity to hold hands with HM, pat her on the head, get his arm around her or grab at any other part of the Queenly corpus.
Unless of course there is some ancient rule that, should he do any of those things, then a member of the Household Cavalry must sever his head there and then with a sabre in which case I am sure HM would be willing to make the sacrifice.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 30 Jan 17 at 10:58
|
|
If the donor of the little red face would like to tell me where I have given offence, then I will of course consider making an apology.
|
>>If the donor of the little red face would like to tell me where I have given offence,
Yeah, well, good luck with that.
|
>> If the donor of the little red face would like to tell me where I
>> have given offence,
I think it's someone's idea of being funny, or clever, or simply making waves.
In the past I have suggested that this approval/disapproval facility is removed.
|
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that it was Roger. It doesn't bother me, I just don't want to be offensive:)
(I don't think that being offensive to Trump counts, he is too remote from the readership here and unlikely to drop by himself).
|
>> Trump stinks and his self-delusional nature/NPD makes him a menace but I would not sign
>> the petition.
>>
>> The disapproval will hurt him, but it's up the the American people to deal with
>> him and the UK government just needs to stay calm and play with a straight
>> bat.
>>
Perhaps a petition welcoming President Trump to Britain and warmly inviting him to a State Reception should be launched to counter this puerile insult to the properly elected leader of what is still, an important ally and trading partner.
|
The assessment of his character and mental state is just my genuine opinion. I am not a qualified psychiatrist but I have read up on personality disorders and NPD seems much the best fit.
I presume he has been warmly invited, quite correctly and that's fine. I do not support the petition to ban him. Making him President is the Americans' business not ours. As I said, we should play it straight. If you want to start a petition for a special welcome for him then that's fine, I won't be signing that either.
I am quite serious about the arm round the shoulder etc. business, he's always putting his arm around people in a patronising way and it would be far better that he doesn't try it with HM.
The bit about chopping his head off was a joke, for the avoidance of doubt. Maybe not a good one:) I admit to being puerile at times.
So no apology this time, but thanks for the explanation.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 30 Jan 17 at 13:37
|
|
Maybe he grabs onto people whenever near slopes and steps and that it's true he's worried he'll fall over or something. He's getting on a bit so he could easily break something if he slipped.
|
>> to counter this puerile insult to the properly elected leader of
>> what is still, an important ally and trading partner.
I'm not the only one it has occurred to:)
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/legally-i-can-kill-him-queen-confirms-20170131121313
(For the further avoidance of doubt, I'm sure that is also a joke).
On a more serious note, his own acting attorney general says his executive order cannot be legally defended. Now tell us we can't take the pee.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 15:55
|
>> his own acting attorney general says his executive order cannot
>> be legally defended. Now tell us we can't take the pee.
>>
What she actually said was that she was "not convinced" that it was lawful, NOT that she "was convinced" it was unlawful. Bigly tremendous difference.
“At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.â€
A statement from the White House press secretary’s office said: “Ms Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.
“It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.â€
Trump had “relieved Ms Yates of her duties†and Boente would take over until Sessions’s confirmation by the Senate “where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasonsâ€.
White House statement quoted Boente as saying: “I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected.â€
Newt Gingrich the former House Speaker tweeted. “Trump practiced ‘you’re fired’ for years,†“Today he applied it to an insubordinate acting [attorney] general. Congratulations.â€
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 16:21
|
I am not sure if people who are signing are doing so because the petition says "Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales."
I wonder what they thought of Obama deporting 2.5 million people, or Obama banning Iraqi's for 6 months (Trump is using foundations laid down by Obama for making his own executive order). "Obama in 2011 banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror."
Were there similar petitions against Putin, Xi_Jinping, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, or even Narendra Modi of India?
( www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/narendra-modi-massacre-next-prime-minister-india )
Trump's order says he will cut refugees intake from 100,000 to 50,000 per year.
As to UK's record on immigration and refugees, UK has agreed to try to take 20,000 in total spread over the years by 2020; and has told long settled EU citizens (even when born here) to prepare to lave the UK:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/18/uk-community-refugee-scheme-has-resettled-only-two-syrian-families
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/03/uk-unlikely-to-reach-target-of-resettling-20000-syrian-refugees-by-2020
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/29/german-neuroscientist-told-to-leave-uk-residency-application-rejected-monique-hawkins
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/05/man-told-to-take-citizenship-test-despite-living-entire-life-in-uk
At least the USA gives you a birth right to citizenship. Also unlike the UK, it does not prevent a spouse from abroad joining the husband/wife unless the "sponsor spouse" is rich enough in the eyes of UK law.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'd want the UK to sort out its own affairs first before I criticise another country's behaviour.
|
Brian - as usual - has a point.
My take on Trump is that he provokes such a visceral reaction because of his in-your-face personality and his other boorish traits, like his naivety, hypersensitivity and need for popular approval - this, rather than his policies, though we can probably argue long and hard about the reality of his immigration measures.
Having said that, some of his policies, like the Mexico wall, seem absurd however long you discuss them.
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'd want the UK to sort out its own affairs first before I criticise another country's behaviour."
I don't think the presence of shortcomings in the UK's affairs prevents us from criticising other countries.
P.S. Brian seems awfully fond of referring to The Guardian. Maybe a wider spread of references would make his case more convincing - not that I'm disputing the facts reported.
|
|
I must admit I thought the election of the Trump and the Leave vote here included mandates on the respective governments to "do something" about immigration, so why would we act surprised when they do? Hasn't Trump, in particular, only done what he always said he would?
|
I think he's actually done (so far) rather less than he said he would, presumably at least in part because the system has considerable checks and balances somewhere.
I fear though that, as these narcissistic loonies do (and many of us probably think we have met a few in our working lives) he will tend to surround himself with people who agree with him and to avoid recruiting the most competent who are likely to challenge his views or threaten his position at some point.
|
|
Don't most leaders tend to surround themselves with people who are on the right page?
|
>> Don't most leaders tend to surround themselves with people who are on the right page?
Yes, but that isn't the same as picking people who do what they are told all the time, without question.
|
So - can we have some similar outrage shown at the current instance of Israeli citizens being barred from visiting some 16 countries?
Perhaps a petition?
Oh - wait - that's not in the liberal/left agenda.
|
>> that's not in the liberal/left agenda.
Definition of liberal (as per Google) willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
Clearly the anti-Brexit, anti-Trump supporters are NOT willing to accept result of democratic election/referendum.
Thus self proclaimed liberals are actually hypocrites :-)
|
"Clearly the anti-Brexit, anti-Trump supporters are NOT willing to accept result of democratic election/referendum."
I am fed up with the these two (or perhaps three) things being conflated. I voted Leave. I am strongly anti-Trump. I accept the results of the American election and the referendum.
That is not inconsistent with saying Trump is an idiot with some nasty tendencies who is potentially a destabilising influence in the world. How he came to be elected is another story, but that is how the vote went, more's the pity.
|
Now this may be FAKE News - however I suspect it will be classified as such within a short time!
usuncut.com/politics/top-psychologist-just-diagnosed-trump-mental-disorder/
|
|
This is clearly fake FAKE news.
|
tinyurl.com/hide-the-red-button
Mainstream UK coverage as well!
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 10:18
|
A more detailed, operational definition from Wikipedia:
Liberals ... generally... support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.
|
I must be a Liberal,or Social Democrate.
I don't believe in extremes be it right or left.
Workers rights or Cooperatives.A free market what works with consensus.
|
|
I don't think Obama banned Iraqis for 6 months. He required security checks in response to a known issue. More here: foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
|
Here's another petition to sign...............
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/178844
|
1,650, 534 against visit
87,490 for visit
as at 11.17 a.m.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 11:18
|
>> 87,490 for visit
>>
The petition author should be da*n well pleased, because that is a remarkably, nay astonishingly, high number. For two main reasons:
- Getting anyone to sign a petition FOR something that is already decided is very hard, whereas to get signatures AGAINST something is very easy.
- This petition has not been given the massive publicity that the other one got on news and social media, and in particular on 24 hour news channels.
|
>> The petition author should be da*n well pleased, because that is a remarkably, nay astonishingly,
>> high number. For two main reasons:
+ the petition statement is not very well written.
I won't be signing it, but I believe it would be wrong to withdraw the invitation, which is basically respect for the office rather than the holder.
There is another reason too. The Americans have elected him. If they get rid of him in 6 months, it won't matter. If they don't, we will still have to deal with the administration for 4 years.
Trump and his fans will not change their minds because a bunch of limeys withdraws an invitation. The normal and inevitable reaction would be for them to search for further justification for their actions and reasons to rebut the opposing point of view, and to lower their regard for the UK government. That is not in our interests right now.
In yesterday's parliamentary session, an MP challenged the Foreign Secretary with Churchill's "An Appeaser Is One Who Feeds a Crocodile, Hoping It Will Eat Him Last." A number of labour MPs including, sadly, the Beast of Bolsover compared Trump's actions with those of the Nazis in the 1930s. We are a long way from that, not least because the USA remains our most/only important ally, and we should put this country's interests first - the US Government is well aware of the widespread disapproval here and elsewhere, and there is nothing to be gained from undermining diplomatic relations.
Boris for once was remarkably patient and logical yesterday with shamelessly grandstanding MPs who need to grow up.
|
But should the invitation have been offered when it was? If the furore over Trump's action happened before Theresa May's visit to the US I don't believe the offer of a state visit would have been made. It would have been deferred until hopefully calmer times resumed
I just have doubts over Theresa May's political judgment.
|
>> But should the invitation have been offered when it was? If the furore over Trump's
>> action happened before Theresa May's visit to the US I don't believe the offer of
>> a state visit would have been made. It would have been deferred until hopefully calmer
>> times resumed
Perhaps so.
But the decision on whether to offer a visit, and the decision on whether to withdraw it subsequently, are different things.
I suspect that it's a two stage process anyway, especially with a US President - "let us know when you would like an official invitation for a state visit" may well have been said in the early days of every Presidency. Perhaps Trump just snapped it up immediately.
I share your concerns about May's judgement - I don't think it will be outright bad, but it needs to be excellent, and so far it looks average.
|
|
I'm glad to see a counter-petition, though I'd rather see no petitions at all. I've said before I'm against the whole petition concept as I feel it can give a very one sided impression of what "the people" want.
|
|
Like referendums when the result is a virtual draw but Parliament didn't think it through.
|
|
Slightly skewed view on "democracy" WHy is the fact that a legitimately elected head of state of a friendly country meeting an unelected head of State such a problem ?
|
>> Slightly skewed view on "democracy" WHy is the fact that a legitimately elected head of
>> state of a friendly country meeting an unelected head of State such a problem ?
>>
Yes. ;-)
Those pesky Trump haters clearly don't/didn't mind the unelected leaders listed below being hosted on a state visit by our own unelected head of state:
Japan’s Emperor Hirohito
Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu
Japan’s Emperor Akihito
Uganda's Idi Amin
Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe
|
No 10 already confirmed visit would carry on as per plan as cancelling the visit would undo the good relationship already been built.
All petitions are advisory. So let the liberals taste their own logic. :-)
Interesting time though. I don't understand why UK is poking its nose in US internal affairs. USA can decide its own immigration policy and that's no one else's business.
Or, the liberals are used to the fact that just because EU can interfere with UK's immigration it gives us God given right to think we can interfere with USA's as well?
Many Gulf/Muslim countries don't allow Israeli passport holders to visit them. So why don't liberals shout for Israelis?
Everyday liberals are showing more bigotry than right wings :-)
|
>> I'm glad to see a counter-petition, though I'd rather see no petitions at all. I've
>> said before I'm against the whole petition concept as I feel it can give a
>> very one sided impression of what "the people" want.
>>
Spot on - I think the population of the UK is about 60m, so with my crude maths I make that less than 3% are protesting about his visit
|
>> ...... I think the population of the UK is about 60m,
>> so with my crude maths I make that less than 3% are protesting about his visit
>>
What about children plus other folks and elderly without web access?
|
|
Just eyeballing the percentages of constituents on the map linked below, it does appear to be about 3%. There are lots of constituencies in the 2%-3% range, a few below 2% and the hottest spots in London are now 8%+. Brighton Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and Bristol West are over 9%. The coastal constituences from Redcar to South Shields are around 1%.
|
One factor that might affect voting numbers is possibility in areas like London that people are more likely to know, or know of, people affected by the ban.
One of my colleagues has Somali/Yemeni parentage. Obviously she has a right to work in UK but if that's based on leave to remain as refugee then she's affected. If she's a UK citizen then still potentially affected until Foreign Office and US Embassy are on same page.
She's not in today so I cannot ask.
Refugees from the countries, mostly Somali, certainly feature among clients in Bureau.
|
>> One factor that might affect voting numbers is possibility in areas like London that people
>> are more likely to know, or know of, people affected by the ban.
>>
That holds true when you look areas of London (Southall) and Birmingham (Ladywood) where currently there is least support for the counter petition for an invitation.
petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=178844
|
I seems to me that whatever your views on Trump Theresa May made a political mistake in offereing the State visit when she did.
It was surely obvious that Trump might become extremely unpopular and that a State visit by him would be highly divisive. There seeme little to gain by offering it when she did. Better to have waited to see how things progressed. Far better to have held that particular carrot in reserve for when trade negotiations were well under way.
Of course she is now in a difficult situation. Difficult to withdraw an invitation once it has been offered whether it is a State visit or mother in law for Christmas.
Poor judgement on Theresa May's part.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 11:38
|
I would bet there was some horse trading to get Trump to publicly say whatever nice stuff he said about the UK, and it would probably surprise us if we knew what had been traded for a State visit over the years - they are very sought-after by world leaders.
Whatever, it's a bit naive to believe that Theresa is in a position to simply pull stuff out of a hat on the fly during negotiations. Some flunky somewhere will have looked at this option before she went to the US and decided it was do-able, and desirable.
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 11:47
|
>> May made a political mistake
USA is still the most powerful country on earth. Trump is making friendship with Russia (possibly the second most powerful country).
We are making friendship with USA. Still UK is a formidable force in world (economics and many other aspects).
This leaves EU (minus the UK) in a difficult position - shafted by USA/UK on one side and by Russia on the other end.
France etc. are already showing anti-EU sentiment. If France (or even Italy, Netherland or whatever) leaves EU then EU is a dead duck.
Then UK has a possibly to lead Europe again (or create a new EU type thing). We don't have much to lose from Trump but EU has a lot more to lose!
This should shift power of EU from Germany to UK. Surely that can't be a bad thing for us?
|
"Then UK has a possibly to lead Europe again (or create a new EU type thing)."
I doubt the UK will be in Europe to lead it and I very much doubt the UK will be interested in creating "the EU Mk2".
However, I've no doubt that events subsequent to the Brexit referendum will be giving the EU some serious worries.
|
>> Poor judgement on Theresa May's part.
>>
You have a right to your opinion. Mine is that Theresa May played a masterful beautiful tremendous bigly strong Trump card.
|
|
How long before POTUS comes over? Perhaps the Donald can avoid embarrassment by being impeached, thus neatly getting TM and HM out of a pickle.
|
And now the Beeb are reporting the counter-petition. The wording proves my earlier point really, giving the impression of massive support against the visit and a relative handful signing the pro petition.
"A petition calling for the state visit to be cancelled has gathered more than 1.6 million signatures. A rival pro-visit petition has more than 70,000"
It says nothing about the valid points which Brian mentioned. Just gives the impression that many times more people want it cancelled than want it to go ahead.
The pro one is now up to 93k and the anti is at 1,657k
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 12:07
|
Interesting to see the spread of supporters for the two petitions are on a map:
Against the visit - mainly London centric:
petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=171928
For the visit - all over the UK:
petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=178844
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 12:49
|
|
That is interesting. I wonder if it remain like that once the voting has settled down and both have been running a few days.
|
|
Islington North (Jeremy) and Brighton Pavilion seem to have the highest % in favour of protecting HM Queen from embarrassment at the moment. How loyal is that:)
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 14:19
|
>> protecting HM Queen from embarrassment at the moment. How loyal is that:)
>>
Since both Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas are anti-monarchy, I'd say they are very loyal to Trump. They want to stop him being hosted by an unelected billionaire ruler, who is so vain, egotistic, narcissist, that she has images of her head on currency and stamps.
|
|
I'm sure in comparison HM the Queen is a paragon of rationality, and constitutional rigour. It is her interests they must be thinking of.
|
Looking at the map it appears that the highest proportion of votes come from areas with fast internet access!
:-)
|
I am sure I remember some outcry about Obama needing not to comment on British affairs (Brexit).
So how about those same people butt out of what the US is up to internally?
|
Surely who the British government chose to invite for a State Visit is a valid concern for the British people is it not? The American Government is free to do whatever they wish: I don't see why we are obliged to endorse it though.
|
>>So how about those same people butt out of what the US is up to internally?
Our nearest equivalent to Obama, the PM you mean? She has, in public at least, and I think that is right. The state visit should stand.
There are of course some things that transcend this pragmatic approach but, as far as I know and contrary to the apparent beliefs of certain MPs, I do not think there is any serious possibility yet of Trump committing genocide or invading Czechoslovakia.
I do however think that I, as a private citizen, am entitled to think and say that he's incompetent by dint of a serious personality defect.
At least he kept Hilary out.
He might still be better than Mike Pence so we should be careful what we wish for.
|
Have you ever thought that what we ar seeing now, and have seen for the last, say, 5 years is the new 21st century politics with facebook / twitter everybody has a say or at least a right to comment and access to global news and fake news from a dozen different sources.
So we better get used to it.
PS, aren't you glad we don't have an elected head of state with power to declare laws without recourse to government.
|
>>Surely who the British government chose to invite for a State Visit is a valid concern for the
>> British people is it not?
It's not as if in the past we have had the Chinese President (Xi Jinping) and then there's also been Vladimir Putin, Robert Mugabe, Emperor Hirohito, the King of Saudi Arabia, ... the list goes on.
Were we all concerned then? And are we comparing Trump with say Mugabe?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 19:40
|
I guess some people were concerned. I seem to remember demonstrations when the Chinese President was here.
Do you not think that people are entitled to have a view on what their government is doing in their name?
|
>>Do you not think that people are entitled to have a view on what their government is doing in their name?
Like Brexit?
We can't afford to annoy the USA can we. Or China for that matter.
All Trump has done is stop non-US citizens entering the country. He said he'd do it if voted in as President. The majority liked what he said and voted him in. Now he's doing what he said he'd do. Nothing to do with anyone outside of the USA.
|
>> Nothing to do with anyone outside
>> of the USA.
>>
I wish someone would tell that to the BBC, and Sky News, and especially Channel 4 who have just devoted two thirds of their hour to Trump's US policies. All three are overtly or covertly anti-Trump on matters nothing to do with the UK.
|
"I think the important thing is for this government to state that we disagree with the ban and we have said that it is divisive, it is wrong. I will continue to say that."
Amber Rudd, Home Secretary.
|
Betsy, who I heard on BBC Radio News yesterday is truly frightening if she represents the nature and quality of advice Trump is getting.
She'd not the foggiest grasp of the 'recruiting sergeant' effect of stuff like Trump's ban.
And (on subject of retaliation by Iraq) 'why would anybody want to go there'!!!! - so no grasp of even the perhaps illegitimate profits accruing to US Corporations involved in 'reconstruction'.
|
>> 'why would anybody want to go there'
>>
Funny how everyone is so keen to go to America!
Even lefties are known to make plans to go there if their spouse's capitalist interest so dictates. ;-)
|
>> Amber Rudd, Home Secretary.
>>
That will be the well known libertarian Tory who wanted to have a list of names all foreigners employed in the UK
OCTOBER 5, 2016
Theresa May’s government is facing a growing backlash over a proposal to force companies to disclose how many foreign workers they employ, with business leaders describing it as divisive and damaging.
The proposal was revealed by Amber Rudd, the home secretary, at the Conservative party conference on Tuesday as a key plank of a government drive to reduce net migration and encourage businesses to hire British staff.
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, has said she will “flush out†employers who fail to recruit British workers as she defended her speech to the Conservative conference in which she called on businesses to employ fewer foreigners.
However, senior figures in the business world warned the plan would be a “complete anathema†to responsible employers and would damage the UK economy because foreign workers were hired to fill gaps in skills that British staff could not provide. One chief executive of a FTSE 100 company, whose workforce includes thousands of EU citizens, said it was “bizarreâ€.
The home secretary has also faced wider criticisms that her speech amounted to “dog whistle†politics but she insisted on Wednesday she was just seeking to reflect people’s concerns about immigration. “We must not shy away from having this sorts of conversation because we know if we do it just pops up later in a more difficult way,†she said.
Labour said: “Conservative party leaders have sunk to a new low this week as they fan the flames of xenophobia and hatred in our communities and try to blame foreigners for their own failures.
“Drawing up lists of foreign workers won’t stop unscrupulous employers undercutting wages in Britain. Shutting the door to international students won’t pay young people’s tuition fee debts, and ditching doctors from abroad won’t cut NHS waiting lists.â€
Rudd was forced to defend the proposals on Wednesday, insisting they were not xenophobic and that she had been careful about the language used.
|
>>The majority liked what he said and voted him in
Actually they didn't. Hillary won the popular vote. He won the electoral college.
Anyway he is a hypocrite. His wife is an immigrant and his forebears were immigrants.
Shame the native Americans didn't have good border controls!
|
>> Actually they didn't. Hillary won the popular vote. He won the electoral college.
>>
Presidents are not selected by popular vote. If they were, then New York state and California would have a disproportionate effect on the choice. Same situation applies in London, where the Mayor will always be a leftie (too many "aliens" with voting rights, you see) unless he is a Tory oddball who has voter appeal as Boris did.
>> Anyway he is a hypocrite. His wife is an immigrant and his forebears were immigrants.
>>
Everyone in every country is an immigrant. They are all descended from
tinyurl.com/j9hh74e
Unfortunately, humans developed the one missing organ mentioned there which allows them to talk crap out of it.
|
>>
>> >> Actually they didn't. Hillary won the popular vote. He won the electoral college.
>> >>
>> Presidents are not selected by popular vote. If they were, then New York state and
>> California would have a disproportionate effect on the choice.
Don't you mean proportionate?
Clinton IIRC received 3 million votes more than Trump.
However, it is the way it is. Whether a candidate wins a state by a wide or a narrow margin, all of that states 'electors' will vote for that candidate (except for Nebraska and Maine). Essentially a first past the post system for the elector votes.
He has been legitimately elected, similarly we can have a government here that received fewer votes than its opposition.
|
>>He has been legitimately elected
Yes, just not by a majority of the population.
The system is flawed when this happens and a voter in one of the bigger states may legitimately argue that there vote is worth significantly less than a vote in a smaller state.
>> similarly we can have a government here that received fewer votes than its opposition.
There is a subtle difference in that we vote for our member of parliament not specifically for a prime minister.
|
>> The system is flawed when this happens and a voter in one of the bigger
>> states may legitimately argue that there vote is worth significantly less than a vote in
>> a smaller state.
>>
They vote for "for members of the Electoral College, known as electors."
That is their democratically chosen system, whether we like or not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
"The United States presidential election is an indirect election in which citizens of the United States who are registered to vote in one of the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia cast ballots for members of the Electoral College, known as electors. These electors then in turn cast direct votes, known as electoral votes, in their respective state capitals for President and Vice President of the United States."
|
>> He has been legitimately elected, similarly we can have a government here that received fewer
>> votes than its opposition.
>>
Agree. US and UK don't have proportional representation.
(eg. UKIP won 12.6% of the popular vote, 3,881,099, nearly the same as combined total of LibDems and ScotsNP yet have only one MP).
At least Trump has the cushion of majorities in both Houses, something the UK Tories would love to have.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 1 Feb 17 at 11:54
|
>> Anyway he is a hypocrite. His wife is an immigrant and his forebears were immigrants.
>>
What do you call Obama?
"The outgoing President – or Deporter in Chief, as some immigration groups have labelled him – has removed more undocumented migrants than the total sum of presidents in the 20th century".
www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-obama-deportation-of-migrants-dont-act-so-shocked-a7416526.html
|
|
Are illegal immigrants and refugees synonymous?
|
>> Are illegal immigrants and refugees synonymous?
>>
I will give you the benefit of doubt that you are not trying to be too clever by half.
Let me help you in case you are not aware of the situation in US in context of Obama's deportation of 2.5 million people:
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whats-name-migrant-vs-refugee-vs-illegal-immigrant
|
|
So, having gone through process, asylum seekers who do not qualify are deported. At least they had a hearing. The situation with Trump seems utterly different: they shall not pass.
|
>> So, having gone through process, asylum seekers who do not qualify are deported. At least
>> they had a hearing.
>>
Read the article again. They have been deported despite being refugees.
>> The situation with Trump seems utterly different: they shall not pass.
>>
It is utterly different. He has put a temporary stop to migration from seven countries until the vetting processes have been overhauled. Listening to this short interview as to why those seven countries are the subject of a temporary stop:
www.channel4.com/news/trump-ban-betsy-mccaughey
Trump has also said he will allow 50,000 refugees a year.
Compare that to UK
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/sep/08/uk-refugee-plan-comparison-european-countries
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stats
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 1 Feb 17 at 13:55
|
|
I'm more persuaded by the coincidence that Trump has financial interest in each of the major Muslim majority countries exempt from the ban. Mccaugheys argument that the select 7 lacked security structures to enable checks to be made was a little thin. SA for one has populated the jihadists squad and given ample resources aimed at sedition in the west. Little difficulty in making false security clearance for the USA borders. Terrorists could also easily cross from adjacent countries into the USA and all Trumps bragadacio will be unavailing.
|
They are entitled to a view, and to state it. On this, I think they are wrong.
He will do what he will do regardless, of that I am sure, and we will gain nothing by making a public display of hostility, by cancelling the state visit.
We trumpet a special relationship.
In a personal analogy I hope that my friends will tell me when they think I have gone off the rails; I don't expect them to ban me from their houses and announce it in the parish news.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 31 Jan 17 at 20:07
|
What exactly is the difference between what Trump is doing and what Farage said he would do?
Seems some people might need to get their heads on straight.
|
If ageement is actually possible on anything by anybody at any time, negotiation is the only sensible way. That requires dialogue.
I regard the USA as the UK's friend, so snubbing Trump, or more importantly the office he holds, should not even be a serious consideration.
Of course you could take the view that the USA is not our friend. The boss doesn't say much, but her comment was "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".
I imagine that the Chinese general from 400BC to whom this quotation is attributed had in mind political enemies in one's own circle.
If May and the UK government think that Trump is not handling things in an appropriate way, then they should state their own views and leave it at that. It's not our country, and if we cannot have confidence in the US political system to find its own equilibrium, which I think it will, then there is no hope. Trump is not the USA, he is not even the Presidency.
What the UK needs to do is to focus on its own interests in the wider sense and manage its own affairs as well as possible.
|
Some reassuring words from Mr T
“That’s what I do. I fix things. We’re going to straighten it out. Believe me. When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having – don’t worry about it. Just don’t worry about it. They’re tough. We have to be tough, it’s time we’re going to be a little bit tough, folks. We’re taken advantage by every nation in the world, virtually. It’s not going to happen any more.â€
|
>>We’re taken advantage by every nation in the world
Probably true.
But equally so is..
"We take advantage of every nation in the world".
I think he needs to learn how things work. More importantly, as do the electorate.
I wonder how far hew can swing the pendulum the wrong way, and how well it will centre in the next leadership term.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Feb 17 at 19:01
|
Trump is a one off isn't he.
He will honour his pledges be it hell or high water if that is the right quotation.He told the Aussie prime minister to take a hike regarding refugees.I must admit I would have done the same.
The Aussie had a cheek to offload refugees out his countries detention camp to the States.
|
Mostly what Trump is doing I disagree with. However, the man is not stupid, there'll be an endgame. Whether that endgame is to the benefit of the US or to Trump personally is another matter.
Also, the true measure of Trump's presidency will be 4 years after it has finished. There are always ramifications, sometimes not the ones you expect, and sometimes not all bad.
I think the US is in for a rough few years though with social unrest likely to become an issue.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Feb 17 at 23:58
|
|
It is how the man handles a major crisis that worries me. If we had Trump standing in Kennedy's shoes or Truman's come to that I believe nuclear war would have ensued. It is alarming that a man of his character could be the one who makes a decision as to whether nuclear weapons are used.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872328
In an interview with Fox News, he said: "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?"
The bloke is frightening. Most people would say something along the lines of "Unfortunately there comes a time when we have to take drastic action to protect our country and this includes operations where, unfortunately as a last resort people will be killed!"
Not Trump, nope he seems to rejoice in the fact which is very worrying.
|
Your quote didn't make much sense to me out of context so I went to your link which said
"O'Reilly [Fox interviewer] asked Trump whether he "respects" the former KGB agent: [Putin]
"I do respect him, but I respect a lot of people," Trump said, "That doesn't mean I'm going to get along with him."
Trump said he would appreciate any assistance from Russia in the fight against ISIS terrorists, adding that he would rather get along with the former Cold War-era foe than otherwise.
"But, [Putin] is a killer," O'Reilly said.
"There are a lot of killers," Trump responded, "We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?"
So I think in your out-of-context quote he is questioning the naivety of the interviewer with an honest answer in the form of a question. I'm not sure I draw the same conclusion as you from that.
I am not a Trump supporter btw but the guy sometimes talks some common sense...
|
Trump is dam right the States are not that innocent.Of course you are not allowed to say that when you are President of the U.S.A.
The world isn't black and white the way the main press like to print it.Anyway wasn't ISIS supported by the C.I.A.? No prove of course as they say follow the money.
Trump has also his own private bodyguards he needs the best if he wants to survive.
|
>>However, the man is not stupid,
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38991171
|
|
I can't believe that anyone who watched Trump's press conference yesterday whatever their politics cannot believe that the is something seriously wrong with this man. Absolutely extraordinary.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 17 Feb 17 at 17:33
|
>> I can't believe that anyone who watched Trump's press conference yesterday whatever their politics cannot
>> believe that the is something seriously wrong with this man. Absolutely extraordinary.
Liked Hugh Laurie's comment:
"Will there be another press conference for the verbs"
|
A quote from the press conference showing Trump's grasp of the nuclear deterrent.
Trump was asked if Vladimir Putin was “testing†him with military provocations. Trump’s response included a warning about how nuclear war “would be like no other:â€
Trump: If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along -- and don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There's no upside. We're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.
They're a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Anyone not worried?
|
And for anyone not sure what Uranium is Trump explains:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs
|
|
Yes he's a bit of a worry. He's going to make the next 4 years interesting for the world.
|
As I heard Frank Skinner say of Trump"
"It's all going to end in Armageddon but we'll have a few laughs along the way"
|
|
He's got to be watching this back after dissing the NSA and FBI!
|
The man in an absolute hypocrite.
He denounces the press for fake news in his conference and in the same conference states:
"We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things."
Hillary Clinton did not give the Russians any uranium.
The Russians purchased 51% of Canada-based UrAsia Energy, so not even a US company.
The company mines uranium and the sale relates to mining capacity.
The USA will not allow any export of uranium to Russia.
So its a Canadian based company that mines uranium in the USA and other countries. All the Russians purchased was the right to dig the stuff out. Not to take it away or use it.
|
How should the mainstream media react to 'fake news'?
Harry Evans on R4 this morning
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04v9vtt
|
>>How should the mainstream media react to 'fake news'?
By continuing to point out where the President himself uses fake news.
Anonymous / unnamed sources are his latest battle ground.
To quote his Twitter "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."
twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794?lang=en
And one of his latest tweets:
"Donald J. Trumpâ€ï€²Verified accountï‚™ @realDonaldTrump · Feb 25
The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo."
So he did this in a month. Does he not think that it was the effects of the previous administrations policies coming through as was the £200b inherited by Obama?
I hope he doesn't manage his companies' accounts like that - oh! :-)
|
Re the Wire Tap tweets.
Is he either delusional, paranoid or both?
It seems that a wire tap may have been approved but by a judge in respect of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 but nothing to do with the out going president because the White House doesn't authorise these things - it is up to the crime agencies and courts.
To berate Obama over it is poor judgement imho, until at least all the facts are in, and then, would he even believe them, or chose not to believe them because it makes better press.
|
>>Is he either delusional, paranoid or both?
That will do to start the list.
|
Neither
Standard Trump diversionary tactics.
|
I think President Trump is cleverer than some folk might think.
He may not be a suave politico [ ;-0 ] but there is usually a reason behind even some of his more "outside-the standard-box" statements.
Won him the job of POTUS, did they not?
|
but there is usually a reason behind even some of his more "outside-the standard-box" statements.
>> Won him the job of POTUS, did they not?
>>
I think there's a difference between unconventional and plain bizarre and all this ranting makes him look strange to say the least. I wonder when he'll calm down?
|
Trump appeals to the Bitter, the ignorant, the xenophobic and the disenfranchised, so has to speak their language - short sound bites and lurid misleading headlines. Thats why he uses twitter, Its instant, its short, and its one way.
|
|
It sounds like to me he's still campaigning, different kettle of fish now.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 6 Mar 17 at 17:04
|
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1b13
World at One R4 today re US diplomacy or lack of it.
!0 mins starting at 28:30
|
"Trump calls ousted FBI boss Comey 'a GRANDSTANDING SHOWBOAT"
Pot, kettle, black!
|
>> "Trump calls ousted FBI boss Comey 'a GRANDSTANDING SHOWBOAT"
>>
What a charming fellow Trump is.
He has not changed his spots, still threatens someone is is first response.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39899542
|
Guardian website reporting that Trump has decided he doesn't want to visit UK if it causes protests:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold
(1) Frit of opposition?
(2)Sudden humility?
(3) Security advice?
|
Maybe we should just withdraw the invite :-)
Though, joking aside, I have nothing against him coming here. He is, after all, the elected POTUS, and we've hosted worse!!
|
"(1) Frit of opposition? etc .............."
Probably because it's a shy-toll on a downward spiral.
|
This one from Facebook made me giggle:
Why won't Republicans impeach Donald J. Trump?
Because they insist on carrying a baby to full- term.
|
Two TV presenters attacked on Twitter by President Donald Trump have accused him of lying and suggested the White House tried to blackmail them.
The hosts of MSNBC Morning Joe said they were warned a tabloid would run a negative story on them unless they said sorry for their coverage of Mr Trump.
Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough said Mr Trump's tweets were "vicious" and "frightening".
The president called them "low IQ crazy Mika" and "Psycho Joe" on Thursday.
He also referred to Ms Brzezinski as "bleeding badly from a facelift".
continues
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40458145
|
|
The man is unbalanced and clearly has major mental problems and is an international embarrassment to the United States. I expect him to be removed, citing health grounds, within a few months
|
I hope so but I'm not sure.
The National Enquirer loves him and it has a huge readership. He's not as unpopular at home as you might think.
|
|
Yes I know. It's truly depressing.
|
|
The National Enquirer is the favourite rag of America's white trailer trash, who luckily are traditionally disenfranchised and have little sway outside election time
|
This is the way the world is going....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
Or should I say, this is what the world has become?
|
>> This is the way the world is going....
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
>>
>> Or should I say, this is what the world has become?
>>
Worth a read. With a little modification it could describe post Brexit UK.
|
>> The National Enquirer is the favourite rag of America's white trailer trash, who luckily are
>> traditionally disenfranchised and have little sway outside election time
>>
Not really sure what you mean by that. Can you elucidate?
|
|
My initial posting featured a link to the Huffington Post, which I supposed appeals to that kind of audience, but what substitute adjectival phrase for "trailer trash" could apply in the UK, Zero? "Traveller trash perhaps?
|
|
You know the term " white trailer trash"?
|
|
Yes I know the term but what do you mean by the statement "who luckily are traditionally disenfranchised and have little sway outside election time". It is contradictory isn't it? Surely they have sway at election time preciseley because they are not disenfranchised.
|
Not at all. The only way to change things, or not change them in America is with money. Anyone poor in the US is disenfranchised because one term US presidents never deliver any election promises
So to be specific, being popular with rednecks or trailer trash won't save him if enough money is involved .
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 1 Jul 17 at 14:02
|
|
Ah, see what you mean now.
|
I've been reading in the Guardian what strikes me as a very intelligent summing-up of where Trump is now with his presidency.
He seems to have given up trying to reach beyond the "fan base" of loyal supporters who cannot see anything wrong with him; he and his immediate circle live in some parallel universe where every little "victory", real or imagined, is seen as an endorsement and every snub, failure or absurdity is seen as irrelevant. He is actually quite good at deflecting attention away from these by constantly shifting the agenda and operating on several fronts at once in his war with the media.
The real worry is that, in spite of everything, the American economy may actually be doing quite well and this is what may define his presidency more than anything else; it may actually be enough to get him re-elected, assuming he does not fall to impeachment or a major scandal.
As the headline to the article says, "Your worst nightmare: a successful Donald Trump presidency."
tinyurl.com/ya3uup4p
Last edited by: Focal Point on Mon 3 Jul 17 at 12:40
|
"The real worry is that, in spite of everything, the American economy may actually be doing quite well "
Which is also some people's view of BREXIT, and the British economy.
Maybe neither were so bad after all, if that is what the measure of success is.
|
>> Maybe neither were so bad after all, if that is what the measure of success
>> is.
>>
Which probably illustrates the point that many countries / economies could (can?) survive white well without government intervention for at least a year or two.
Given the level of competence displayed by many of our current politicians, it's probably just as well.
|
In an ideal world Twitter and Facebook would ban his accounts and the media would stop publishing any articles about him. They should also not publish anything to do with his election campaign.
See how he likes that!
Of course they won't because the web sites, TV channels and newspapers thrive on the extra circulation stories about him generate.
|
In an ideal world Trump would have been regarded as the idiot he is right from the start.
No-one would have voted for him - in fact, he wouldn't even have been nominated.
But as he is where he is, the best thing would be for everyone who does not come into direct contact with him to ignore him - certainly for the media to do so. That's the one thing his childish, insecure personality cannot handle.
|
Can anyone now doubt the shadiness of the whole Trump circus? The Russia links, the messing with the election process (or, at least, the attempts to do so), the denials - in short, the dishonesty and duplicity that is at the heart of this administration:
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40567707
There are plenty of other (USA) news sources, some even more damning of Trump and co. They will, of course, be accused of peddling fake news when the smoke screen goes up.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 13:24
|
Earlier in this thread I said:
"It is how the man handles a major crisis that worries me. If we had Trump standing in Kennedy's shoes or Truman's come to that I believe nuclear war would have ensued. It is alarming that a man of his character could be the one who makes a decision as to whether nuclear weapons are used."
Anyone feeling a little uneasy?
|
Just wait until he fells he is not doing well enough to win a second term.
I wouldn't want to be an enemy of America then!
|
I f you are taking his threats seriously, just consider two other serious threats he made.
Mexico would pay for the wall & Obamacare would be repealed.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Aug 17 at 23:10
|
|
And, somewhat paradoxically, the one out of the three he can do by himself, with no checks and balances, is push the button...... :-(
|
It's not his threats as such which concern me but his ability to make difficult situation far worse by his crass ineptness and stupidity. His latest outburst breaks a fundamental rule that any parent knows. Don't make threats which you don't intend to follow through. It will completely undermine your position.
|
|
I don't think that sort of tactical consideration really crosses Trump's mind. He acts as ifhe has the self control of a two year old, just about none.
|
>> I don't think that sort of tactical consideration really crosses Trump's mind. He acts as
>> ifhe has the self control of a two year old, just about none.
Well it appears to have worked, this is the latest from the DPRK
The North first announced on Wednesday that it had been drawing up plans for a missile strike against Guam,
A later statement carried by state media said the military would "finally complete the plan" by mid-August and send it to leader Kim Jong-un for his approval.
The first bit says "we can" and the last bit says "but we wont"
|
|
OTOH maybe that's like the politician-post-cock-up "I won't be resigning" statement, often considerably less than 24 hours before their resignation.
|
|
Perhaps the Kim Jong 'un and the Donald can give each other hair style advice.
|
What is the root cause of tension between USA and North Korea? Why NK wants to bomb Guam?
|
>>What is the root cause of tension between USA and North Korea?
A minor skirmish called: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Korean_War_.281950.E2.80.931953.29
|
NK wants the US to believe it can. It has told the world it has a plan to test its ballistic rockets by firing them into the sea around Guam (presumably to see what the reaction is, and then if it actually does fire them, to reduce the chances of the US thinking it is a real attack and launching a counter attack.)
The only reason anybody takes NK seriously is that it has a lot of conventional weapons, rockets and artillery, and Seoul is only c. 20 miles from the border. NK doesn't like Japan much either (it's mutual).
South Korea (and Japan) are allies of the US which is also a recent historical enemy.
NK can't really hurt the US, and is weaker in conventional terms than SK + Japan; but if NK starts lobbing shells and rockets at Seoul, and has nuclear weapons and delivery systems of its own, escalation becomes a much bigger risk than it was before those nuclear weapons existed.
Basically, having nuclear weapons or successfully pretending it has them theoretically increases the chances of NK aggression on SK because it makes the US and allies more cautious. It still seems unlikely but I expect the South Koreans are taking it very seriously.
That's my inference only, but I would agree that the 'news' doesn't make a lot of sense without some sort of contextual explanation which they must think is so obvious that we don't need it. No doubt there has been analysis on TV etc but I haven't seen much.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 10 Aug 17 at 09:54
|
It's quite simple really. The aim of the North Korean regime is to continue in power. The ownership of nuclear weapons gurantees against military action by the USA and it's allies. They know that USA will not risk a nuclear response whatever Trump says.
Effectively if NK truly have nuclear weapons the USA do not have a military option.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 10 Aug 17 at 10:56
|
>> It's quite simple really. The aim of the North Korean regime is to continue in
>> power.
Indeed, but to do that it needs to keep its biggest enemy at bay and subdued. That threat is entirely internal, other regime rivals (the military mainly) and the people.
The classic cold war technique is used to ensure internal power, ruthless internal culling of any threats, and an invented external enemy (the great satan USA) for the people to rail against. The rockets are mainly for internal consumption, because everyone else outside knows they can't hit the side of a barn door, or deliver anything other than a damp squib.
>> Effectively if NK truly have nuclear weapons the USA do not have a military option.
Not true. Atomic weapons work on Mutually assured destruction. The Russians lob 3k missiles at the USA, the USA lobs 5k missiles back. All accurate, all high yield on both sides.
DPRK, if they have them at all, have about 5 that will reach a small part of the states, target unsure, non yet with nuclear weapons, and if they are - they are low yield.
MAD is not assured, and if thats not the case the bloke with the biggest stick will win. Trump may have the smallest brain, but he does have the biggest stick. Can even club them to death without using the full nuclear a***nal.
The loser is South Korea. Seoul will disappear in any scenario conventional war or nuclear, and there will probably be a knock on financial effect for the rest of the world if it does.
In summary, Trump can have a fight with the DPRK if he wants to. The danger is if he think he can have one with the Russians or the Chinese.
As far as the DPRK goes, I cannot fathom out why the Chinese have not gone rolling in there and taken the place over. They need and want it as a buffer zone, but its rapidly failing to fill that role. If they went steam rolling in, they would get tacit approval from the other big two.
|
I suspect that Kim will be invited to Beijing for a summit and his train or plane will have a mysterious accident.
North Korea will then slowly implement "capitalism under communism" as they have in China.
Everybody wins (ish) except Kim.
|
As far as the DPRK goes, I cannot fathom out why the Chinese have not
>> gone rolling in there and taken the place over. They need and want it as
>> a buffer zone, but its rapidly failing to fill that role. If they went steam
>> rolling in, they would get tacit approval from the other big two.
>>
Two reasons, they aren't fans of regime change and they are worried about the unknown unknowns if they did.
|
They are fans of regime change, just not their own. And currently the DPRK leadership is the unknown.
Zippy's idea has merit, which is why Kim never leaves the country. If I were Paramount Leader President of the People's Republic of China I would be in there like a shot. It suits my needs.
|
>> They are fans of regime change, just not their own. And currently the DPRK leadership
>> is the unknown.
>>
I'm not so sure, they aren't too keen. I'm thinking iraq, libya, Syria etc.
I've no doubt they are annoyed by them but a change is worrying them. Why do you think they haven't gone in?
|
>> The aim of the North Korean regime is to continue in power.
Who is preventing it from happening now and why?
|
>> >> The aim of the North Korean regime is to continue in power.
>>
>> Who is preventing it from happening now and why?
The last person that threatened it was Kims uncle and second in command of the Army. He was fed to a pack of dogs. .
The current rhetoric is to keep the peasants underfed and labouring away.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Aug 17 at 12:58
|
>> I'm not so sure, they aren't too keen. I'm thinking iraq, libya, Syria etc.
We, the west, do regime change very badly. We then try and wring our hands in guilt and inflict democracy on them. The Chinese wont be so wishy washy.
|
> We, the west, do regime change very badly. We then try and wring our hands
>> in guilt and inflict democracy on them. The Chinese wont be so wishy washy.
>>
I think they'll stick by him, the only scenario I can see is if they think NK is going to go to war and it's so (in the chinese opinion) intolerably they might well replace him with some pro chinese general.
|
I suspect that the Chinese won't invade because of the potential impact to the financial markets, reduction in sales of all those electronic gizmos etc. and the real possibility that the North Korean will hit out at any convenient target including the South, Japan and any poor passing air liner.
Their best option is, as sooty123 suggested, to replace the loon with a pro Chinese leader.
|
"Their best option is, as sooty123 suggested..."
The best option, as I suggest, is send Dirk Pitt, Al Giordino and a few Seals (expendable). Thwart Kim Wilde Jong's plans to take over the world and kill him as his lair is collapsing. Discover an old treaty proving that North Korea actually belongs to Great Britain. Escape under a hail of bullets in a stolen classic car. Row back to Japan in a bath.
|
>> The best option, as I suggest, is send Dirk Pitt, Al Giordino and a few
>> Seals (expendable). .....
>>
Sadly I recognise the literary source of your solution
|
|
It's the plot of every Clive Cusler novel, all 36 thousand of them, only the location changes
|
|
Well I read the first 300, and I look at the synopsis of all the new ones in WH Smiths at the airport. There is usually about 7 on the shelf, all published in the previous month.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Aug 17 at 16:25
|
I'm all for crap airport books. I buy loads of them, read them and then pass them on somewhere but the Cussler books just got too repetitive even for me.
I think they're written by his son now, aren't they?
|
|
With you on that. Kindle has spoilt that a little ! Going to close this thread and open a new one to make them simpler to read. Bit like throwing 3500 Cussler books away and opening a new one !
|
I'll be very afraid... - smokie
