Jump to content
johnh

Trump in charge (ex race for the US presidency thread)

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Chach said:

Compromise?

"So how about investing the supposed billions into services to provide a better system, like cutting applications waiting time down to something that isn’t sometimes years? That way, you make the immigration & aslyum process less intimidating, easier to understand, etc. and encourage the use of it."

You think this is something that people opposed to immigration would see as a compromise, and then accuse me of trolling?

Ok, then.

How does it not address the immigration control issue? It recognises the issue and concern, it would great more jobs and wouldn’t waste money on a gimmick of a solution 

troll comment was more aimed at how you post. Can never tell if you’re being dry, devils advocate or difficult 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matt said:

How does it not address the immigration control issue? It recognises the issue and concern, it would great more jobs and wouldn’t waste money on a gimmick of a solution 

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

Hadn’t seen the hyperlink, will check when I get home from work. 

Nearly all of my in-laws are quite right wing, often quite prejudice, republicans based mostly in Arizona. Their resounding input is “we don’t really care who comes in, provided they follow the rules to get in”. We’ve discussed what they’d prefer between a wall or better system and they prefer the better system but will take anything if it actually does something, accepting that they know the wall will do nothing more than send a message (regardless of the context)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

It’s a good video, but it’s still only dealing in absolutes / mass assumptions which is part of the problem. Well presented in 10 mins, and I agree with much of it, but it’s only a conversation starter. A good one though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

A serious issue referencing "Sex in the City" as an example (multiple times) and you expect it to be taken seriously? Not sure if that's down to Haidt himself or the video makers.

Oz not a great example of colonialism/immigration/equality either btw as I'm sure you know...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/10/australia-is-deplorably-racist-as-people-of-colour-are-reminded-when-they-speak-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matt said:

It’s a good video, but it’s still only dealing in absolutes / mass assumptions which is part of the problem. Well presented in 10 mins, and I agree with much of it, but it’s only a conversation starter. A good one though. 

That really only scratches the surface of Haidt's work which I think has the potential to be revolutionary in the way we interact with each other (libs and cons, like Mike I did find some of the graphics slightly hyperbolic/problematic not Haidt's fault) 

I haven't actually read the book but this review is probably a better summation than the video of the crux of his thesis

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

I have listened to him discuss it a lot though and I think this is the best primer (it's on itunes etc), if you are a liberal and you have ever thought "OMG, WHY CAN'T CONSERVATIVES JUST LISTEN TO REASON AND SEE THE LOGIC" then I would highly recommend it. If Trump, Brexit, the rise of the alt right and authoritarianism in general doesn't tell us we need to start interacting with status quo Cons better then it's likely to get worse.

https://armchairexpertpod.com/pods/jonathan-haidt

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MikeO said:

A serious issue referencing "Sex in the City" as an example (multiple times) and you expect it to be taken seriously? Not sure if that's down to Haidt himself or the video makers.

Oz not a great example of colonialism/immigration/equality either btw as I'm sure you know...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/10/australia-is-deplorably-racist-as-people-of-colour-are-reminded-when-they-speak-up

I think the sex and city example reasonably demonstrates that what is culturally acceptable for women in a western democracy is not universal, which was the intention.

With regards to the rise of white identity politics and the far right in Australia I have been making the point its symptomatic of all western democracies, not just he US so not really sure why you felt the need to post that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Someone called Nate White just posted the following answer to the question, "Why do many British people not like Donald Trump?" It's worth the read. 😃

A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
  2. You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

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

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

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

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

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

'My God… what… have… I… created?’

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

I say old boy jolly good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I actually think the guy went a bit easy on him.

He probably did but he described the average Brit off to a tee and I thank him for that.

The problem with Trump Mike is when you think you've found the harshest words and statements to describe him someone will find harsher and Trump you, pardon the pun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Prediction of the week: President Trump will sign a bill ensuring there is no government shutdown and will almost immediately declare a state of emergency to build his wretched wall. 

These days, in politics, I hate being right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching his Q&A after he declared a National Emergency. I can't do anything but cringe listening to him. He's such a hypocrite and all he cares about is his ego. It honestly makes my stomach turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After he finishes any speech I’m half waiting for the music and titles to roll for the end of another episode of the apprentice, there’s nothing distinguishable from Trump the President and the dickhead Trump who sat in his boardroom and said your fired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sibdane said:

I'm watching his Q&A after he declared a National Emergency. I can't do anything but cringe listening to him. He's such a hypocrite and all he cares about is his ego. It honestly makes my stomach turn.

The constitution is toilet paper to him. It’s like watching a... I honestly don’t know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Matt said:

The constitution is toilet paper to him. It’s like watching a... I honestly don’t know. 

He's beyond unprofessional. The way he interrupted and talked to reporters asking questions was a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sibdane said:

 

He's beyond unprofessional. The way he interrupted and talked to reporters asking questions was a disgrace.

He is doing one good thing, unintentionally. He will drain the swamp if the people want him too. He’s shown the true colours of most politicians. If people still vote them in, that’s not on him - it’s on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

He is doing one good thing, unintentionally. He will drain the swamp if the people want him too. He’s shown the true colours of most politicians. If people still vote them in, that’s not on him - it’s on them. 

except he hasn't.  his staff is still majority swamp politicians.  the drain the swamp thing was a sound byte.  also some of the non-swamp people he brought in are just corrupt business people (see all the people who left due to ethics violations aka half his cabinet).  so sure they weren't politicians but they were just as corrupt or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Matt said:

The constitution is toilet paper to him.

Which is why my prediction is that Ivanka will be the first female President of the US. After he installs her at the end of 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

except he hasn't.  his staff is still majority swamp politicians.  the drain the swamp thing was a sound byte.  also some of the non-swamp people he brought in are just corrupt business people (see all the people who left due to ethics violations aka half his cabinet).  so sure they weren't politicians but they were just as corrupt or worse.

Oh I know it was a catchphrase and that he’s surrounded himself by the people he said he’d clean out. What I meant was he’s shown, again unintentionally, to what extents politicians will go to and shown their true colours is UHD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Palfy said:

She wasn’t born in the 🇺🇸 

Google says she was.

I'm only half joking too, in a WaPo poll a majority of Republicans said they would support Trump postponing the 2020 election if he suggested it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chach said:

Google says she was.

I'm only half joking too, in a WaPo poll a majority of Republicans said they would support Trump postponing the 2020 election if he suggested it.

You know I use to think 🤔 I was crazy 😜 some of the stuff going on in the USA as made me look quite sane and liberal in my beliefs, to be honest I’m quite disappointed with myself for letting them get that far a head of me I think I need to ramp it up a notch or two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×