The Donald Trump Incredulity Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

I know that this doesn't relate to rugby, but feel free to say what you want about the 45th (and presumably final) president of the United States.

A man John Oliver once described as "a large clown made of dessicated foreskin and cotton candy".

[carpet baboon]

No fly. I said the press were happy to repeat the racist rhetoric to make it seem normal. And if you like to make yourself feel utterly sick pick up any copy of the daily mail in the last year and tell me they didn't support brexit

I read the Guardian and Telegraph   The Mail I didn't read.  Should have, I suppose, as they were on my side ...but they're not in my class

I wouldnt force my biggest enemy to read the mail. Mainly because they would probably enjoy it. And I've not kidnapped them for there entertainment I tell you

[SecretFly]

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. And D Trump getting elected doesn't make racism, sexism or homophobia right.

And voting for Trump doesn't make racism, sexism, homophobia the reason. But there again, you're one of these smarter college educated folks who not only can tell why Trump would never get elected but who now can tell those who voted for him why they did so. Aren't liberal college educated people so nice. They tell the trashcan feeders why they vote the way they do so that the guttertramps don't have to think for themselves.

Did you actually listen to the large number of pro-Trump people who were telling you why they were voting for Trump?

[Guest]

I can't go anywhere without some whingebag whining about brexit, Trump, American police - literally everyday.

Of course you're the kind of person whose only concern about systemic and institutionalised abuse of power on racial grounds is the "whining" you're subjected to. Couldn't make it up. You're definitely the one who has got it hard, Sainty!

What a valid but sad insight into your politics. Makes a lot of sense to be honest, this maverick role you like to think you're carving out here on 606, fighting the power of the educated and elitist posters!

Some people aren't PC sheep, you need to get over that.

You're the Trump of the rugby boards. I'm sure youre going to take that as a compliment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A

Thank God we can all really say what we feel now...

[aucklandlaurie]

Trump got the 'Stupid, Racist, Misogynist, Bigoted, Working Class White man' vote, and don't let anyone tell you different.

And dont forget those that "Didnt have a college education" something which seemed to be a very important explanation 24 hours ago, well  it was an explanation by those that did have a college education.

Oh, forgot that bit. I will remember it's "' Stupid, Uneducated, Racist, Misogynist, Bigoted, Working Class White man, vote," for future reference. I should probably add flesh eating, human sacrificing, sociopaths, but will wait until the press make it up

And dont forget those from the Rustbelt states, commentators from the sunbelt states say they apparently have a lot to answer for in this fiasco.

[lostinwales]

Trump got the 'Stupid, Racist, Misogynist, Bigoted, Working Class White man' vote, and don't let anyone tell you different.

And dont forget those that "Didnt have a college education" something which seemed to be a very important explanation 24 hours ago, well  it was an explanation by those that did have a college education.

Oh, forgot that bit. I will remember it's "' Stupid, Uneducated, Racist, Misogynist, Bigoted, Working Class White man, vote," for future reference. I should probably add flesh eating, human sacrificing, sociopaths, but will wait until the press make it up

Ah - what in the UK are known as 'Daily Mail readers'

[SecretFly]

Question:

Are anti-Racists (as distinct from plain ordinary white poor class or rich nobility class non-racists) bigots?

[Guest]

Question:

Are anti-Racists (as distinct from plain ordinary white poor class or rich nobility class non-racists) bigots?

Will some be ignorant? Yes, aren't we all? Will some allow menace and anger and hatred infect what should be a righteous redressing of inequality? Yes. Are there those who show extreme patience and poise to not devalue this cause by stooping to the levels of bile that the explicit and more pervasive, underlying problems of social inequality throw at them and those around them? Yes.

Don't hold your breath for something definitive, but are you seriously looking for a yes or no? Are you hoping that someone will confirm that, yes, to be an anti racist necessarily means you are bigoted, and this in turn justifies bigotry in all forms, because, after all, if they can do it, why can't I?

[the-goon]

So, an incredulity thread became a thread where some people support Trump. Wild.

My girlfriend is US born to ecuadorian parents (who are both legal residents). She is with me here in mexico right now (you can imagine how mexicans are reacting). In 2 years together this morning is the second time I saw her cry. In her words, all the Poopie everyone went through to get to where they were, to feel like if you work hard you can get ahead in america no matter your skin colour. Well she feels a big dent has been put in that. Its hard to say she is wrong if you go off what Trump has said and the interviews of trump supporters who love how he is "taking the country back". Taking it back from?

A reaction to PC? What does that even mean? Some poor lambs can;t use the N word anymore. or spank the arse of their secretary and instead of manning up that we all have rights, they go and vote in someone who has stated policies which put millions of LEGAL americans at risk of having their lives torn apart? How... courageous of those standing up to PC. Children.

I read somewhere else this morning that (translating it into rugby terms), if you are a white man in america all you see is that blacks and latinos have scored 5 straight tries in your lifetime. And that seems Poopie. They get everything! But its harder to see that you were winning 64-0 in the first half. That is what we are seeing. That combined with an american system where it is not 1 vote each for president. Where the electoral college means that a person residing in a city has a 0.999999 vote. And someone in rural areas gets 1.0000001 of a vote. That's the margin. Clinton had more total votes and loses the election. Anyways, will stick to rugby on here from now on, but had to throw that out there.

PC culture was responsible for 1400 girls being raped for years in Rotherham. The police knew about it but didn't make arrests as it could have disturbed "social cohesion", and they might be called racist. Neighbours of the San Bernadino shooters were afraid to report them to the police when they started acting dodgy because they didn't want to be seen as potentially racist. That is what ppl rallying against. The N word is just a word, a mean one but shouldn't be illegal to say. Sexual assault is already a crime.

So you are saying, because you suffered injustices in the past, now that you are on top you can start dishing it out? What happens when the roles are reversed again? Do you go back to playing the victim?

The America you described (work hard regardless of skin colour) thanks to lefties and the establishment with diversity quotas is slipping away, that is why ppl voted for trump. Just to make it clear, quotas are unequal, there are no exceptions, none.

I'm not going to comment on your personal situation, I don't know enough about it to.

In Rotherham the problem was identifying them as British-Pakastanis rather than just British men. If they were English, they would not have been identified as English-British.

And why the heck do you need to use the 'N' word. Whats the problem with identifying people as Black.

But they were British-Pakastanis or indeed just Pakastani, I don't know if they were necessarily born in the UK. Also what is wrong in saying that if it is true. The media actually said British-Asian, so included hindus, sihks, etc. In Bristol, the diddler gang were of Somalian origin. The common link of all the these gangs were that they were muslim, not their ethnicity or place of birth. The problem with PC is that you can't say that, even if it's true.

If the diddler gang was white, I can assure you they would have been caught 15 years ago! That is the issue.

Regarding the N word, yes you don't need to say it, but it's a word. Banning words is a slippery slope.

The 'N' word is a derogatory word. Why use it when you know it causes offence? Why not respect black people and refer to them by the way they want to be referred to.

The reason why it is wrong to refer to them by their ethnic origins is because it incites (rather thick) people to hate.
I believe Jimmy Saville was a Christian. Does that mean all Christians are paedeophiles?

I don't use the word. But I disagree with sending someone to jail for words. I would rather someone expressed racist views and then be discredited using logic and facts and perhaps changing their mind, then for them to hold their tongue and let their views fester.

Ah the strawman logical fallacy, I never said ALL muslims. Please try harder.

Well you know what also incites hate. One group of ppl raping and abusing girls because they are of another group, and then the abusers getting special treatment because they are of a certain group. Most ppl can differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. Perhaps you are projecting your bias onto other ppl?

Anyway, it's views like yours that has held to the rise of Trump, and it isn't going away. If you don't like it, you only have yourself to blame.

You would like to use the word though. Explain to me then, why would you want to call someone something they find disrespectful and offensive? People will not end up in court/jail for calling someone a the 'N' word. They might end up in court/jail though for being racist or inciding people to hate.

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. And D Trump getting elected doesn't make racism, sexism or homophobia right.

Listen Sin, you don't know me. You know nothing about me. Stop trying smear me just because I'm wiping the floor with you. YOU CAN'T READ MY MIND! You have lost the argument a long time ago. now you are just trying call me racist to discredit me. You are a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity as you are completely incapable of sticking to the issue, and believe you CAN READ MINDS.

Inciting hate, give me a break. How do you think sending someone to jail for words is ok? Inciting violence against an individual fine, we have some common ground. But "hate", defined by who? You? The media? The state? how do you not see what road this leads us down?

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective <-- more mind reading. It's almost like you're making this up as you dig deeper and deeper.

[SecretFly]

No miaow - it's just that a question can often provide a mirror. Ageing ,white, males with little or no education are forever being ordered to look in a mirror. I'm providing one for their critics.

When is a bigot a bigot?

[Barney McGrew did it]

Can’t believe there are people that see Trump as not odious & bigoted – as I’m not his drinking buddy I’m basing that opinion on what I see and hear from him – is it really debatable? That doesn’t preclude him from office (make him one of the usual suspects I’d have thought). Anyhoo, my particular beef is being missed somewhat under the guise of PC: Trump in large part got elected by claiming he would represent the common man over the elitist agenda, but he has a track record with his ruthless business style of having no sympathy with the ordinary person (apart from brick-layers and wall builders I guess). They voted for him & but IMO they’ll be disappointed – 4 long years.

As for his general politics - I feel that the US is in general and slow decline as a global influence (as the UK has been for decades). And Trump is inward looking and won't care about that. Good job we've got Putin, Xi Jinping, Iran & Israel to take the strain.

[Sin é]

So, an incredulity thread became a thread where some people support Trump. Wild.

My girlfriend is US born to ecuadorian parents (who are both legal residents). She is with me here in mexico right now (you can imagine how mexicans are reacting). In 2 years together this morning is the second time I saw her cry. In her words, all the Poopie everyone went through to get to where they were, to feel like if you work hard you can get ahead in america no matter your skin colour. Well she feels a big dent has been put in that. Its hard to say she is wrong if you go off what Trump has said and the interviews of trump supporters who love how he is "taking the country back". Taking it back from?

A reaction to PC? What does that even mean? Some poor lambs can;t use the N word anymore. or spank the arse of their secretary and instead of manning up that we all have rights, they go and vote in someone who has stated policies which put millions of LEGAL americans at risk of having their lives torn apart? How... courageous of those standing up to PC. Children.

I read somewhere else this morning that (translating it into rugby terms), if you are a white man in america all you see is that blacks and latinos have scored 5 straight tries in your lifetime. And that seems Poopie. They get everything! But its harder to see that you were winning 64-0 in the first half. That is what we are seeing. That combined with an american system where it is not 1 vote each for president. Where the electoral college means that a person residing in a city has a 0.999999 vote. And someone in rural areas gets 1.0000001 of a vote. That's the margin. Clinton had more total votes and loses the election. Anyways, will stick to rugby on here from now on, but had to throw that out there.

PC culture was responsible for 1400 girls being raped for years in Rotherham. The police knew about it but didn't make arrests as it could have disturbed "social cohesion", and they might be called racist. Neighbours of the San Bernadino shooters were afraid to report them to the police when they started acting dodgy because they didn't want to be seen as potentially racist. That is what ppl rallying against. The N word is just a word, a mean one but shouldn't be illegal to say. Sexual assault is already a crime.

So you are saying, because you suffered injustices in the past, now that you are on top you can start dishing it out? What happens when the roles are reversed again? Do you go back to playing the victim?

The America you described (work hard regardless of skin colour) thanks to lefties and the establishment with diversity quotas is slipping away, that is why ppl voted for trump. Just to make it clear, quotas are unequal, there are no exceptions, none.

I'm not going to comment on your personal situation, I don't know enough about it to.

In Rotherham the problem was identifying them as British-Pakastanis rather than just British men. If they were English, they would not have been identified as English-British.

And why the heck do you need to use the 'N' word. Whats the problem with identifying people as Black.

But they were British-Pakastanis or indeed just Pakastani, I don't know if they were necessarily born in the UK. Also what is wrong in saying that if it is true. The media actually said British-Asian, so included hindus, sihks, etc. In Bristol, the diddler gang were of Somalian origin. The common link of all the these gangs were that they were muslim, not their ethnicity or place of birth. The problem with PC is that you can't say that, even if it's true.

If the diddler gang was white, I can assure you they would have been caught 15 years ago! That is the issue.

Regarding the N word, yes you don't need to say it, but it's a word. Banning words is a slippery slope.

The 'N' word is a derogatory word. Why use it when you know it causes offence? Why not respect black people and refer to them by the way they want to be referred to.

The reason why it is wrong to refer to them by their ethnic origins is because it incites (rather thick) people to hate.
I believe Jimmy Saville was a Christian. Does that mean all Christians are paedeophiles?

I don't use the word. But I disagree with sending someone to jail for words. I would rather someone expressed racist views and then be discredited using logic and facts and perhaps changing their mind, then for them to hold their tongue and let their views fester.

Ah the strawman logical fallacy, I never said ALL muslims. Please try harder.

Well you know what also incites hate. One group of ppl raping and abusing girls because they are of another group, and then the abusers getting special treatment because they are of a certain group. Most ppl can differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. Perhaps you are projecting your bias onto other ppl?

Anyway, it's views like yours that has held to the rise of Trump, and it isn't going away. If you don't like it, you only have yourself to blame.

You would like to use the word though. Explain to me then, why would you want to call someone something they find disrespectful and offensive? People will not end up in court/jail for calling someone a the 'N' word. They might end up in court/jail though for being racist or inciding people to hate.

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. And D Trump getting elected doesn't make racism, sexism or homophobia right.

Listen Sin, you don't know me. You know nothing about me. Stop trying smear me just because I'm wiping the floor with you. YOU CAN'T READ MY MIND! You have lost the argument a long time ago. now you are just trying call me racist to discredit me. You are a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity as you are completely incapable of sticking to the issue, and believe you CAN READ MINDS.

Inciting hate, give me a break. How do you think sending someone to jail for words is ok? Inciting violence against an individual fine, we have some common ground. But "hate", defined by who? You? The media? The state? how do you not see what road this leads us down?

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective <-- more mind reading. It's almost like you're making this up as you dig deeper and deeper.

Wipe the floor away with me. That won't change my opinion (why are you worried about my opinion anyway if its so worthless). Might I add you know absolutely nothing about me to know that I ''am a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity .... etc''

Can you give me a link to a newspaper article to someone who was sent to jail for using the 'N' word. I can only find an article about someone who ended up in court about it, but his case was dismissed as it seemingly was used in a friendly banter hip hop way and the person who used it wasn't a racist. I think the courts would adjudicate on a hate crime - not me. I wouldn't have the power to jail someone for using it.

[SecretFly]

Can’t believe there are people that see Trump as not odious & bigoted – as I’m not his drinking buddy I’m basing that opinion on what I see and hear from him – is it really debatable? That doesn’t preclude him from office (make him one of the usual suspects I’d have thought). Anyhoo, my particular beef is being missed somewhat under the guise of PC: Trump in large part got elected by claiming he would represent the common man over the elitist agenda, but he has a track record with his ruthless business style of having no sympathy with the ordinary person (apart from brick-layers and wall builders I guess). They voted for him & but IMO they’ll be disappointed – 4 long years.

As for his general politics - I feel that the US is in general and slow decline as a global influence (as the UK has been for decades). And Trump is inward looking and won't care about that. Good job we've got Putin, Xi Jinping, Iran & Israel to take the strain.

Reasonable views, Barney.  But hope is still hope, and that's all most people who voted for Trump were voting for; a possibly pathetic hope that this brash guy will actually do Something different.  
They've had all the guff from people like Clinton and Obama, and even the conventional Republicans, for too long now.  They want jobs and a real comfortable-living future - just like the majority of coasters enjoy.  
Will Trump give it to them?  That's not the point and it's not why they voted for him.  They voted for nothing more than the Hope that he will.  They knew for a fact that Clinton wouldn't.  They see Globalisation as the system that has sucked livelihoods from America and landed those lifestyles in far-flung places, many of them helped along with American money.  And they know - are smart enough to know - that Clinton is a globalist that likes the idea of American companies outsourcing jobs and better quality of life abroad rather than concentrating on the millions at home that could do with a good job and a good Private Company backed college education.
People who wanted Trump for President wanted a President for America - not one for the World.  And that, in my opinion, is very much their right.

[carpet baboon]

But fly. Havnt the very party they have voted for in trump spent the last 8 years blocking most of Obama's efforts to help them?

[SecretFly]

Obamacare?

That creates manufacturing jobs or high tech silicon valley jobs (in more places and states than silicon valley Calif itself )?  

I said these people are alienated from both parties - Democrats AND Republicans.  Trump is about as much a friend to mainstream Republican politicians and movers and shakers as he is to Democratic ones.

Trump is their hope that the Republicans too get a kick in the ass.  Trump is the hope.  Hope is all you can have at the beginning of a four year term.  Nobody knows but those people hope.

[carpet baboon]

Obamacare?

That creates manufacturing jobs or high tech silicon valley jobs (in more places and states than silicon valley Calif itself )?  

I said these people are alienated from both parties - Democrats AND Republicans.  Trump is about as much a friend to mainstream Republican politicians and movers and shakers as he is to Democratic ones.

Trump is their hope that the Republicans too get a kick in the ass.  Trump is the hope.  Hope is all you can have at the beginning of a four year term.  Nobody knows but those people hope.

Fair point fly.

And it wasn't just obamacare I was on about. Hasn't a lot of his working reforms been blocked aswell? Not sure as I'm going off my rum soaked memory of half read news articles

[the-goon]

So, an incredulity thread became a thread where some people support Trump. Wild.

My girlfriend is US born to ecuadorian parents (who are both legal residents). She is with me here in mexico right now (you can imagine how mexicans are reacting). In 2 years together this morning is the second time I saw her cry. In her words, all the Poopie everyone went through to get to where they were, to feel like if you work hard you can get ahead in america no matter your skin colour. Well she feels a big dent has been put in that. Its hard to say she is wrong if you go off what Trump has said and the interviews of trump supporters who love how he is "taking the country back". Taking it back from?

A reaction to PC? What does that even mean? Some poor lambs can;t use the N word anymore. or spank the arse of their secretary and instead of manning up that we all have rights, they go and vote in someone who has stated policies which put millions of LEGAL americans at risk of having their lives torn apart? How... courageous of those standing up to PC. Children.

I read somewhere else this morning that (translating it into rugby terms), if you are a white man in america all you see is that blacks and latinos have scored 5 straight tries in your lifetime. And that seems Poopie. They get everything! But its harder to see that you were winning 64-0 in the first half. That is what we are seeing. That combined with an american system where it is not 1 vote each for president. Where the electoral college means that a person residing in a city has a 0.999999 vote. And someone in rural areas gets 1.0000001 of a vote. That's the margin. Clinton had more total votes and loses the election. Anyways, will stick to rugby on here from now on, but had to throw that out there.

PC culture was responsible for 1400 girls being raped for years in Rotherham. The police knew about it but didn't make arrests as it could have disturbed "social cohesion", and they might be called racist. Neighbours of the San Bernadino shooters were afraid to report them to the police when they started acting dodgy because they didn't want to be seen as potentially racist. That is what ppl rallying against. The N word is just a word, a mean one but shouldn't be illegal to say. Sexual assault is already a crime.

So you are saying, because you suffered injustices in the past, now that you are on top you can start dishing it out? What happens when the roles are reversed again? Do you go back to playing the victim?

The America you described (work hard regardless of skin colour) thanks to lefties and the establishment with diversity quotas is slipping away, that is why ppl voted for trump. Just to make it clear, quotas are unequal, there are no exceptions, none.

I'm not going to comment on your personal situation, I don't know enough about it to.

In Rotherham the problem was identifying them as British-Pakastanis rather than just British men. If they were English, they would not have been identified as English-British.

And why the heck do you need to use the 'N' word. Whats the problem with identifying people as Black.

But they were British-Pakastanis or indeed just Pakastani, I don't know if they were necessarily born in the UK. Also what is wrong in saying that if it is true. The media actually said British-Asian, so included hindus, sihks, etc. In Bristol, the diddler gang were of Somalian origin. The common link of all the these gangs were that they were muslim, not their ethnicity or place of birth. The problem with PC is that you can't say that, even if it's true.

If the diddler gang was white, I can assure you they would have been caught 15 years ago! That is the issue.

Regarding the N word, yes you don't need to say it, but it's a word. Banning words is a slippery slope.

The 'N' word is a derogatory word. Why use it when you know it causes offence? Why not respect black people and refer to them by the way they want to be referred to.

The reason why it is wrong to refer to them by their ethnic origins is because it incites (rather thick) people to hate.
I believe Jimmy Saville was a Christian. Does that mean all Christians are paedeophiles?

I don't use the word. But I disagree with sending someone to jail for words. I would rather someone expressed racist views and then be discredited using logic and facts and perhaps changing their mind, then for them to hold their tongue and let their views fester.

Ah the strawman logical fallacy, I never said ALL muslims. Please try harder.

Well you know what also incites hate. One group of ppl raping and abusing girls because they are of another group, and then the abusers getting special treatment because they are of a certain group. Most ppl can differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. Perhaps you are projecting your bias onto other ppl?

Anyway, it's views like yours that has held to the rise of Trump, and it isn't going away. If you don't like it, you only have yourself to blame.

You would like to use the word though. Explain to me then, why would you want to call someone something they find disrespectful and offensive? People will not end up in court/jail for calling someone a the 'N' word. They might end up in court/jail though for being racist or inciding people to hate.

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. And D Trump getting elected doesn't make racism, sexism or homophobia right.

Listen Sin, you don't know me. You know nothing about me. Stop trying smear me just because I'm wiping the floor with you. YOU CAN'T READ MY MIND! You have lost the argument a long time ago. now you are just trying call me racist to discredit me. You are a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity as you are completely incapable of sticking to the issue, and believe you CAN READ MINDS.

Inciting hate, give me a break. How do you think sending someone to jail for words is ok? Inciting violence against an individual fine, we have some common ground. But "hate", defined by who? You? The media? The state? how do you not see what road this leads us down?

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective <-- more mind reading. It's almost like you're making this up as you dig deeper and deeper.

Wipe the floor away with me. That won't change my opinion (why are you worried about my opinion anyway if its so worthless). Might I add you know absolutely nothing about me to know that I ''am a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity .... etc''

Can you give me a link to a newspaper article to someone who was sent to jail for using the 'N' word. I can only find an article about someone who ended up in court about it, but his case was dismissed as it seemingly was used in a friendly banter hip hop way and the person who used it wasn't a racist. I think the courts would adjudicate on a hate crime - not me. I wouldn't have the power to jail someone for using it.

Yes, sin. I have, the reason why I think that is in the very sentence you quoted, you just cropped it out.

Again you have missed the point, and not actually answered what i've said.

It will be pretty obvious to 3rd parties who won this debate, I'm done. This won't go anywhere productive.

[SecretFly]

Lads! Lads! Abridge! Abridge! Please!

[Sin é]

So, an incredulity thread became a thread where some people support Trump. Wild.

My girlfriend is US born to ecuadorian parents (who are both legal residents). She is with me here in mexico right now (you can imagine how mexicans are reacting). In 2 years together this morning is the second time I saw her cry. In her words, all the Poopie everyone went through to get to where they were, to feel like if you work hard you can get ahead in america no matter your skin colour. Well she feels a big dent has been put in that. Its hard to say she is wrong if you go off what Trump has said and the interviews of trump supporters who love how he is "taking the country back". Taking it back from?

A reaction to PC? What does that even mean? Some poor lambs can;t use the N word anymore. or spank the arse of their secretary and instead of manning up that we all have rights, they go and vote in someone who has stated policies which put millions of LEGAL americans at risk of having their lives torn apart? How... courageous of those standing up to PC. Children.

I read somewhere else this morning that (translating it into rugby terms), if you are a white man in america all you see is that blacks and latinos have scored 5 straight tries in your lifetime. And that seems Poopie. They get everything! But its harder to see that you were winning 64-0 in the first half. That is what we are seeing. That combined with an american system where it is not 1 vote each for president. Where the electoral college means that a person residing in a city has a 0.999999 vote. And someone in rural areas gets 1.0000001 of a vote. That's the margin. Clinton had more total votes and loses the election. Anyways, will stick to rugby on here from now on, but had to throw that out there.

PC culture was responsible for 1400 girls being raped for years in Rotherham. The police knew about it but didn't make arrests as it could have disturbed "social cohesion", and they might be called racist. Neighbours of the San Bernadino shooters were afraid to report them to the police when they started acting dodgy because they didn't want to be seen as potentially racist. That is what ppl rallying against. The N word is just a word, a mean one but shouldn't be illegal to say. Sexual assault is already a crime.

So you are saying, because you suffered injustices in the past, now that you are on top you can start dishing it out? What happens when the roles are reversed again? Do you go back to playing the victim?

The America you described (work hard regardless of skin colour) thanks to lefties and the establishment with diversity quotas is slipping away, that is why ppl voted for trump. Just to make it clear, quotas are unequal, there are no exceptions, none.

I'm not going to comment on your personal situation, I don't know enough about it to.

In Rotherham the problem was identifying them as British-Pakastanis rather than just British men. If they were English, they would not have been identified as English-British.

And why the heck do you need to use the 'N' word. Whats the problem with identifying people as Black.

But they were British-Pakastanis or indeed just Pakastani, I don't know if they were necessarily born in the UK. Also what is wrong in saying that if it is true. The media actually said British-Asian, so included hindus, sihks, etc. In Bristol, the diddler gang were of Somalian origin. The common link of all the these gangs were that they were muslim, not their ethnicity or place of birth. The problem with PC is that you can't say that, even if it's true.

If the diddler gang was white, I can assure you they would have been caught 15 years ago! That is the issue.

Regarding the N word, yes you don't need to say it, but it's a word. Banning words is a slippery slope.

The 'N' word is a derogatory word. Why use it when you know it causes offence? Why not respect black people and refer to them by the way they want to be referred to.

The reason why it is wrong to refer to them by their ethnic origins is because it incites (rather thick) people to hate.
I believe Jimmy Saville was a Christian. Does that mean all Christians are paedeophiles?

I don't use the word. But I disagree with sending someone to jail for words. I would rather someone expressed racist views and then be discredited using logic and facts and perhaps changing their mind, then for them to hold their tongue and let their views fester.

Ah the strawman logical fallacy, I never said ALL muslims. Please try harder.

Well you know what also incites hate. One group of ppl raping and abusing girls because they are of another group, and then the abusers getting special treatment because they are of a certain group. Most ppl can differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. Perhaps you are projecting your bias onto other ppl?

Anyway, it's views like yours that has held to the rise of Trump, and it isn't going away. If you don't like it, you only have yourself to blame.

You would like to use the word though. Explain to me then, why would you want to call someone something they find disrespectful and offensive? People will not end up in court/jail for calling someone a the 'N' word. They might end up in court/jail though for being racist or inciding people to hate.

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective. And D Trump getting elected doesn't make racism, sexism or homophobia right.

Listen Sin, you don't know me. You know nothing about me. Stop trying smear me just because I'm wiping the floor with you. YOU CAN'T READ MY MIND! You have lost the argument a long time ago. now you are just trying call me racist to discredit me. You are a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity as you are completely incapable of sticking to the issue, and believe you CAN READ MINDS.

Inciting hate, give me a break. How do you think sending someone to jail for words is ok? Inciting violence against an individual fine, we have some common ground. But "hate", defined by who? You? The media? The state? how do you not see what road this leads us down?

Most people don't differentiate between individuals and an entire collective <-- more mind reading. It's almost like you're making this up as you dig deeper and deeper.

Wipe the floor away with me. That won't change my opinion (why are you worried about my opinion anyway if its so worthless). Might I add you know absolutely nothing about me to know that I ''am a pathetic, smug, entitled brat devoid of any intellectual integrity .... etc''

Can you give me a link to a newspaper article to someone who was sent to jail for using the 'N' word. I can only find an article about someone who ended up in court about it, but his case was dismissed as it seemingly was used in a friendly banter hip hop way and the person who used it wasn't a racist. I think the courts would adjudicate on a hate crime - not me. I wouldn't have the power to jail someone for using it.

Yes, sin. I have, the reason why I think that is in the very sentence you quoted, you just cropped it out.

Again you have missed the point, and not actually answered what i've said.

It will be pretty obvious to 3rd parties who won this debate, I'm done. This won't go anywhere productive.

Enjoy your win

[Guest]

No miaow - it's just that a question can often provide a mirror.  Ageing ,white, males with little or no education are forever being ordered to look in a mirror.  I'm providing one for their critics.

When is a bigot a bigot?  

Interesting, what do you mean by "looking in the mirror"? Do you believe that it is solely the social group you referred to who have to do this?

Your final statement does have the hollow echoes of "Brexit means Brexit", but I'll have a go. Bigotry is different from naivety, and even ignorance, in a way. Naivety can be forgiven in the young and uneducated. Ignorance, even can also be forgiven: after all, we are all ignorant in our own ways. The world is such that we cannot all spend our time expanding our minds and experiences in ways that challenge and overwhelm the ignorance that we each have.

However, when ignorance is wielded as a banner to be proud of, or exerted in ways that have tangible effects, either explitictly or by reinforcing pervasive inequalities that exist in this world, then that ignorance should be something to be challenged at every turn. This is where ignorance becomes bigotry. It is not a matter of inexperience or a lack of education.

It is a sense of turning away from things in the world that are known to the person, yet choosing to belittle and destroy them, even when the intentions are for good. Generally speaking, we are aware that we live in a world where we are all inherently, as human beings, equal, in that we all suffer, that no-one is divine. That doesn't mean we are all equally able, a common misconception of the ambitions of equality. That would demand that we build a world where everyone takes the stairs, despite it being evident that not everyone can do so. Therefore, we amend our landscape accordingly.

Bigotry disparages these aims. It is the repeated and sustained reinforcement of regression and division of human beings. In this sense, an anti racist can be a bigot: yet you have to question, in a world where there is inherent and systemic racism, is it quite the same to have a resentment and anger towards white people that has been fostered from oppression from a young age, as it is for a white person to then return that bigotry because "the black person is angry, saying mean things, and equality means I should be able to say things back"? It's messy and nuanced, so looking for broad sweeping statements or maxims don't really cut it, but generally speaking I think "Do unto others..." is about as a good as I could hope to summon. Again, that doesn't mean everyone takes the stairs. Labels generally don't help, but perhaps that answers your question sufficiently.

To wrap it up, I'll demonstrate this with an example. There is a particular selfishness and solipsism that often (and wilfully) misinterprets the generally progressive aims of a society, hoping to make the world as good a place for everyone as possible (for surely that should be the aim of a peaceful and well meaning society, otherwise, if you don't want that, then you are, in effect, a fascist who believes in systemic inequality based on trivial barometers of division...race, gender, religion etc.). It's a way of viewing the world in a horrible insular manner, choosing not to sympathise, let alone empathise, with others, and therefore try to justify their own comfort on the grounds of "common sense bigotry" (to be more specific, this can be a normalising of any sort of inequality, something Trump has done exquisitely well, on the grounds of race, religion, and gender). As we've seen a little earlier on this thread, in a really odious manner, the issue of police brutality against black people in America was brought up. This is a phenomenon where a country with historic and still very much ongoing racism against black people is manifesting itself in systemic abuse of power, in the worst kind of cumlination of racial and economic oppression of people based on race. It is evidently not- to hopefully not be crude- a black and white matter of right and wrong, yet surely it is a pitiful thing. Yet what does mikey deduce from this? That's right. It's the fact that his consumption of the circus that is the media is affected by this, and that this phenomenon should go away, should not challenge him, that the whining should stop because it's affecting his life, despite the very obvious fact that he could quite clearly ignore it, something that cannot be done when you are in a position of oppression. This is disgusting. This is the face of bigotry, the knowledge that something atrocious is happening, yet being only concerned with yourself in the most trivial of ways, trying to silence and quell the horror of a group of people who you seemingly have dehumanised to the point of uncaring.

I'd still like to know what you mean by "look in the mirror" as perhaps I'm jumping the gun, but perhaps I might touch on that briefly. This challenging of your position in the world is perhaps what that group dislikes. I'd question whether it is that group specifically that is asked to do so. However, this is undeniably an unequal world based on historical circumstances; racially, through the colonial European countries, in a way which still exists today; on gender, through the preferential treatment men receive in positions of power, despite (generally speaking) men's inherent advantage- physical strength- no longer being a benefit in a more cerebral (or, at least, non physically-centric) system of governance; through religion, where there is a long lineage of persecution, which has now positioned Islam against secular neoliberalism, in part due to geopolitical resources, yet this manifests itself in dehumanising Muslims through bigotry (goat shepherds, terrorists) in a way that creates an us vs. them, that means the populace doesn't care when more unknown and dehumanised civilians are killed in an airstrike. Bigotry is all encompasing: yes, there are problems with the liturgical scripture of Islam that seem anthithetical to the values of making the world as good a place for everyone. Yet what do you do with that? Do you whip up hatred of Muslims on this basis alone, when Christianity has been used for centuries to justify the heinous crimes against much of the world, and still today is used in America to justify its own mythology of Exceptionalism above all other countries, something that continues to blight the world today?

Everyone has to look in the mirror in society. Even at its most benign, a black person in America sees it everyday- regardless of education- when the security guard follows them around a supermarket; when a Muslim in traditional clothing receives fearful looks on public transport; when a gay person has to wash off their rainbow facepaint after Pride before the train journey home, anticipating any abuse them may receive: older, wealthier, white people, often in positions of privilege, do not experience these things. Therefore, there is a naturalising effect, a sense of things as being Universal, or proper and right, to them, because they don't experience societal strife in the same way (other than "whining"...genuinely unbelievable). It's a settling in their ways. It's not as cut and dry as "good and bad", "oppressed and oppressor", but if you just look for simple binaries like that then you're far more likely to end up being on the side of the bigots, supporting and voting for a divide and conquering maniac like Trump, who incidentally cares not a jot for the supporter base he whipped up to elect him into office. It's why, yes, you should query the world, query the power you are able to yield, and realise whether you are doing it for selfish reasons that harm others and reinforce inequality and oppression. Because it's far more likely that without "looking in the mirror", without questioning our ignorance, we will be more likely to believe the deplorable views mikey posts on these boards, which no one wants.

I will finally say this. In terms of uneducated white people, who are receiving a lot of 'blame', there is an economic and social oppression occurring, one just as odious as the above: this is champagne Socialism, where educated but morally 'righteous' people pretend to care about systemic change, yet have too much comfort invested in the status quo to really care about enacting it. That's the commentariat. They are the offshoot of the kind of anti establishment populism that there has been a kick against. Yet I don't think it's as cut and dry as that in terms of 'blame': it's not as if the people who voted for Trump were all characters from Deliverance. They're not backwoods hicks, cut off from the wider world, naive to the ever shrinking world that demystifies "otherness" in all its forms, and hopefully should be lessening the dehumanisation we tack on to others. There is a complicity in his bigotry that they have to own, and they deserve the criticism they will and have received, just like Brexit, for shaking up a system having bought into the more odious aspects of humanity, aligning with people who have pandered to prejudices in order to get the social/economic change that benefits them- almost- alone (Farage and Trump).

I think that answers your question. I'm sure there will be some who disagree.

[SecretFly]

Jesus Miaow! I'll take it in sections. I might be a few days before I can respond though!

[carpet baboon]

Meiow.
Thank you. I agree with every word and wish I could have typed something as clear as you did.
I'm with meiow

[mikey_dragon]

Jesus Miaow!  I'll take it in sections.  I might be a few days before I can respond though!

Just put him on ignore like most Welsh posters have.

[Guest]

Calm down guys

I wouldn't have believed Trump was electable a few months ago, but having followed the election since then, I'm not all that surprised.

People voted for Trump for different reasons, but I have to think the US public is disillusioned with the Obama administration, and perhaps the establishment as a whole.

I've no doubt there are "stupid voters", but there are also "desperate voters", who may fear a vote for Clinton is a vote for the status quo. Something they feel isn't going to improve their quality of life, or help stabilise a world seemingly coming apart at the seams. Something that can be largely attributed to US foreign policy.

I think it's a bad decision, but don't believe it will be as bad as people are making out. I hope not anyway. Trump is one man at the head of an administration. He won't simply be able to impose his will, whatever that may be. There are checks and balances (it's not a dictatorship), and he will face opposition from his political opponents, as well as from within his own party. George W wasn't left to rule the roost, thankfully!

My biggest concern about Trump is that he isn't a statesman, or someone that the international community can easily trust. I think he is divisive, but hopefully he can be more diplomatic than he has been on this vicious campaign, and vicious from both sides.

I think this a succinct and well put post. He is odious and horrible and has tapped into the worst aspects of humanity, and has aped much of fascism's tactics in appealing to people it doesn't really care about through division and creating an artificial enemy. Yet on the other hand, I don't think he believes half the things he says. He's not a moraliser, he's an arch Capitalist, and therefore money, branding, and self preservation is what will dictate his focus. The worry is, quite clearly, he has no scruples on what he says and does in order to self preserve. In the heat of office, this could genuinely be terrible, and he will be as much as a puppet in regards to foreign affairs, for example, as W was, utterly reliant on advisors (he's already hired John Bolton, which is slightly worrying).

In terms of the logistics, munkian is right. He will not have a sympathetic Congress. The worry is, on things like healthcare, the "Tea Party" right and Trump align in trying to decimate that piece of legislation, and open it up to a less regulated method of insurance. That will be one of the bones he will throw to the Main Street Republican base he somehow brought round, yet ultimately he won't really be working for them. He'll probably extend the wall on the border with Mexico, creating jobs/opening it up to contractors, yet he's going to struggle to get Mexico's government to pay for it, unless there are heavy ropes attached to it in terms of bargaining (I dare say this is where he will be very adept).

I think the dismissal of Sanders is redundant. We simply cannot know how he would have done. Evidently he rallied a base in ways that at times even went beyond Obama's rise in 2008. It's far too simplistic to say he would have lost against Trump, because it seems fanciful for someone so obscure to come from nowhere to be elected. It's important to note his approval ratings were staggeringly wide in his favour between the two of them during the nomination campaigns. Clearly, it's tricky to predict: no-one expected Obama to be elected in '08. Few would have expected Clinton to lose this year, let alone to Donald Trump! I believe he would have triumphed where Clinton didn't. Trump would still have rallied his base, but I think Sanders' negatives- or at least, those that would have been played upon by his detractors- would not have alienated as many of the floating voters as Clinton did with her problems: she appeared inauthentic, embroiled in claims of abuse of systemic power, and very much a face for the status quo. Where Sanders would have struggled, unfortunately, would have been when elected: even if Congress were blue, the man is an idealist, and that does not suit the Presidency. He seems very much like a Jimmy Carter to me, better suited to effecting real political change in tangible ways, dragging the debate into more compassionate and progressive ground, rather than the messy pragmatism that is necessarily demanded for the Presidency.

[Guest]

Jesus Miaow!  I'll take it in sections.  I might be a few days before I can respond though!

Just put him on ignore like most Welsh posters have.

Ignor(ance).

You're also doing that thing again where you try to evoke support from lots of imaginary people, pretending they have the same viewpoint as your own, trying to reinforce it as somehow popular and therefore robust. Yet they don't actually exist.

I don't claim to be clued up at all [...]

Empty vessels etc...

[SecretFly]

Sanders is more two faced than Trump.  A hero of the people?  Nope a pontificating angel of the disaffected that said about as much to sully Clinton in his campaign as Trump did - indeed, Trump must have been laughing at the hatchet job Sanders was trying and taking notes as he listened.
But this nobel angel of right against wrong told his people why Clinton was so wrong for America and then told them to forget what he said the first time and go vote for her anyway.

Yep, a good many of them forgot what he said - it was meaningless electioneering (like Trump and Clinton after him).  They forgot what he said and I'd say quite a number of them didn't vote for Clinton.

Nice one Bernie.  He gave Trump half his race.

[Sin é]

Meiow.
Thank you.  I agree with every word  and wish I could have typed something as clear as you did.
I'm with meiow

Me too. Fantastic post meiow.

[Guest]

My lengthy posts above are about all I have to say on this. I may as well get it out all at once. However, as a parting shot on anything in depth, I thought I'd bring it back round to Rugby.

I fervently believe to the bottom of my heart in the idea of equality and of treating others with the respect and compassion you would wish to receive. There are times when this is tricky, because I am only human. However, the premise of working together, of not taking more than your fair share, of everyone contributing to be greater than the sum of our individual parts is surely what our existence should be about? I do not believe in God, at least in the Abrahamic sense, and think that this planet and Universe is about as good as it's going to get, so why not aim for something progressive than regressive, trust in your human instincts, and what feels good and fair and wholesome?

Why not have a world where you're all pulling together, all able to be inspired by each other, to look after those who need it, for everyone to bring their individual merits and strengths to the collective pot, and to not isolate and dehumanise each other as a way of selfish self preservation. Rugby, for me, is the epitome of this. Despite its historical genesis as a sport for the establishment, necessarily benefiting from inequality, and despite its often more unsavoury elements, the idea of people of all shapes, sizes, and abilities contributing to something- to make the sum greater than its constituent parts- is the manifestation of this ideal. It is wonderful to have men who can barely run propping up a scrum, and equally we enjoy the fleet footed dancing wingers jinking through a field of giants. It then becomes perhaps even more wonderful when we see a brief moment of inversion: a prop beating someone on the outside, a winger pulling down a rampaging giant with ball in hand. It's only made wonderful in the knowledge that these are elements of the collective, that these exceptional circumstances are only briefly possible because of the team nature of the game, reliant on variety.

Rugby is the artifice of savage competition, controlled in its compartmentalisation into sport, tempered by laws and regulations that (mostly) keep it from spilling over into something dreadful. Yet, as I'm sure everyone can recognise here, there are bonds and connections that you simply cannot replicate away from a Rugby club due to the nature of the game, the nature of the collective, and the feeling that can bring. True, it relies on an opponent, something to direct your ire against temporarily, but that is why it is so important to let go of the competition after 80 minutes, to group together after the game, and widen the collective community beyond your own team and club. It is honestly something that is almost sacrosanct in my mind, something that should be protected and nurtured, and the values of the collective should be replicated more often in a world and global society that often tries to isolate and disassociate us from each other, to champion consumerism and self fashioning over connection.

Donald Trump has harnessed the worst elements of human prejudice to gain power, something that he wants solely for himself, and not to be a figurehead for the collective good. It's generally good to read so many from this online Rugby community are wary and disappointed in him as they are. He is the anthithesis of the best values of Rugby, and we should be able to recognise that, and feel pity for an America that may well become more divided and more fraught as a result of his election. In the meantime, let's try not to replicate this horror in our own political worlds, instead focusing on what is good in life, and one of those things- quite evidently- is a game that matters a great deal to us.

To paraphrase, Sport, and Rugby, isn't a matter of life and death: it's more important than that. We'd do well to remember it.

[Guest]

Sanders is more two faced than Trump.  A hero of the people?  Nope a pontificating angel of the disaffected that said about as much to sully Clinton in his campaign as Trump did - indeed, Trump must have been laughing at the hatchet job Sanders was trying and taking notes as he listened.
But this nobel angel of right against wrong told his people why Clinton was so wrong for America and then told them to forget what he said the first time and go vote for her anyway.

Yep, a good many of them forgot what he said - it was meaningless electioneering (like Trump and Clinton after him).  They forgot what he said and I'd say quite a number of them didn't vote for Clinton.

Nice one Bernie.  He gave Trump half his race.

I'd personally disagree. He took a long time to even mention the email server issue, deliberately trying to stay above the muck. Evidently it wasn't possible. Clinton was waring him down. This is politics. Michael Dukakis would be a very reliable lesson in this regard; the limitations and failures of trying to remain pure in a very dirty system. As I said, he is not a pragmatist, and his act of pragmatism- supporting Hillary over Donald Trump- hardly feels like a sell out when so many of Trump's public utterances of division are what Sanders has fought against his whole life.

I think you're employing a common and unfair criticism of the left, even in your language: he's a hypocriticial "nobel angel". This idea that progressivism must be so much purer, to the point of divine, non human levels, than conservative politics and politicians is what holds them back. Evidently, Sanders worked in pulling Clinton to the 'left', even if just superficially. Yet he may well have ended up as Chair of the Senate Budget, a position where he could hold Clinton to account in terms of her more progressive, social claims. Had he not, and had she not enacted what she claimed to as a result of his fierce competition against her, then he would undoubtedly have become a vocal critic of her as he always has been of Capitol Hill's lack of progressive legislature. He is not a politician to be bought off for self serving means, as I think you're suggesting, and the idea that he aided Trump is unfair and untrue.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Lads!  Lads!   Abridge!  Abridge!  Please!

Abridge is in Essex, just the right sort of place to elect a clown like Trump (I used to live around the corner from Abridge, so I have personal experience).

The same sort of people that voted for Brexit, voted for Trump. The UKIP type voters, they don't believe all the lies that are told " I am going to build a wall all along the Mexican border and the Mexicans are going to Pay for it", I will deport the 10M Mexicans living illegally in the USA" "We will spend £XXXXXXXXX on the NHS that we pay to Europe" "All the Eastern Europeans living over here will be sent back home creating jobs for British people". They don't believe it, they just want change; unfortunately they do not understand that change comes at a price, like the now expected cost of Brexit, £20Billion. Putting import taxes or blocks on trade with countries like China will do no good unless the rest of the world does the same, but Trump is an isolationist. All it will do is create inflation in the USA for every day goods as they do not manufacture their own and cannot compete with Chinese or Indian labour costs.

Trump has simply lied his way to the White House; the anti establishment candidate? Have you seen the list of probable appointees for the big jobs, all establishment political insiders.

The first thing Farrage said after the Brexit vote, was that it would be unreasonable to send back any of the 3M EU workers working here already.

Would either vote have gone the way it did if that had been stated from the start.

Now that all the Trump promised tax changes have been worked out, rather than Robin Hood, it looks like the Sherriff of Nottingham, only the rich will benefit.

All politicians and aspiring Head Honchos are the same, Lying Bast**ds that will do anything to advance their personal cause.

The Russians are now saying that they were in contact with the Trump team all through the elections.............................. hacked emails etc.

[profitius]

Why vote for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doAw7H2Ar5M


And after Trump won.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voBfGOpqDV4&t=937s

[SecretFly]

Lads!  Lads!   Abridge!  Abridge!  Please!

Abridge is in Essex, just the right sort of place to elect a clown like Trump (I used to live around the corner from Abridge, so I have personal experience).

The same sort of people that voted for Brexit, voted for Trump. The UKIP type voters

But I voted for Trump....virtually - in pseudo reality..... and I'm nice and cosy....

[Notch]

It's sad for some.  It's hope for others.  Some are happy.  Every election has a winner and a loser.  Had Clinton won would we be hearing sighs of it being a sad day?

I wasn't speaking to the wider situation so much as saying that I have friends and family in America who are experiencing more than the disappointment or disillusionment of backing the wrong horse in an election- they are experiencing fear that just like Brexit this will unleash a wave of violence and intolerance that will directly threaten the physical wellbeing of either them or someone they care about. We are all connected in various ways, and already the stories of foreigners, members of the LGBT community, immigrants and women suffering intimidation and violence are rolling in. I empathise with my friends, my brother, my sister-in-law and my nephew who is an American citizen by birth. I do not wish my nephew to grow up in a country where hatred is normalised and endorsed. I do not wish my young nieces to grow up in a world where the most powerful leader on the world stage openly jokes and boasts about sexually assaulting women. I do not wish for my friends to live in fear of their country becoming more intolerant of diversity and less safe for them to live in.

My sadness and anger has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, who I do not like or respect or think would make a good President. It has nothing to do with the economy, or the minutiae of policy. It is only to do with the fear that people close to me could become victims of the violence which is becoming normalised and accepted in the USA, either directly or tangentially, and the disgust that the youngest members of my family may grow up in a world that broadcasts the message that this is ok.

I'm glad you are nice and cosy. I'm glad that you can joke about this, while others live in fear. Not everyone is so lucky. People I love are living in fear of a mob mentality that may turn on them and put them or their families in danger. I hope that clarifies things for you. It is my last word on the topic.

[SecretFly]

Notch.  I keep my private self to myself mostly.  But for what it's worth, I have family in America - a good few of them. American born, Irish born, some there since the 50s, other there since the 80s.    
And of course, America being a big place, some of them will probably have different attitudes to election night than your friends and family; though I've only talked with one during the election and have yet to catch up on post-election thoughts.

But, just like Brexit, my opinion is that the fear and tears are a pandemic over-reaction to a man entering the White House.  Did your American family fret so much about society melting when the gunslinger Bush came into office?  And if they did, then they'll realise how far back his Presidency seems now and America is still mostly in one piece.  They should also note how vicious America looked before Trump came on the scene as a candidate.  Will Trump be blamed for starting all that, even though he didn't?  Wasn't that rawness created on the watch of the liberal, young, black American President who offered so much hope eight years ago?

The sense of shock and tears and internet emoting is to me a melodramatic over-reaction.  And why should those who see hope in voting for Trump (above the usual candidates) not vote for him simply to have a section of America feel happy that yet again the cute 'liberal' all-round good guy/girl got into office and they can all sleep soundly?  Look at heartland towns - the poverty, the waste, the lack of interest - and tell me those Americans who have little hope left should once again sacrifice their hopes to soothe the fears of those now demonstrating in the streets?

[Sin é]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

[Guest]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

No he hasn't. That behaviour existed in the dark hearts of racists, misogynists and homophobes long before the election, and that mentally will continue to be opposed by the wider public. It hasn't been normalised, and it wont be.

Why bring gays into it? I do know that a group of gay activists were active in their support for Trump. Their spokesman said as much on a BBC interview last night. There's enough faults with Trump without having to add to the list. That same gay activist also claimed that Trump tends to employ people from the gay community.

[Rory_Gallagher]

To be fair - this chat of hatred, as if this is something that is going to be new under Trump, is extraordinarily myopic. Many, who are not necessarily part of LGBT, or foreign or part of a "minority" already feel marginalised, neglected and ignored. Many, particularly those from working class areas, are subjected to mockery and treated with sustain by supposedly "educated" and "higher class" members of society. Those who might justifiably have concerns surrounding unchecked mass immigration, the destruction of their culture and religion, national sovereignty, horribly destructive foreign policies, global free trade and so on...are treated as if they are some sort of extinct dinosaurs who should have no place in society. I know very well that those reading my list will already have certain perceptions of my character, simply by reading it. Well, I mean this with no disrespect, but the truth is that many display an alarming ignorance towards those concerns. They are very real for many people and deserve more than vitriolic judgement and torment. Surely the Brexit result and the vote for Trump suggests this considering the sheer number of voters. Surely to merely write them off as racist, homophobic or whatever buzzword of your choice is the very definition of bigotry and intolerance.

There are also, you know, the genuine victims of liberal foreign policies directly influenced by western intervention. Those who genuinely do fear for their lives each day, not fear of petty insults (that affects us all - I am not downplaying the nastiness of it) but fear of actual torture or death for themselves or their family. A quick death is not even a reality for many of these people. Most of the victims are the very groups (homosexuals, muslims, minorities) that we pretend to care for in our own society. Personally, it comes across as phoney concern when this is going on, as a direct result of our own previous government as we pat ourselves on the back as the progressive moral dictators.

What I strongly oppose is the idea that bigotry and intolerance applies to only one set of people, and hatred only counts if it is towards certain groups. The hypocrisy and double standards is alarming, and many have called it for what it is. If there isn't going to be balance, this is the result. Trump is merely the symptom of a much larger problem; ignored, marginalised and disrespected voters who have simply had enough of the status quo.

Also, I would happily discuss each and every point with anyone on these forums via PM (when I get the chance, I am very busy at the minute) if they wish me to clarify my own personal opinions.

[SecretFly]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

Blacks were being shot dead by white police officers before Trump entered the scene.  Don't set up Trump to be answerable for what he didn't create. Don't try that. This isn't Year One for American racism or homophobia.
But virtually He alone highlighted the divisions - those real divisions.  Clinton ran a campaign pretending that everything was ok - America is the best place in the world, 'let's all get along and be together in wonderful Americanness'.  
Fine empty speech making that wasn't honest and doesn't solve anything.  
As one political commentator on the night said (CNN), the American people have been hearing from different Presidents of different colours with very different world views that things were going to be better.  20 years they'd been hearing about it and never seeing any real efforts to attack the divisions - 'cause I suppose the International dimension is always prioritised both in terms of efforts and funding.
Trump at least addressed the Truth that NO, America is not neat and united and getting along all together in rainbow love.  He said that was a crap fluffy lie and that serious work is needed to really attack the divisions in America.  And in doing that telling, he stepped on the toes of the sensitive who want to dream that the current chaos - which leads on to white cops killing black men in the street - is not really the reality at all, and that together in some sort of big national hug of love they can solve all issues.
The real world laughs at such naivety.  America will only find some sort of relief in again looking seriously in a legal and funding and economic sense at Itself and pushing the International Dimension - the world Leader dimension - to the fringes.  America thinking of itself.

Trump might be another false dawn but at least he didn't bullschidt the American people with shallow 'love one another' speeches.  They don't work.

[Rory_Gallagher]

The first clarification that I should probably make clear is that I believe Trump to be an arrogant, loud-mouthed, disrespectful git. He doesn't represent my views or opinions. I wouldn't have voted at all if I were an American.

[Guest]

To be fair - this chat of hatred, as if this is something that is going to be new under Trump, is extraordinarily myopic. Many, who are not necessarily part of LGBT, or foreign or part of a "minority" already feel marginalised, neglected and ignored. Many, particularly those from working class areas, are subjected to mockery and treated with sustain by supposedly "educated" and "higher class" members of society. Those who might justifiably have concerns surrounding unchecked mass immigration, the destruction of their culture and religion, national sovereignty, horribly destructive foreign policies, global free trade and so on...are treated as if they are some sort of extinct dinosaurs who should have no place in society. I know very well that those reading my list will already have certain perceptions of my character, simply by reading it. Well, I mean this with no disrespect, but the truth is that many display an alarming ignorance towards those concerns. They are very real for many people and deserve more than vitriolic judgement and torment. Surely the Brexit result and the vote for Trump suggests this considering the sheer number of voters. Surely to merely write them off as racist, homophobic or whatever buzzword of your choice is the very definition of bigotry and intolerance.

There are also, you know, the genuine victims of liberal foreign policies directly influenced by western intervention. Those who genuinely do fear for their lives each day, not fear of petty insults (that affects us all - I am not downplaying the nastiness of it) but fear of actual torture or death for themselves or their family. A quick death is not even a reality for many of these people. Most of the victims are the very groups (homosexuals, muslims, minorities) that we pretend to care for in our own society. Personally, it comes across as phoney concern when this is going on, as a direct result of our own previous government as we pat ourselves on the back as the progressive moral dictators.

What I strongly oppose is the idea that bigotry and intolerance applies to only one set of people, and hatred only counts if it is towards certain groups. The hypocrisy and double standards is alarming, and many have called it for what it is. If there isn't going to be balance, this is the result. Trump is merely the symptom of a much larger problem; ignored, marginalised and disrespected voters who have simply had enough of the status quo.

Also, I would happily discuss each and every point with anyone on these forums via PM (when I get the chance, I am very busy at the minute) if they wish me to clarify my own personal opinions.

Absolutely, and it is a glaring hypocrisy.

[Guest]

Anyone else notice that the BBC are copying the Al Jazeera format?

[SecretFly]

The first clarification that I should probably make clear is that I believe Trump to be an arrogant, loud-mouthed, disrespectful git. He doesn't represent my views or opinions. I wouldn't have voted at all if I were an American.

I share that opinion.

But then many Generals of the past had the same dubious qualities.  George Patton was no darling, but a sneering pompous ass.  Yet he designed methods of offence that was designed specifically to keep as many of his men alive as possible.  He had a cold brutal heart but it was there somewhere when you ignored the bluster.
Did any of you have grumbling, grunting misogynistic grandparents?  Male or Female?  Did it matter?  Didn't they give their kids a good upbringing and allow those children then to give you a good head start?  He doesn't have to be loveable, photogenic or nice - he has to do a job and let's hope for America and us that he get's down to work and does a decent job.  Would it ever be a perfect job?  I doubt it.  But he'll be hounded all the way by Democrats that will try to get in his way every step of the way - just like the Republicans did to Obama.

[Rory_Gallagher]

The first clarification that I should probably make clear is that I believe Trump to be an arrogant, loud-mouthed, disrespectful git. He doesn't represent my views or opinions. I wouldn't have voted at all if I were an American.

I share that opinion.

But then many Generals of the past had the same dubious qualities.  George Patton was no darling, but a sneering pompous ass.  Yet he designed methods of offence that was designed specifically to keep as many of his men alive as possible.  He had a cold brutal heart but it was there somewhere when you ignored the bluster.
Did any of you have grumbling, grunting misogynistic grandparents?  Male or Female?  Did it matter?  Didn't they give their kids a good upbringing and allow those children then to give you a good head start?  He doesn't have to be loveable, photogenic or nice - he has to do a job and let's hope for America and us that he get's down to work and does a decent job.  Would it ever be a perfect job?  I doubt it.  But he'll be hounded all the way by Democrats that will try to get in his way every step of the way - just like the Republicans did to Obama.

I share those opinions regarding Trump and I wouldn't vote for him, but I know there are those who had legitimately good reasons to vote for him. I'm not going to insult his voters and presume to know anything about their character, which many here should maybe consider doing as well. Strangely, I seem to be able to be friends with both those who would vote for Clinton and those who would vote for Trump.

I also agree that the alarmist reaction to Trump (as with Brexit) is ridiculous. Yeah, he is a pretty crappy choice at the end of the day, but he isn't Satan incarnate, prepared to bring back slavery and chain women to the kitchen sink.

[SecretFly]

I also agree that the alarmist reaction to Trump (as with Brexit) is ridiculous. Yeah, he is a pretty crappy choice at the end of the day, but he isn't Satan incarnate, prepared to bring back slavery and chain women to the kitchen sink.

He isn't? Well, I genuinely thought he might bring that in. I thought it might be a good policy and then it might catch on in other jurisdictions. Oh well, maybe that'll come in the second term.

[Rory_Gallagher]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

I wonder whether many people were concerned with the previous government's attitude towards women/homosexuals/minorities when they were strongly allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia and have been supporting "moderate" rebels in the Middle East who would be considered "extremists" if they lived in the West? I wonder.

I would suggest they seemed content to normalise awful behaviours.

[Sin é]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

No he hasn't. That behaviour existed in the dark hearts of racists, misogynists and homophobes long before the election, and that mentally will continue to be opposed by the wider public. It hasn't been normalised, and it wont be.

Why bring gays into it? I do know that a group of gay activists were active in their support for Trump. Their spokesman said as much on a BBC interview last night. There's enough faults with Trump without having to add to the list. That same gay activist also claimed that Trump tends to employ people from the gay community.

I mention gays because they are a likely target as well, now that the Donald has taken the lid off like (like the way racist attacks have increased in the UK since Brexit).

[Guest]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

No he hasn't. That behaviour existed in the dark hearts of racists, misogynists and homophobes long before the election, and that mentally will continue to be opposed by the wider public. It hasn't been normalised, and it wont be.

Why bring gays into it? I do know that a group of gay activists were active in their support for Trump. Their spokesman said as much on a BBC interview last night. There's enough faults with Trump without having to add to the list. That same gay activist also claimed that Trump tends to employ people from the gay community.

I mention gays because they are a likely target as well, now that the Donald has taken the lid off like (like the way racist attacks have increased in the UK since Brexit).

Why are they more likely to be targeted because Trump won the election? What is it that he's taken the lid off? As far as I'm aware; Trump isn't a homophobe. So if gays are being targeted more, it's hardly his fault.

I don't like that Trump was elected, but it would be wrong for me to turn on those who elected him. That would be anti democratic. They have their reasons, and it's a democratic choice that must be respected.

[Sin é]

Well Fly, I hope none of your family in the US are black, female, gay or undocumented.

The problem with Trump is that he has now normalised these awful behaviours.

Blacks were being shot dead by white police officers before Trump entered the scene.  Don't set up Trump to be answerable for what he didn't create.  Don't try that.  This isn't Year One for American racism or homophobia.
But virtually He alone highlighted the divisions - those real divisions.  Clinton ran a campaign pretending that everything was ok - America is the best place in the world, 'let's all get along and be together in wonderful Americanness'.  
Fine empty speech making that wasn't honest and doesn't solve anything.  
As one political commentator on the night said (CNN), the American people have been hearing from different Presidents of different colours with very different world views that things were going to be better.  20 years they'd been hearing about it and never seeing any real efforts to attack the divisions - 'cause I suppose the International dimension is always prioritised both in terms of efforts and funding.
Trump at least addressed the Truth that NO, America is not neat and united and getting along all together in rainbow love.  He said that was a crap fluffy lie and that serious work is needed to really attack the divisions in America.  And in doing that telling, he stepped on the toes of the sensitive who want to dream that the current chaos - which leads on to white cops killing black men in the street - is not really the reality at all, and that together in some sort of big national hug of love they can solve all issues.
The real world laughs at such naivety.  America will only find some sort of relief in again looking seriously in a legal and funding and economic sense at Itself and pushing the International Dimension - the world Leader dimension - to the fringes.  America thinking of itself.

Trump might be another false dawn but at least he didn't bullschidt the American people with shallow 'love one another' speeches.  They don't work.

I didn't say Trump created all these problems. I said that he has made it normal for to mock and attack the most vulnerable in society.

Its pretty obvious that the US is racially divided (I don't know if you are old enough to recall the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King). Most people thought it was momentous that a black man was elected US President. A woman seems to be a step too far yet.

The US has a very low unemployment rate (less than 5%) don't most people hold down two or 3 jobs to make ends meet and when all the illegals are deported they probably will have to hold down 4 or 5 jobs to keep the economy going.

[wolfball]

Some great comments being made- to summarise a few thoughts I had as I read through them:

1) The incomes of all global economic groups have increased for the last 20 years with one massive exception - the middle class of developed democracies.
2) This will get worse. As not only will middle class incomes continue to stagnate, working/poor incomes will also stagnate decline as greater tech/automation and slow moving government combine to create an ever larger group of people who are left behind.
3) That group will lash out. As is fully understandable. But will they lash out at corporations who off shore jobs/implement automation, or political parties who block new ways of helping the working class with reeducation or a UBI? Or will they lash out at those who are always lashed out at? The other. The people who don't look, talk or think like them? The latter is apparent.
4) Certain people will take advantage of this situation. Trump. Le Pen. UKIP. There will be more.
5) With all that being said, I have little doubt that Trump is a uniquely dangerous president as he is against those parts of the system which would reign in his power.. If he acts a generic republican president (ala Bush) I disagree with his policies but I am not frightened of them. The issue is he is genuinely unstable - there is the fear. I will be delighted to be wrong on that.
5) The left cried wolf on a series of right wing politicians and so the fears on Trump seem like the typical hand wringing. This was a mistake. Trump is not Romney.
6) On maoiw's excellent long post RE mirrors etc. You didn't directly mention it, but you seemed to be invoking the veil of ignorance? Just to clarify, the veil of ignorance is the idea that you imagine creating a new society but when designing rules for your society, you are ignorant of what social position you yourself will occupy. You could turn out to be a white male farmer in Idaho or an indian cobbler in Kerala or a russian lesbian. With that starting point, how would you build the society? The idea of the thought experiment is to recognise that when some other have seeming advantages, systemic or otherwise, what we all should want is a world that enables all people to flourish. That is a mirror I will happily look at.
7) Dishwashing machines will free women from Trump's sink chaining. (see point 2 Re: automation )

[SecretFly]

Support for the EU in Europe as increased since Brexit. Approval ratings of the EU in France is 67% (risen 10% since Brexit). 71% of French support the Euro.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKCN1002A0

Coming late to this one, apologies..... but you still believe in Polls sin? You're a masochist.... but carry on.

[SecretFly]

Its pretty obvious that the US is racially divided (I don't know if you are old enough to recall the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King). Most people thought it was momentous that a black man was elected US President. A woman seems to be a step too far yet.

The US has a very low unemployment rate (less than 5%) don't most people hold down two or 3 jobs to make ends meet and when all the illegals are deported they probably will have to hold down 4 or 5 jobs to keep the economy going.

It wasn't obvious to Hillary as she sidestepped it every time she could. And I guess the people who knew it was divided (most people in the world) knew she was bluffing when she did the aspiration evasion stuff about wanting to unite not divide. First you gotta admit the divisions.

On the idea that people didn't vote for her because she was a woman. Don't buy it. It was because Trump was Trump and Clinton was Clinton. It was the personalities that either engaged or didn't and that had nothing to do with gender. Beside, that would be another continuing point of mine - the platitudinous vacuousness of having a campaign at such a time in the world and in America that asked people to vote for another token President. "Forget the policies if'n you don't like'em, forget that you even dislike her - still vote for her 'cause like she's gonna be the first woman President and you'll get a chance to tell your kids you did it and you were there to see it."

Yeah *yawn* - is that it? We just did the first Black man President - isn't it a little early for another historic token?

[Sponsored content]