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]

Could this tread win the award for most tangents any thread has ever taken ? And we are only on page 11 ( kinda knew it would end up as the first post on page 12)

[SecretFly]

Still not sure about how you distinct between a fundamentalist and an extremist, but maybe interpretation is the dividing line if that interpretation leads them to commit violent acts. That's always been my view on what extremism is anyway.

Anyway, it's all semantics, and I'm playing with it. We all know what each means.

I'll try again, damn it, Munch.  
Jesus, you guys are making me work hard tonight!  

Extremism (in my opinion) = Extreme religious views like it's okay to kill gays or it's okay to kill babies during Passover.  Extremists would be people who take literally the words of their Holy books and act on the 'teachings'

Fundamentalists (in my opinion) = those who cannot tolerate those who do not believe in their religion or philosophy and argue until the cows come home with anyone and everyone to try to impose their view on anyone they meet.

[Guest]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum. They are the ones you will find demonstrating outside abortion clinics for example and they might think that that homosexuals can be 'cured'.

Mike Pence, the new Vice President is one.

That description could apply to mainstream Christianity on either side.

I would think a 'fundamentalist' is simply someone who adheres to the fundamentals of their faith, such as the Nicene Creed, for example. Maybe that's semantics, but more accurate in my opinion.

What sides?

I suppose there are more than two sides, but certainly Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical.

Sure it can apply to anyone. Mick Pence is catholic as far as I know (well his background is Irish).

I think they do more than that. They are likely to burn down abortion clinics and be fairly militant in their beliefs. I think Pence blocked birth control on medicare for something like that.

I would agree. It's those who justify extreme measures as acts of faith.

I'm a firm believer in separation between Church and State, but even when they are separate it can get messy. I suppose that's democracy in action though.

[Guest]

Could this tread win the award for most tangents any thread has ever taken ? And we are only on page 11 ( kinda knew it would end up as the first post on page 12)

There's a lot of twists and turns, that for sure.

[SecretFly]

Could this tread win the award for most tangents any thread has ever taken ? And we are only on page 11 ( kinda knew it would end up as the first post on page 12)

You are the victim of Chaos Theory, carpet. Just when you open your mouth and would have been right, you are indeed wrong instead.

Let's discuss Chaos Theory, fellas!

What are you all looking like that at me for? What?...... Oh Poopie! Run Fly!

[Sin é]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

No need for the ad hominem attacks.

I mentioned the present Stormont Gov. because it is an obvious example of not being a democratic institution. If it was Arlene and the DUP would be in sole charge and Sinn Fein would not be in government.

Now do you agree with that statement?

There was no ad hominem attack in my reply, although it was a bit strong.

You mentioned Stormont because you thought it was personal to me. It isn't because I see it for what it is. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a democratically agreed political model (Proportional Representation), and all Parties are representative according to their electoral mandate.

So no, I don't agree with you.

I didn't actually. I mentioned Stormont because its an unusual setup. In Westminister, Scottish Parliament, Dail Eireann, and Welsh Assembly, elected representatives elect the PM/First Minster etc. which is usually the person whose party got the most votes.

And don't be projecting your prejudices onto me please.

It's not that unusual, Sin é. 21 of 28 Western European countries use proportional representation.

So now you're accusing me of being prejudice? You're the gift that keeps giving, Sin é.

Name me a few countries that elect their government the way Stormont does please.

[SecretFly]

Name me a few countries that elect their government the way Stormont does please.

Name a few countries like Ireland (North and South) sin? No border, yes a border - now you see it, now it's gone. One International side, two anthems - not always played, sometimes one, depending on where the team are playing.... some NI athletes representing the southern bit in the Olympics, some NI athletes representing GB.... etc etc

Of course a place so complex trying to stay away from war would act a little different in politics and power.

[Guest]

Still not sure about how you distinct between a fundamentalist and an extremist, but maybe interpretation is the dividing line if that interpretation leads them to commit violent acts. That's always been my view on what extremism is anyway.

Anyway, it's all semantics, and I'm playing with it. We all know what each means.

I'll try again, damn it, Munch.  
Jesus, you guys are making me work hard tonight!  

Extremism (in my opinion) = Extreme religious views like it's okay to kill gays or it's okay to kill babies during Passover.  Extremists would be people who take literally the words of their Holy books and act on the 'teachings'

Fundamentalists (in my opinion) = those who cannot tolerate those who do not believe in their religion or philosophy and argue until the cows come with anyone and everyone to try to impose their view on anyone they meet.

But both can be literalist. Both can be strongly be strongly opposed to those they disagree with, but just one takes it to the extreme of physical violence.

Like I said

[carpet baboon]

Could this tread win the award for most tangents any thread has ever taken ? And we are only on page 11 ( kinda knew it would end up as the first post on page 12)

  You are the victim of Chaos Theory, carpet.  Just when you open your mouth and would have been right, you are indeed wrong instead.

Let's discuss Chaos Theory, fellas!

What are you all looking like that at me for?  What?......   Oh Poopie!  Run Fly!

My favourite theory?
Any thing that can happen, eventually will happen.

That and the many world interpretation of string theory,

Oooo and that one about why we havnt found intelligent life in space yet(forgot it's proper name)

[Guest]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

No need for the ad hominem attacks.

I mentioned the present Stormont Gov. because it is an obvious example of not being a democratic institution. If it was Arlene and the DUP would be in sole charge and Sinn Fein would not be in government.

Now do you agree with that statement?

There was no ad hominem attack in my reply, although it was a bit strong.

You mentioned Stormont because you thought it was personal to me. It isn't because I see it for what it is. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a democratically agreed political model (Proportional Representation), and all Parties are representative according to their electoral mandate.

So no, I don't agree with you.

I didn't actually. I mentioned Stormont because its an unusual setup. In Westminister, Scottish Parliament, Dail Eireann, and Welsh Assembly, elected representatives elect the PM/First Minster etc. which is usually the person whose party got the most votes.

And don't be projecting your prejudices onto me please.

It's not that unusual, Sin é. 21 of 28 Western European countries use proportional representation.

So now you're accusing me of being prejudice? You're the gift that keeps giving, Sin é.

Name me a few countries that elect their government the way Stormont does please.

On proportional representation? Wiki will give you the whole list. I'm sure there isn't a one size fits all though. The model will be shaped to what ever country applies it.

[SecretFly]

But both can be literalist. Both can be strongly be strongly opposed to those they disagree with, but just one takes it to the extreme of physical violence.

Like I said

Yis are all trying to get me mad now! Okay...okay then - two can play at this game! What do you mean "said"? You said nothing. Explain yourself there, Munch. I'm confused.

[Guest]

But both can be literalist. Both can be strongly be strongly opposed to those they disagree with, but just one takes it to the extreme of physical violence.

Like I said

Yis are all trying to get me mad now!  Okay...okay then   -  two can play at this game!  What do you mean "said"?  You said nothing.  Explain yourself there, Munch.  I'm confused.  

Typed?

[SecretFly]

That's what you should'a said (*ahem* I mean typed). You confused me 'cause I know you haven't said a word to me all night

[Guest]

That's what you should'a said  (*ahem* I mean typed).  You confused me 'cause I know you haven't said a word to me all night

Literalist!

[SecretFly]

I'm knackered now.  (Yes, knackered can mean tired and it doesn't have to mean a term offensive to travellers!!!)

I'm knackered.  That was some workout today.  Think I'll go watch a movie to get away from my mind for a few hours.

[SecretFly]

If Notch comes back, tell him to look up Richard Parncutt. That's the answer he seeks.

[Guest]

Enjoy your movie

[wolfball]

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

You got a link to some examples of that?

Okay, here's a preliminary overview - you'll find it when you scroll down. This is the guy but I saw his comments elsewhere than wiki perhaps a year or two ago. Wiki is a quick step search though to get you going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt

The wiki article shows the ideas of an extremist, who rapidly apologised, and now has proceedings being taken against him by his employer. This proves false equivalency of fundamentalism much more than your original point... Fundamentalism that is protected by the social structures around it is the greatest fear; any movement on anything will have an extremist that the members of the movement disavow, as they have in the case you name.

[Cardiff Dave]

Just watched a BBC documentary 'No Where To Go'. It's about people in Dagenham who can no longer afford to pay their rent. Some who have lived in the property since they were a child.
One young mother and child were evicted. Also an elderly woman who is/was a special needs teacher.
There was a couple of really interesting points that stood out for me. One is that these could be the type to vote Brexit. Not stupid, not unemployable, just abandoned by a system that doesn't seem to care.
Another interesting point was when the elderly lady (the special needs teacher) was evicted and living in her car a couple of nights, she rang a Council agency and they said they couldn't help, but pointed her to the Church. Apparently there is a church network helping people just like her by providing shelter in the church as well as food.

The thought occurred to me that "the scourge of the earth" is a refuge for the broken, the desolate.

Probably had good jobs in manufacturing.
Now there's a can of worms.

[SecretFly]

em, ... he's a fundamentalist in my opinion still, wolf; ie, he is intolerant of an alternative view.  The alternative view Must be wrong thinking in his mind-set - therefore death to wrong thinkers, to protect 'correct' opinion, is, at the very least, a legitimate theoretical option for him.

His extremist views, if indeed he had any (and I haven't read enough of his opinions on Global Warming to find out), but such views might potentially revolve more around killing all animals that produce methane gas as a by-product of their digestion.  That would be what I'd consider an extremist Global warming view.  The fundamentalist bit would be him insisting I agree that his view has merit otherwise my head comes off.

[Notch]

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

You got a link to some examples of that?

Okay, here's a preliminary overview - you'll find it when you scroll down. This is the guy but I saw his comments elsewhere than wiki perhaps a year or two ago. Wiki is a quick step search though to get you going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt

Fair enough. Perhaps you should say 'Person' in that case in future. Your issue is not so much to do with being wrong as incorrect use of the plural!

I do cherish him, because he sounds 1000% more interesting that literally every other Musicology Professor ever.

[SecretFly]

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

You got a link to some examples of that?

Okay, here's a preliminary overview - you'll find it when you scroll down. This is the guy but I saw his comments elsewhere than wiki perhaps a year or two ago. Wiki is a quick step search though to get you going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt

Fair enough. Perhaps you should say 'Person' in that case in future. Your issue is not so much to do with being wrong as incorrect use of the plural!

I do cherish him, because he sounds 1000% more interesting that literally every other Musicology Professor ever.

No, I'll word things my way when arguing points in freeflow, Notch But thanks for the advice.
On the Professor, I think I'd have to conclude he's probably an asswhole in my book of morals - music or no music.

[Notch]

However the article sounds much more in the tradition of 'A Modest Proposal' than any kind of fundamentalism. You say he's intolerant, but the science around global warming is established enough now that its not something people get to have meaningful opinions on- or at least, if their opinions are different we don't have to tiptoe around them or pretend they are valid or something. You're either right or wrong about it. It's not like if I said that people who deny gravity exists are morons and can safely be ignored would make me a Gravity Theory Fundamentalist. Just be pointing out people don't know the science. Gravity doesn't give a toss if you 'agree' it exists. It's just a verified fact that it does.

He's just trying to write an essay to provoke a response and make people think about the deferred human cost of us f**king everything up. Not saying he isn't a bit of a Muppet but considering he starts off by saying he disavows the death penalty completely you'd have to think that this is all hypothetical and he's hardly dangerous for goodness sake... would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

[SecretFly]

However the article sounds much more in the tradition of 'A Modest Proposal' than any kind of fundamentalism. You say he's intolerant, but the science around global warming is established enough now that its not something people get to have opinions on. You're either right or wrong about it. It's not like if I said that people who deny gravity exists are morons and can safely be ignored would make me a Gravity Theory Fundamentalist. Just be pointing out people don't know the science. He's just trying to write an essay to provoke a response and make people think about the deferred human cost of us f**king everything up.

Maybe there'll come a time for killing scientists that disagree with the 'established' facts after all?

[Notch]

However the article sounds much more in the tradition of 'A Modest Proposal' than any kind of fundamentalism. You say he's intolerant, but the science around global warming is established enough now that its not something people get to have opinions on. You're either right or wrong about it. It's not like if I said that people who deny gravity exists are morons and can safely be ignored would make me a Gravity Theory Fundamentalist. Just be pointing out people don't know the science. He's just trying to write an essay to provoke a response and make people think about the deferred human cost of us f**king everything up.

Maybe there'll come a time for killing scientists that disagree with the 'established' facts after all?

Tell you what. If you can find one, you can kill him.

[SecretFly]

would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

He doesn't look to have the face of a guy who'd be too horrified. Reminds me of a face that would look good in a crisp SS uniform.

[SecretFly]

However the article sounds much more in the tradition of 'A Modest Proposal' than any kind of fundamentalism. You say he's intolerant, but the science around global warming is established enough now that its not something people get to have opinions on. You're either right or wrong about it. It's not like if I said that people who deny gravity exists are morons and can safely be ignored would make me a Gravity Theory Fundamentalist. Just be pointing out people don't know the science. He's just trying to write an essay to provoke a response and make people think about the deferred human cost of us f**king everything up.

Maybe there'll come a time for killing scientists that disagree with the 'established' facts after all?

Tell you what. If you can find one, you can kill him.

Well it's you that would tell him he's wrong and can prove it. You got the noose in your argument already.

[wolfball]

However the article sounds much more in the tradition of 'A Modest Proposal' than any kind of fundamentalism. You say he's intolerant, but the science around global warming is established enough now that its not something people get to have meaningful opinions on- or at least, if their opinions are different we don't have to tiptoe around them or pretend they are valid or something. You're either right or wrong about it. It's not like if I said that people who deny gravity exists are morons and can safely be ignored would make me a Gravity Theory Fundamentalist. Just be pointing out people don't know the science. Gravity doesn't give a toss if you 'agree' it exists. It's just a verified fact that it does.

He's just trying to write an essay to provoke a response and make people think about the deferred human cost of us f**king everything up. Not saying he isn't a bit of a Muppet but considering he starts off by saying he disavows the death penalty completely you'd have to think that this is all hypothetical and he's hardly dangerous for goodness sake... would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

Of a similar vein, I think many people might be amazed at the type of chat (steer the trolley into political opponents? the disabled? old people? babies?) that goes on talking about the trolley problem or the like in first year philosophy classes. Bringing moral intuitions to their sometimes absurd conclusion is something pretty valuable... Though I am not sure at all if this is what this particular lad was at.

[wolfball]

would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

He doesn't look to have the face of a guy who'd be too horrified.  Reminds me of a face that would look good in a crisp SS uniform.  

Well good thing (SS-faced or not) this particular gentleman wields little to no power. Unlike.... what's the name of this thread again?

[Notch]

Well you'd ask him- why do you disagree with almost every other scientist in this field? Then you'd ask- do you work on the boards of any companies with links to the extractive industries?

Just because it's ludicrous some people take money to cast doubt on something that is just accepted as a current working fact in mainstream science doesn't make anybody intolerant. Science can be flawed, thats why we have many, many, many people working in parallel and if they all get the same results and say the same things...

It would be funny, if it wasn't so serious...

[Notch]

would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

He doesn't look to have the face of a guy who'd be too horrified.  Reminds me of a face that would look good in a crisp SS uniform.  

Well good thing (SS-faced or not) this particular gentleman wields little to no power. Unlike.... what's the name of this thread again?

If we don't accede to his demands he may teach literally tens of students about musicology incorrectly.

Or worse... correctly.

[SecretFly]

would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

He doesn't look to have the face of a guy who'd be too horrified.  Reminds me of a face that would look good in a crisp SS uniform.  

Well good thing (SS-faced or not) this particular gentleman wields little to no power. Unlike.... what's the name of this thread again?

Trump, Trump's the name.  The guy Sin accuses of inciting hatred of and probably violence on blacks, gays, women, Muslims, Hillary Clinton and Mexicans.  This guy is just throwing a little idea out there that it might okay at some time to protect the world from deniers of Global Warming (and causes thereof) by frying them in an electric chair or something.  Could be a good idea - think about it - but no offence

[SecretFly]

would his hypothetical world come to pass he'd probably be horrified.

He doesn't look to have the face of a guy who'd be too horrified.  Reminds me of a face that would look good in a crisp SS uniform.  

Well good thing (SS-faced or not) this particular gentleman wields little to no power. Unlike.... what's the name of this thread again?

If we don't accede to his demands he may teach literally tens of students about musicology incorrectly.

Or worse... correctly.

Yeah, Eichmann played a violin and was a harmless sales clerk before expanding his horizons down other avenues.  Goebbels had a PhD in Literature and Mengele was of course a good doctor, loved by his patients.

[wolfball]

em, ... he's a fundamentalist in my opinion still, wolf; ie, he is intolerant of an alternative view.  The alternative view Must be wrong thinking in his mind-set - therefore death to wrong thinkers, to protect 'correct' opinion, is, at the very least, a legitimate theoretical option for him.

His extremist views, if indeed he had any (and I haven't read enough of his opinions on Global Warming to find out), but such views might potentially revolve more around killing all animals that produce methane gas as a by-product of their digestion.  That would be what I'd consider an extremist Global warming view.  The fundamentalist bit would be him insisting I agree that his view has merit otherwise my head comes off.

I agree their are extremist views on many things, even things that I fully agree with the existance of, global warming included. But in a world where the major problem of GW is a lack of movement, focusing on the handful of people who want to push GW responses to their extremes misses the main point of contention. Its the same as how a muslim theocrat in power in Iran and a person with the exact same views in, lets say, Easter Island, are not exactly the same in their power even if their fundamentalist views are identical. I'm alot more worried about the one in Iran. In the same way as if, for example, Merkel had this guys views, I would also be very worried about her.

[SecretFly]

Well you'd ask him- why do you disagree with almost every other scientist in this field? Then you'd ask- do you work on the boards of any companies with links to the extractive industries?

Just because it's ludicrous some people take money to cast doubt on something that is just accepted as a current working fact in mainstream science doesn't make anybody intolerant. Science can be flawed, thats why we have many, many, many people working in parallel and if they all get the same results and say the same things...

It would be funny, if it wasn't so serious...

And don't some people take money because the Global warming Bible has created a plethora of new industries that well connected scientists can cash in on at the same time as they create the narrative that makes these industries popular with a lorrah potential for global growth?
So let's have the investment portfolios of all scientists involved in the uncovering of the 'facts' along with the scientists that resist the purity of the theory that it's all caused by man burning coal, like I'm doing now?  Yeah, good idea.  Lets see where the money trail leads.

[SecretFly]

I agree their are extremist views on many things, even things that I fully agree with the existance of, global warming included. But in a world where the major problem of GW is a lack of movement, focusing on the handful of people who want to push GW responses to their extremes misses the main point of contention. Its the same as how a muslim theocrat in power in Iran and a person with the exact same views in, lets say, Easter Island, are not exactly the same in their power even if their fundamentalist views are identical. I'm alot more worried about the one in Iran. In the same way as if, for example, Merkel had this guys views, I would also be very worried about her.

A fundamentalist and/or Extremist doesn't have to be in power and operating at a dangerous governmental level to be discussed though. We were simply speaking about distinctions between concepts of 'fundamentalism' and 'extremism' - the definitions. The definition doesn't have to deal with whether or not the exponent is in power or not - in any case opinion is power; publishing opinions that are listened to is power. We all have a degree of power in that we simply publish ideas in public. But the main debate is only on the definitions.

[Cardiff Dave]

Global Warming?
What's China doing with our "recycling"? Anyone know?
The same stuff we freely buy and put out for collection once a week coz we're told it's environmentally friendly to do so?
Do they bury it or burn it or wash it with whatever kinds of chemicals to make it usable again?

[SecretFly]

Global Warming?
What's China doing with our "recycling"? Anyone know?
The same stuff we freely buy and put out for collection once a week coz we're told it's environmentally friendly to do so?
Do they bury it or burn it or wash it with whatever kinds of chemicals to make it usable again?

They supposedly bury a good bit of it, just like the un-recyclable stuff, because it's often tough and too expensive to separate a good portion of it. So the stuff that goes into the green bin - the bit that helps save the planet, the bit that recycle centres are becoming more and more fussy about accepting - a good bit of it actually gets the same dirty pointless death as the stuff that can't be recycled.

But don't say it too loudly, we don't want waking up the masses who never research topics.

[profitius]

In the end, when all is said and done, at the end of the day, when the finishing line is crossed, 2016 has been a good year n politics.

[Cardiff Dave]

Global Warming?
What's China doing with our "recycling"? Anyone know?
The same stuff we freely buy and put out for collection once a week coz we're told it's environmentally friendly to do so?
Do they bury it or burn it or wash it with whatever kinds of chemicals to make it usable again?

They supposedly bury a good bit of it, just like the un-recyclable stuff, because it's often tough and too expensive to separate a good portion of it.  So the stuff that goes into the green bin - the bit that helps save the planet, the bit that recycle centres are becoming more and more fussy about accepting - a good bit of it actually gets the same dirty pointless death as the stuff that can't be recycled.

But don't say it too loudly, we don't want waking up the masses who never research topics.

But who is there on site to tell the diff between PVC or PS or PP? Is that stuff nylon or acetal?

And adhesives. Every label has some. Must equate to gallons flowing into the Yangste and out into the open ocean.

[carpet baboon]

Everything you need to know about Donald trump. Steve bannon is going to be his cheif strategist. feel free to look into that loathsome excuse for a human.

[SecretFly]

Elton John is going to be Trump's advisor?  Well I hope people relax now.  It's all going to be decent and liberal after all.

[Cardiff Dave]

Everything you need to know about Donald trump. Steve bannon is going to be his cheif strategist. feel free to look into that loathsome excuse for a human.

I Wiki'd and got as far as "American businessman and media executive, famous for his alt-right views" Sounds like a right engineer. Not a proper Mechanical one though.

[Geen sport voor watjes]

Name me a few countries that elect their government the way Stormont does please.

Name a few countries like Ireland (North and South) sin? No border, yes a border - now you see it, now it's gone. One International side, two anthems - not always played, sometimes one, depending on where the team are playing.... some NI athletes representing the southern bit in the Olympics, some NI athletes representing GB.... etc etc

Of course a place so complex trying to stay away from war would act a little different in politics and power.

Belgium

[Cardiff Dave]

Name me a few countries that elect their government the way Stormont does please.

Name a few countries like Ireland (North and South) sin?  No border, yes a border - now you see it, now it's gone.  One International side, two anthems - not always played, sometimes one, depending on where the team are playing.... some NI athletes representing the southern bit in the Olympics, some NI athletes representing GB.... etc etc

Of course a place so complex trying to stay away from war would act a little different in politics and power.

Belgium

Nul points, shewerly?

[Guest]

Everything you need to know about Donald trump. Steve bannon is going to be his cheif strategist. feel free to look into that loathsome excuse for a human.

That's quite disturbing. Trump being elected as President doesn't concern me as much as those he surrounds himself with. Bannon is a strange one, literally.

With all the accusations of being racist Trump hires Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor. At the very least that is adding fuel to the fire. At the worst....

[carpet baboon]

Everything you need to know about Donald trump. Steve bannon is going to be his cheif strategist. feel free to look into that loathsome excuse for a human.

That's quite disturbing. Trump being elected as President doesn't concern me as much as those he surrounds himself with. Bannon is a strange one, literally.

With all the accusations of being racist Trump hires Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor. At the very least that is adding fuel to the fire. At the worst....

To me it shows you everything about the man.
Hires a well documented racist.
A close aide warns a senator to be careful what they say about trump or face legal repercussions.
Another one says ethics and conflict of interest laws don't apply to the President.
His official government .org website advertising his business.
His children who are supposed to be running his interests for him while he's president part of his Whitehouse staff.

Now I will defend anyone's right to vote for anyone they choose, but can we now drop the he may be an ok president, and pick up the "look he's clearly a f*cking loonatic sociopath who's out for him self and Frak the country" batton

[the-goon]

This article is nonsense, written by an ideologue for ideologues. I don't see any evidence for the -ist, -ist, -ists accusations, only the assumption that it's a given.

For the sweet love of God... he openly boasts about sexually assaulting women. There are now increasing accusations of sexual assaults coming out since those comments became public. He accused a female debate moderator who asked some hard questions of being on her period. and he has a long, long, long history of reducing women to their looks and treating them as objects He is the first presidential candidate I can remember to be endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan and various Neo-Nazi groups. He has suggested a blanket ban on all Muslims entering the USA, and a national database to keep track of them. He openly refers to 'the blacks' and 'the hispanics' as homogenous masses. He suggested that almost all Mexican immigrants to the USA are criminals and rapists but some might be 'good people'. He has said a judge who has found against him is biased because he is 'Mexican'.

You can disagree with my politics, but you CANNOT disagree that this man has said some unbelievably racist things. And I'm not calling out his supporters or anyone else- they are normal people. But thats whats scarier, all the normal people willing to turn a blind eye to this because it doesn't affect him. When we were learning history we were always asked about how people could let fascist regimes and discriminatory regimes happen; the two themes were they didn't realise it was happening until it had gone too far, and they were willing to turn a blind eye to the ugly, hateful side of it. Now I think Trump may well be neutered by the same system that stopped Obama doing what he wanted to do. It's right to be afraid but not right to panic- yet. But peoples refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth that is staring them right in the eyes is frightening, because this is exactly how evil takes root. Not by people being evil but by being willing to deny it and benefit from it.

he openly boasts about sexually assaulting women- wrong- he said they let you do it, ergo consensual.

here are now increasing accusations of sexual assaults coming out since those comments became public- no police reports filed, just media leaks, all have been retracted. Some have found to be DNC donors, hmmm smells fishy.

accused a female debate moderator who asked some hard questions of being on her period- Evidence please, might have happened but not going to listen and believe.

he has a long, long, long history of reducing women to their looks and treating them as objects- not an example. If you are referring to beauty pageants, it's kinda the point of them... Aren't all people objects tho, not to get too philosophical? And if you are taking a sexual angle, if it's consensual what business is of yours?

He is the first presidential candidate I can remember to be endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan and various Neo-Nazi groups- he ignored their endorsement, didn't care, didn't give a moment's notice. Absolutely not a smoking gun to prove Trump is a racist.

He has suggested a blanket ban on all Muslims entering the USA- "until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on". The rest of the quote for you. Also, this was said the day after San Bernadino, tensions were high. It's policy he has expanded on as well. Wouldn't want you to take what he said out of context...

and a national database to keep track of them - it's not a policy, but an idea to discuss. There is no doubt the muslim community pose the largest terrorist threat, more of the same won't fix the issue.

He openly refers to 'the blacks' and 'the hispanics' as homogenous masses.- In what context? This is a nothing statement. Also, isn't this what the left do with Identity politics? Trump was a vote against this. Defo need more clarification here.

He suggested that almost all Mexican immigrants to the USA are criminals and rapists but some might be 'good people'- the quote is referring to illegal immigrants. But yeah, hard to defend that, it was a poor choice of words. What I would gather to be true, is that criminals from Mexico coming to the US would most likely come illegally.

He has said a judge who has found against him is biased because he is 'Mexican'.- he talked about a potential conflict of interest as he wants to build a wall and stop american factories from moving to Mexico. Hardly racist, if anything it attacks the personal integrity of the judge, not that all mexicans have no integrity.

So 1 out of your 10 examples were valid...

[SecretFly]

Now I will defend anyone's right to vote for anyone they choose, but can we now drop the he may be an ok president, and pick up the "look he's clearly a f*cking loonatic sociopath who's out for him self and Frak the country" batton

No can do, carpet. I'm not ready to join the "OMG, I am shaking right now!" brigade.

[mid_gen]

I don't believe Trump is a racist. He's a businessman and doesn't give a monkey's what colour skin people have as long as they're making him money. I don't believe he detests Mexicans particularly either he was just playing the populist card to get the disenfranchised white middle America vote and it worked.

He's not going to win feminist of the year award either for sure. But it's irrelevant really, the voters don't care.

I'm what Trump supporters would call a liberal. You know what, I don't care what Trump did or said on the campaign trail. He's President Trump on Jan 20th, lets see what he actually does.

[Sponsored content]