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".

[aucklandlaurie]

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...

the way I see it is that people concerned with issues like Trump assaulting women.Trump having Ku Klux Klan supporters, Muslims and illegal Mexican immigrants voted for Clinton meanwhile people who were more concerned about having a job and being able to pay next months mortgage payment voted for Trump.

[carpet baboon]

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.

Ok but can you understand people's concerns?
If your gay in America and the vice president openly dosent think you should have the same rights as everyone ( 8 month prison and 10000 dollar fine for a gay couple asking for a marriage licence) and you can be cured (by electro shock therapy no less).
Or a woman when the vice president says you have no rights to your own body (he supports the total ban on abortions regardless of circumstances)
Or being Jewish/black/Hispanic any minority when trump's top advisor is openly racist, anti-Semitic who has championed white nationalism?
And if you can see those concerns can you not question the man himself ?

[Guest]

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.

He may not be a racist, but bringing in Bannon as his Chief strategist rings alarm bells. This is a guy who is, allegedly, an anti semite and racist, and someone who has gave voice to the far right/white supremists through Breitbart. For a guy who claims to want to heal divisions, he's doing a great job of doing the opposite. Not just driving a wedge between ethnic Americans/Democrats, but also those within his own Party as Breitbart put the knife into the likes of Cruz.

[SecretFly]

the way I see it is that people concerned with issues like Trump assaulting women.Trump having Ku Klux Klan supporters, Muslims and illegal Mexican immigrants voted for Clinton meanwhile people who were more concerned about having a job and being able to pay next months mortgage payment voted for Trump.

Well that's the supposed trick.  Keep the 'conversation' through the election about the 'important' stuff - race, gender identity, religion and women (either voting for someone because she's a woman or discussing unwelcome hands-on approaches to them)

But like you say, meanwhile a bulk of people who don't follow the social inclusion daily news, voted for what they wanted - more security in their working lives, more money to save, more jobs to have the money in the first place.  In other words, some square party-poopers voted for un-sexy things.

[aucklandlaurie]

So the sexist wasnt promoting sexy things? Thats a smart move.

[Guest]

Here's an article from someone who knows Bannon very well. Could be a sour grapes article, but his prediction of Trump promoting Bannon to a position of power has proven true.

DailyWire

[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.

Ok but can you understand people's concerns?
If your gay in America and the vice president openly dosent think you should have the same rights as everyone ( 8 month prison and 10000 dollar fine for a gay couple asking for a marriage licence) and you can be cured (by electro shock therapy no less).
Or a woman when the vice president says you have no rights to your own body (he supports the total ban on abortions regardless of circumstances)
Or being Jewish/black/Hispanic any minority when trump's top advisor is openly racist, anti-Semitic who has championed white nationalism?
And if you can see those concerns can you not question the man himself ?

Concerns are concerns - and people who have them will be concerned.  You mentioned a litany of people with concerns.  But still Trump got elected.  This must mean another sector of American society, and a big section, have other priorities and other concerns.  
Trump didn't invent the system (Thank God, some people will say)  - but Trump didn't invent the American method of choosing a Leader, and that meant that he found himself in opposition to/competition with Hillary Clinton.  People with their own personal concerns and priorities voted for Trump - I'm sure there are a list of them too with reasons for being concerned that another habitually interconnected Washington insider would get the job and carry on ignoring them and their concerns in order to keep promoting the social inclusion ones.  
Sometimes a job, work and financial security concerns  trump the Race, Religion, Sexual orientation ones.  On this occasion, the kinda people that vote for people like Trump won.  They don't always do so - but on this occasion, they have.

[aucklandlaurie]

Here's an article from someone who knows Bannon very well. Could be a sour grapes article, but his prediction of Trump promoting Bannon to a position of power has proven true.

DailyWire

Somewhat get the feeling that Ben Shapiro would have loved to have had one of those jobs like White house Chief strategist. If he still has a genuine Employment grievance with his old employer he should take it to a court of competent jurisdiction not just bad mouth Bannon and Trump through the media, in the meantime he always has to promote his radio show in California.

[Guest]

Here's an article from someone who knows Bannon very well. Could be a sour grapes article, but his prediction of Trump promoting Bannon to a position of power has proven true.

DailyWire

Somewhat get the feeling that Ben Shapiro would have loved to have had one of those jobs like White house Chief strategist. If he still has a genuine Employment grievance with his old employer he should take it to a court of competent jurisdiction not just bad mouth Bannon and Trump through the media, in the meantime he always has to promote his radio show in California.

'

You can brush it off as sour grapes, and you might be right, but what he says may also be true. Personally, I don't think he's making it up. He could get called on any lies he tells, and why would he take the risk. There's a lot of information in there that is verifiable, not just opinion.

If we are to damn all that bad mouth the opposition through media then the Trump campaign is hardly as pure as the driven snow. Trump turned on Cruz through Breitbart, for example.

I don't like Trump. I don't like Hilary much but Trump less so. I think it's best to wait and see how his Presidency plays out in the first year or so, but bringing in Bannon as Chief strategist is an extremely poor start.

[beshocked]

Whilst it wasn't the most well received film in the world I think that the film, The Campaign is a fun satire of American politics. Very silly but not that far off the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_(film)

Seems quite relevant at this point of time, might want to watch it if you want a break from the real life reality of Trump in charge.

[carpet baboon]

Well forgetting about the race to the election as let's be honest, we all know they promise a moon on a stick to whoever they think might get them the win, I'm happy to focus on what he has said and done since he won.

And to me his actions and the people he is trusting to help guide him and his policy's is enough for me to say, that in my opinion, he's going to be a absolute disaster for America.
And if my worst fears of the direction he seems intent on taking become true, then the world is taking a rather dark turn.

[Guest]

Whilst it wasn't the most well received film in the world I think that the film, The Campaign is a fun satire of American politics. Very silly but not that far off the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_(film)

Seems quite relevant at this point of time, might want to watch it if you want a break from the real life reality of Trump in charge.

Or this

[Guest]

Well forgetting about the race to the election as let's be honest, we all know they promise a moon on a stick to whoever they think might get them the win, I'm happy to focus on what he has said and done since he won.

And to me his actions and the people he is trusting to help guide him and his policy's is enough for me to say, that in my opinion, he's going to be a absolute disaster for America.
And if my worst fears of the direction he seems intent on taking become true, then the world is taking a rather dark turn.

Could well be.

[SecretFly]

Well forgetting about the race to the election as let's be honest, we all know they promise a moon on a stick to whoever they think might get them the win, I'm happy to focus on what he has said and done since he won.

And to me his actions and the people he is trusting to help guide him and his policy's is enough for me to say, that in my opinion, he's going to be a absolute disaster for America.
And if my worst fears of the direction he seems intent on taking become true, then the world is taking a rather dark turn.

The curious paradox though is that he'll probably prove - and maybe quite quickly - that what proves good for America doesn't necessarily have to mean it's good news for the rest of us.  

I think a lot of concerns - certainly in external National Government comments both before his election and now even after his election - have more to do with Our selfish worries about how change in America might affect OUR jobs, investment in OUR Nations, blind eyes shown to OUR illegal immigrants in the US.  So not all reactions are genuinely directed at Trump's ways with women or his comments on Mexicans but at our own selfish concerns that America might stop being a ready-made happy hunting ground Disneyland of work and investment for the rest of us.
I was laughing with a friend at the weekend about Ireland's reactions in particular.  Not only do Irish politicians, and it seems most media people, demand that Trump leaves well enough alone in terms of American super-companies abroad.  That is to say, for them it's okay to tell the American people who want jobs returned to America to go f**k themselves.  They also demand that America doesn't then even deport our lovely illegal immigrants who go over there to compete for the remaining American jobs!  Hit them twice on the jobs front and tell them: "shut the hell up, you racist, bigoted blue-collar hick basterdes and accept it".

Yeah, Trump, if he abides by some of his pronouncements, life might be more difficult for us people in Europe, in India, the middle east etc.  So be it - he's elected by his own people to be President of America, not the world.

[carpet baboon]

Well forgetting about the race to the election as let's be honest, we all know they promise a moon on a stick to whoever they think might get them the win, I'm happy to focus on what he has said and done since he won.

And to me his actions and the people he is trusting to help guide him and his policy's is enough for me to say, that in my opinion, he's going to be a absolute disaster for America.
And if my worst fears of the direction he seems intent on taking become true, then the world is taking a rather dark turn.

The curious paradox though is that he'll probably prove - and maybe quite quickly - that what proves good for America doesn't necessarily have to mean it's good news for the rest of us.  

I think a lot of concerns - certainly in external National Government comments both before his election and now even after his election - have more to do with Our selfish worries about how change in America might affect OUR jobs, investment in OUR Nations, blind eyes shown to OUR illegal immigrants in the US.  So not all reactions are genuinely directed at Trump's ways with women or his comments on Mexicans but at our own selfish concerns that America might stop being a ready-made happy hunting ground Disneyland of work and investment for the rest of us.
I was laughing with a friend at the weekend about Ireland's reactions in particular.  Not only do Irish politicians, and it seems most media people, demand that Trump leaves well enough alone in terms of American super-companies abroad.  That is to say, for them it's okay to tell the American people who want jobs returned to America to go f**k themselves.  They also demand that America doesn't then even deport our lovely illegal immigrants who go over there to compete for the remaining American jobs!  Hit them twice on the jobs front and tell them: "shut the hell up, you racist, bigoted blue-collar hick basterdes and accept it".

Yeah, Trump, if he abides by some of his pronouncements, life might be more difficult for us people in Europe, in India, the middle east etc.  So be it - he's elected by his own people to be President of America, not the world.

I can happily say I'm not concerned about me.
But what if those jobs in America are only for certain Americans to have? What if the rebuilding of America is done by holding back certain sections of the American population?
Is that still ok with you fly?

[Guest]

Well forgetting about the race to the election as let's be honest, we all know they promise a moon on a stick to whoever they think might get them the win, I'm happy to focus on what he has said and done since he won.

And to me his actions and the people he is trusting to help guide him and his policy's is enough for me to say, that in my opinion, he's going to be a absolute disaster for America.
And if my worst fears of the direction he seems intent on taking become true, then the world is taking a rather dark turn.

The curious paradox though is that he'll probably prove - and maybe quite quickly - that what proves good for America doesn't necessarily have to mean it's good news for the rest of us.  

I think a lot of concerns - certainly in external National Government comments both before his election and now even after his election - have more to do with Our selfish worries about how change in America might affect OUR jobs, investment in OUR Nations, blind eyes shown to OUR illegal immigrants in the US.  So not all reactions are genuinely directed at Trump's ways with women or his comments on Mexicans but at our own selfish concerns that America might stop being a ready-made happy hunting ground Disneyland of work and investment for the rest of us.
I was laughing with a friend at the weekend about Ireland's reactions in particular.  Not only do Irish politicians, and it seems most media people, demand that Trump leaves well enough alone in terms of American super-companies abroad.  That is to say, for them it's okay to tell the American people who want jobs returned to America to go f**k themselves.  They also demand that America doesn't then even deport our lovely illegal immigrants who go over there to compete for the remaining American jobs!  Hit them twice on the jobs front and tell them: "shut the hell up, you racist, bigoted blue-collar hick basterdes and accept it".

Yeah, Trump, if he abides by some of his pronouncements, life might be more difficult for us people in Europe, in India, the middle east etc.  So be it - he's elected by his own people to be President of America, not the world.

Our selfish worries and those of the US are interwoven. The US conquered the world through its containment policy and the Marshall plan. Helping a war ravaged West rise up through US investment, benefited the West greatly, and the US economy more so. The US Conquered the world through an invasion force of Coca Cola and Ford saloons. Each US business set up in any part of the world is a portal for US industry.
Trump can role all that back, but it will be a cost to its own industry. Not only would it decrease its market at a time when the Chinese are more aggressively competitive, but if the knock on effect was to hit Western economies, then Western economies have less to invest in the US market.

[SecretFly]

I can happily say I'm not concerned about me.
But what if those jobs in America are only for certain Americans to have? What if the rebuilding of America is done by holding back certain sections of the American population?
Is that still ok with you fly?

Well firstly, you'd hope that physical and/or social Armageddon Wouldn't happen.  Which side did the rioting, which side was throwing the bigoted language down the airwaves at the Trump voters, which side have beat up Trump supporters?  So you'd hope that everyone grows up and calms down for a start.

But also, you keep prodding that Trump is the 'wrong' choice.  In your opinion he's the wrong choice but the people who voted for him don't agree  "Yeah, yeah, yeah, Fly - you talked about jobs, and big companies perhaps being attracted back to America, and corporate tax incentives, and a clamp down on illegal workers who are sucking up the scarce dollars in some parts of the country - and indeed, as always, also lowering the overall wage demands of the locals themselves.  You talk about all that, Fly, but why should the other sections of society, that think about things like race, sexual identity, human rights, freedom of migration with little controls, women's issues.... why should they suffer as a result?"

This again presumes one grouping/section morally commands more time, investment, rights and media space in the minds of the masses than the other section.  

I'll say again, mostly the liberal side of politics has been winning in the last few decades - taboos and 'anti' laws falling by the wayside month by month, nation by nation.  This time, the people who don't like the pace of those changes, this time the people who also think of boring things like 'where are all the American jobs going if we're still meant to be the greatest Superpower on the planet?' - this time they've won.  

And not a black, gay, human-rights activist woman would give a damn about any one of them if Clinton had been elected.  The world for them would have had a big sun glowing down on their victory... and the sneers towards Trump's sect would have been all over Twitter.  But nope, now it's tears.  That's an election - winners - losers.

[SecretFly]

Our selfish worries and those of the US are interwoven. The US conquered the world through its containment policy and the Marshall plan. Helping a war ravaged West rise up through US investment, benefited the West greatly, and the US economy more so. The US Conquered the world through an invasion force of Coca Cola and Ford saloons.  Each US business set up in any part of the world is a portal for US industry.
Trump can role all that back, but it will be a cost to its own industry. Not only would it decrease its market at a time when the Chinese are more aggressively competitive, but if the knock on effect was to hit Western economies, then Western economies have less to invest in the US market.

Well that's rather Black and White.  And of course, that's how most of us are forced to engage in a debate.  Black (for) and White (against) or vice versa.  But the world isn't so blunt - and any of Trumps plans to get more companies investing back home and creating jobs at home won't be a Black and White conclusion - but a reworking of a balance.  And that's ONLY if he remains true to his word in the election.
But again - your tone repeats my concerns Munch, that we foreigners think we bloody well own the US, feel that we have a right to vote for their President and think Americans should be bloody glad to spread around their wealth with the rest of us.  We're greedy and selfish and that's exactly where a lot of the 'anger' is coming from - certainly in Government circles in Europe and other places.  They fear the bankrolling might dip.  I say Tough - and I say Tough even when I think of my own country.

[carpet baboon]

I can happily say I'm not concerned about me.
But what if those jobs in America are only for certain Americans to have? What if the rebuilding of America is done by holding back certain sections of the American population?
Is that still ok with you fly?

Well firstly, you'd hope that physical and/or social Armageddon Wouldn't happen.  Which side did the rioting, which side was throwing the bigoted language down the airwaves at the Trump voters, which side have beat up Trump supporters?  So you'd hope that everyone grows up and calms down for a start.

But also, you keep prodding that Trump is the 'wrong' choice.  In your opinion he's the wrong choice but the people who voted for him don't agree  "Yeah, yeah, yeah, Fly - you talked about jobs, and big companies perhaps being attracted back to America, and corporate tax incentives, and a clamp down on illegal workers who are sucking up the scarce dollars in some parts of the country - and indeed, as always, also lowering the overall wage demands of the locals themselves.  You talk about all that, Fly, but why should the other sections of society, that think about things like race, sexual identity, human rights, freedom of migration with little controls, women's issues.... why should they suffer as a result?"

This again presumes one grouping/section morally commands more time, investment, rights and media space in the minds of the masses than the other section.  

I'll say again, mostly the liberal side of politics has been winning in the last few decades - taboos and 'anti' laws falling by the wayside month by month, nation by nation.  This time, the people who don't like the pace of those changes, this time the people who also think of boring things like 'where are all the American jobs going if we're still meant to be the greatest Superpower on the planet?' - this time they've won.  

And not a black, gay, human-rights activist women would give a damn about any one of them if Clinton had been elected.  The world for them would have had a big sun glowing down on their victory... and the sneers towards Trump's sect would have been all over Twitter.  But nope, now it's tears.  That's an election - winners - losers.

To be clear fly I'm no fan of Hillary.

I do not condone rioting. Protesting is fine by me.
I do not condone acts of violence at all.
And let's not pretend it's just the one side perpetrating acts of violence.

My fear is the human cost. There are some very striking similarity's between milosovichs rise in Yugoslavia and trumps. There are some very good books on the subject which if you have time are worth the read. It may seem a wild leap to link the two, but his appeal, his language the people he surrounds himself with, the elites he blames for the nation's problems, the "foreign" elements destroying the country.
Now I'm not saying it will turn out the same in America, and Im willing to pray to any god that it dosent, but the possibility is there. In one way or another I think the human and moral cost may be greater than we imagine.

[Guest]

Our selfish worries and those of the US are interwoven. The US conquered the world through its containment policy and the Marshall plan. Helping a war ravaged West rise up through US investment, benefited the West greatly, and the US economy more so. The US Conquered the world through an invasion force of Coca Cola and Ford saloons.  Each US business set up in any part of the world is a portal for US industry.
Trump can role all that back, but it will be a cost to its own industry. Not only would it decrease its market at a time when the Chinese are more aggressively competitive, but if the knock on effect was to hit Western economies, then Western economies have less to invest in the US market.

Well that's rather Black and White.  And of course, that's how most of us are forced to engage in a debate.  Black (for) and White (against) or vice versa.  But the world isn't so blunt - and any of Trumps plans to get more companies investing back home and creating jobs at home won't be a Black and White conclusion - but a reworking of a balance.  And that's ONLY if he remains true to his word in the election.
But again - your tone repeats my concerns Munch, that we foreigners think we bloody well own the US, feel that we've have a right to vote for their President and think Americans should be bloody glad to spread around their wealth with the rest of us.  We're greedy and selfish and that's exactly where a lot of the 'anger' is coming from - certainly in Government circles in Europe and other places.  The fear the bankrolling might dip.  I say Tough - and I say Tough even when I think of my own country.

Black and white is good. We know where we stand. What I set out in black and white is the most probable scenario. It's simple. If Trump rolls back the policies that made the US 'great', then it's probable that it will hit their 'greatness'. "making America great again"....

Balance is good, but balance still might mean the US loses its 'greatness'. It's already on a downward slide as far as reputation goes, and new markets are eating into the dependence the world has on US industry, and consumers alike. The US wants to strengthen its ties with the Western world, not distance itself.

I don't know how you conclude that I suggested we own the US. Read again, and you should find it's to the contrary. It isn't us that conquered the world. That would be the US that we depend on. However, it is an interdependent relationship.

[SecretFly]

And let's not pretend it's just the one side perpetrating acts of violence.

Exactly, if both sides do it then let not one side claim that the oppression of ideals and concerns is one sided. Militancy of opposing ideals exists on both sides of the cultural friction lines. Both sides engage in verbal and physical insult and abuse.

[SecretFly]

Black and white is good. We know where we stand. What I set out in black and white is the most probable scenario. It's simple. If Trump rolls back the policies that made the US 'great', then it's probable that it will hit their 'greatness'. "making America great again"....

Balance is good, but balance still might mean the US loses its 'greatness'. It's already on a downward slide as far as reputation goes, and new markets are eating into the dependence the world has on US industry, and consumers alike. The US wants to strengthen its ties with the Western world, not distance itself.

I don't know how you conclude that I suggested we own the US. Read again, and you should find it's to the contrary. It isn't us that conquered the world. That would be the US that we depend on. However, it is an interdependent relationship.

That's the Globalist reading.  "We're all in this together".  No we're not.  It's a fallacy and the model only works for Some - not all.  And here comes the friction that heats up the fallacy.  A great swathe of populations across the world are saying on their voting papers that it's not working for them.  Not only is it not working for them in their pockets or in their hopes for their families or themselves, it is also bringing with it what they would regard as forced sociological change at a rate they resent and are determined to stall.

So we can talk about which side is morally right or morally wrong - the facts are that there are people who feel Globalisation is the way and works to improve society itself and the hopes and wishes of people across the world.  And there are those who feel the exact opposite, and think it a sham  to send work to cheaper climates so that native companies can sell their products at a 'competitive' price back to their own people who now struggle to think of buying the luxuries - even at the bloody 'competitive' price.  

They believe big business helps itself globally to the poorest workers - feeds on their labour and then leaves for the next area that is poor enough to build their products cheaply enough.  And who is making the profits?  The companies of course.  But also the uber important Lobbyists.  And then of course, the natural bedfellow of a great Lobbyist is a smarmy corruptible politician to create the 'easy law' and to create the 'connected law' by way of International treaties to help big business slide around the world with even less checks and balances.

The world now isn't perfect.  The one Trump might help to create might be imperfect too.  But voting for people who just want to keep the Globalist agenda chugging along without any genuine reviews.... more and more voters are telling you/us that they are not going to tolerate that complacency

[carpet baboon]

I can happily say I'm not concerned about me.
But what if those jobs in America are only for certain Americans to have? What if the rebuilding of America is done by holding back certain sections of the American population?
Is that still ok with you fly?

Well firstly, you'd hope that physical and/or social Armageddon Wouldn't happen.  Which side did the rioting, which side was throwing the bigoted language down the airwaves at the Trump voters, which side have beat up Trump supporters?  So you'd hope that everyone grows up and calms down for a start.

But also, you keep prodding that Trump is the 'wrong' choice.  In your opinion he's the wrong choice but the people who voted for him don't agree  "Yeah, yeah, yeah, Fly - you talked about jobs, and big companies perhaps being attracted back to America, and corporate tax incentives, and a clamp down on illegal workers who are sucking up the scarce dollars in some parts of the country - and indeed, as always, also lowering the overall wage demands of the locals themselves.  You talk about all that, Fly, but why should the other sections of society, that think about things like race, sexual identity, human rights, freedom of migration with little controls, women's issues.... why should they suffer as a result?"

This again presumes one grouping/section morally commands more time, investment, rights and media space in the minds of the masses than the other section.  

I'll say again, mostly the liberal side of politics has been winning in the last few decades - taboos and 'anti' laws falling by the wayside month by month, nation by nation.  This time, the people who don't like the pace of those changes, this time the people who also think of boring things like 'where are all the American jobs going if we're still meant to be the greatest Superpower on the planet?' - this time they've won.  

And not a black, gay, human-rights activist woman would give a damn about any one of them if Clinton had been elected.  The world for them would have had a big sun glowing down on their victory... and the sneers towards Trump's sect would have been all over Twitter.  But nope, now it's tears.  That's an election - winners - losers.

Firstly fly you didn't Realy answer my last question. Is it ok if the rebirth of America if sections of America are excluded from it? Yes or no will be fine

And secondly you pour scorne on others for presuming what trump might or might not do, but you offer up as fact, you know what Hillary would have done?
You say judge trump on what he does not what he's done or said in the past, but Clinton dosent get that allowance.
I'm no fan of either, if you conclude ones past is also there future then you have to do the same for the other. Or you admit to a bias in your opinion.

I admit to mine. I don't want a racist sexist cowardly sociopathic monster, who suppresses people with wealth he never earned, and has no concept of humility or good moral standing as a man in charge of the lives of millions. Millions he has kept suppressed by not paying tax and outsourcing work, employing the very illegals he demonised in his campaign, and stiffing everyone when he goes bankrupt not caring for "I'm ok"

But hell I'm just a limp liberal global elitist.

Actually I'm more of a hippy love everyone kind of guy. I'm even freinds with my local tory MP

[SecretFly]

Hmmm, I thought we were having an interesting 'pro'/'anti' issue/personality debate on the recent US election?

But it seems my 'scorn' has turned it into a battle? Well, I haven't read your piece yet but I'll get back to you. First more important things! Something to eat!

[Guest]

Black and white is good. We know where we stand. What I set out in black and white is the most probable scenario. It's simple. If Trump rolls back the policies that made the US 'great', then it's probable that it will hit their 'greatness'. "making America great again"....

Balance is good, but balance still might mean the US loses its 'greatness'. It's already on a downward slide as far as reputation goes, and new markets are eating into the dependence the world has on US industry, and consumers alike. The US wants to strengthen its ties with the Western world, not distance itself.

I don't know how you conclude that I suggested we own the US. Read again, and you should find it's to the contrary. It isn't us that conquered the world. That would be the US that we depend on. However, it is an interdependent relationship.

That's the Globalist reading.  "We're all in this together".  No we're not.  It's a fallacy and the model only works for Some - not all.  And here comes the friction that heats up the fallacy.  A great swathe of populations across the world are saying on their voting papers that it's not working for them.  Not only is it not working for them in their pockets or in their hopes for their families or themselves, it is also bringing with it what they would regard as forced sociological change at a rate they resent and are determined to stall.

So we can talk about which side is morally right or morally wrong - the facts are that there are people who feel Globalisation is the way and works to improve society itself and the hopes and wishes of people across the world.  And there are those who feel the exact opposite, and think it a sham  to send work to cheaper climates so that native companies can sell their products at a 'competitive' price back to their own people who now struggle to think of buying the luxuries - even at the bloody 'competitive' price.  

They believe big business helps itself globally to the poorest workers - feeds on their labour and then leaves for the next area that is poor enough to build their products cheaply enough.  And who is making the profits?  The companies of course.  But also the uber important Lobbyists.  And then of course, the natural bedfellow of a great Lobbyist is a smarmy corruptible politician to create the 'easy law' and to create the 'connected law' by way of International treaties to help big business slide around the world with even less checks and balances.

The world now isn't perfect.  The one Trump might help to create might be imperfect too.  But voting for people who just want to keep the Globalist agenda chugging along without any genuine reviews.... more and more voters are telling you/us that they are not going to tolerate that complacency

I'm not a globalist.

It's a globalist reading because that is the present day reality, and we're trying to predict possible future global economic shifts (balance of economic power) based on those realities.
As for not being in this together; we are, whether we like it or not, and even if not all agree. That in itself isn't a fallacy. To say that all are in agreement with that reality is.

As you say; it works for some and not for others. The problem with that is the 'others' are not really in control and never really will be. Sure, the others can protest, vote leaders in/out, even riot, but the ruling elite doesn't really change (Animal Farm) and money will continue to rise to the top. The best the others can hope for is getting a bigger slice of the pie, but that won't be on their terms.
Revolution has been tried, tested, failed. The communist experiment is pretty much a disaster when looking at Russia and China. How many billionaires have they created? How many poor? How many dead or incarcerated? Not that Capitalism is a great success either. They are two very flawed systems, and flawed because of greed at the top.

Trump sense of morality is very questionable. I honestly doubt he has an issue with globalisation. He is in fact part of the problem - greed. People voted for him for different reasons, but at the top is Change. Desperate people clutching on to the straw of hope that someone different might make a positive difference in their lives. I truly hope he does, but the omens are not good.

Prove me wrong, Trump.

[carpet baboon]

Hmmm, I thought we were having an interesting 'pro'/'anti' issue/personality debate on the recent US election?

But it seems my 'scorn' has turned it into a battle?  Well, I haven't read your piece yet but I'll get back to you.  First more important things!  Something to eat!

Sorry if it came across as a call to arms, that was not my intention. Just pointing out what I see as an imbalance in judging

PS I just had a lovely pork and crackling bap with mustard and gravy.

[SecretFly]

Firstly fly you didn't Realy answer my last question. Is it ok if the rebirth of America if sections of America are excluded from it? Yes or no will be fine

And secondly you pour scorne on others for presuming what trump might or might not do, but you offer up as fact, you know what Hillary would have done?
You say judge trump on what he does not what he's done or said in the past, but Clinton dosent get that allowance.
I'm no fan of either,  if you conclude ones past is also there future then you have to do the same for the other. Or you admit to a bias in your opinion.

I admit to mine. I don't want a racist sexist cowardly sociopathic monster, who suppresses people with wealth he never earned, and has no concept of humility or good moral standing as a man in charge of the lives of millions. Millions he has kept suppressed by not paying tax and outsourcing work, employing the very illegals he demonised in his campaign, and stiffing everyone when he goes bankrupt not caring for "I'm ok"

But hell I'm just a limp liberal global elitist.

Actually I'm more of a hippy love everyone kind of guy. I'm even freinds with my local tory MP

Okay, I'm back to this for a while.
How come I always get all the questions put to me?  I must start asking more questions from here on in - and only allow 'Yes' /'No' answers.

So, it's no secret how I would have voted in the US Elections.  It's not as if I've been disguising it over the months on this 606 site.  But just in case you've not worked it out, I'm biased and openly biased.  Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.  There is not a Neutral person on this planet.  Everyone has a view and a preference.  So whilst all of us can say we're not hot on either candidate, I did end up preferring one to the other.  
I didn't think much of Clinton in terms of honestly having even a hint of an idea as to what she'd want to achieve as President other than being the first woman.  I think Trump is a waffler  (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  I thought Bernie was a two faced dreamer.  I didn't like Mr Smarm'n'smooth Cruz.  Indeed, if honest - and it's how I like to be - I'm pretty sure Hillary would be my choice of the bunch to have a decent chat with about all kinds of things.  
But I wouldn't have voted for her.  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right. We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job. And that's why I'd have voted for him.  There is no secret there.  I've championed his Presidency for some time now.

But that doesn't preclude either of us from isolating ourselves from the biased stuff and take a largely objective look at why voters do what they do, and what are the conditions that allows someone like Trump to become a legitimate choice for President of the most powerful Nation on earth.

[Sin é]

Fly, you do realise that the US foreign direct investment into Ireland isn't a one way street - and whats more, Irish companies in the US pay a corporate tax rate of 35%. I remember reading recently that Irish companies in the US employ more people than US companies operating in Ireland. Can't find the piece now, but an old figure I came across from 2009 had US investment was responsible for employing 100,000 Irish people, whereas Irish companies in the US were employing 82,000.

I see where Greencore has just bought an American Food company today for €700m trebelling its investment in the US. Then you have a company like Stripe (Collison Brothers) who employ 600 in the US. I also noticed that CRH share price went up when Trump the builder was announced as President. They employ 22,000 people between US & Canada. CRH & Greencore are companies that provide the kind of jobs for the people who voted for Trump.

I'm not a bit worried about the effect Trump as President will have on our economy because I don't think it will have much of an affect. These companies will still need access to the EU and access to a multilingual workforce which as part of the EU, Ireland can provide as well as a suitable timezone. The large Apple investment in a data centre won't go back to the US because the attractive thing for them is the climate - neither too hot or too cold.

I despite Trump though and everything he represents.

[carpet baboon]

And that's fair enough fly.

And it's easier for us to champion a candidate as it dosent directly effect either of us. Neither your nor I will be living under his rule.
I hope your right. I hope things change for the betterment of all of America.
Personally I fear it won't. But if he does make it better, for all of America, then I will hold my hands up and admit he proved me and millions more wrong.

But. I still think the sh*t stained Baboon will cluster #uck it right up

[SecretFly]

Fly, you do realise that the US foreign direct investment into Ireland isn't a one way street - and whats more, Irish companies in the US pay a corporate tax rate of 35%. I remember reading recently that Irish companies in the US employ more people than US companies operating in Ireland. Can't find the piece now, but an old figure I came across from 2009 had US investment was responsible for employing 100,000 Irish people, whereas Irish companies in the US were employing 82,000.

I see where Greencore has just bought an American Food company today for €700m trebelling its investment in the US. Then you have a company like Stripe (Collison Brothers) who employ 600 in the US. I also noticed that CRH share price went up when Trump the builder was announced as President. They employ 22,000 people between US & Canada. CRH & Greencore are companies that provide the kind of jobs for the people who voted for Trump.

I'm not a bit worried about the effect Trump as President will have on our economy because I don't think it will have much of an affect. These companies will still need access to the EU and access to a multilingual workforce which as part of the EU, Ireland can provide as well as a suitable timezone. The large Apple investment in a data centre won't go back to the US because the attractive thing for them is the climate - neither too hot or too cold.

I despite Trump though and everything he represents.

I know that detail is detail yes, Sin.  And as with all detail, it's always a complex compromise.  But politicians still engage in overview policies.  All American companies going back home and not an American dollar lingering anywhere else?  No, you're right - I do understand how the real world works and that there are European companies operating in the US.  It doesn't stall the idea that Trump's expressed view is to make the homeland (through tax and other incentives or restrictions) more attractive for jobs to come home from these outsourced areas of the world.  
Now, he might be bluffing but if he were to lower his corporate tax for example, I wouldn't be whining.  But plenty of our lot will be in that their Dail and beyond.  "Why are them hateful basterdes (Americans are not a popular brand with that class of people, are they?) screwing around with our livelihoods and endangering our jobs!?"

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Where is the revolution coming from, everybody he has appointed or looks to appoint (apart from family) are all insiders from the Washington/political elite. Apart from Banning that is, as CoS he has the job of making sure that Congress and the House are on board, I can't think of anyone that has the potential to wind them up more than Bannon. He may get away with a lot of his comments in the deep South, but most sensible republicans will have little to do with him.

[wolfball]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

[Guest]

We've moved

[Guest]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Not sure what you mean by that, but a US President can't simply press the button. Any order would have to go through a chain of command, and any President gone a bit nuts would be blocked.

[wolfball]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Not sure what you mean by that, but a US President can't simply press the button. Any order would have to go through a chain of command, and any President gone a bit nuts would be blocked.

"It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it."

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

There are reasons for this, as it was cold war situations that were in mind when the protocols were drawn up. The president has to be able to launch a war even if their cabinet is wiped out by a preemptive strike. They probably should have updated the rules...

[Hero]

Isn't it the case that we were only a few minutes from an all out nuclear attack by USA on Russia in 1979 purely due to a man sausage up of a training code being read as the real thing.

[Guest]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Not sure what you mean by that, but a US President can't simply press the button. Any order would have to go through a chain of command, and any President gone a bit nuts would be blocked.

"It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it."

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

There are reasons for this, as it was cold war situations that were in mind when the protocols were drawn up. The president has to be able to launch a war even if their cabinet is wiped out by a preemptive strike. They probably should have updated the rules...

It is argued but it's wrong. True that the President has the authority and starts the ball rolling, and true that if the Secretary of Defense refuses he can be replaced with the next in line. However, the order has to go through the chain of command, the Vice President, the Chiefs of Staff will be notified, and if it's deemed that the President has lost it, the President will be placed under Section 4 by the Vice President.

[Guest]

Isn't it the case that we were only a few minutes from an all out nuclear attack by USA on Russia in 1979 purely due to a man sausage up of a training code being read as the real thing.

Yes, and there's been a few close calls. No one country wants to start a nuclear war though. Maybe N. Korea or Iran (if they get that far) could be rogue, but hopefully they can be blocked.

[Hero]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Not sure what you mean by that, but a US President can't simply press the button. Any order would have to go through a chain of command, and any President gone a bit nuts would be blocked.

"It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it."

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

There are reasons for this, as it was cold war situations that were in mind when the protocols were drawn up. The president has to be able to launch a war even if their cabinet is wiped out by a preemptive strike. They probably should have updated the rules...

It is argued but it's wrong. True that the President has the authority and starts the ball rolling, and true that if the Secretary of Defense refuses he can be replaced with the next in line. However, the order has to go through the chain of command, the Vice President, the Chiefs of Staff will be notified, and if it's deemed that the President has lost it, the President will be placed under Section 4 by the Vice President.

As far as I'm aware there's not the time frame for that, a nuclear attack on the US would take around 12 minutes from the usual place for Russian subs (off Bermuda).

[Guest]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Not sure what you mean by that, but a US President can't simply press the button. Any order would have to go through a chain of command, and any President gone a bit nuts would be blocked.

"It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it."

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

There are reasons for this, as it was cold war situations that were in mind when the protocols were drawn up. The president has to be able to launch a war even if their cabinet is wiped out by a preemptive strike. They probably should have updated the rules...

It is argued but it's wrong. True that the President has the authority and starts the ball rolling, and true that if the Secretary of Defense refuses he can be replaced with the next in line. However, the order has to go through the chain of command, the Vice President, the Chiefs of Staff will be notified, and if it's deemed that the President has lost it, the President will be placed under Section 4 by the Vice President.

As far as I'm aware there's not the time frame for that, a nuclear attack on the US would take around 12 minutes from the usual place for Russian subs (off Bermuda).

It would all happen pretty quickly if they are attacked, I would have to think, but it's still the same chain of command. Ultimately it's a two person command, and I don't see anyone preventing the order if they are under attack.

[SecretFly]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Little I say on this site in terms of opinion gets retracted, because I speak honestly here.  No need for rethinks or blushes.  Trump is a waffler.  Trump is an eejit.  Trump is unorthodox and America needed shock treatment (in my opinion).  That all sticks.  I meant it when I said it - it holds - no revision.

He is what he is but I still had plenty of reasons for backing him.  I don't have to like him or think him wonderfully smart, kind, good and erudite, I don't have to be concerned about how he might deal with foreign leaders.   I'm not worried about how well or badly he'll handle an autocue, how good his speeches might be.  I don't care about any of that.  I have my reasons.  No apologies.  No guilt.  

I'm not concerned that many of the rest of you on 606 might think my reasoning wrong, suspect or potentially nihilistic - and even if it were nihilistic, that would still be my position and reasoning.  That keeps being my point; don't expect acts of contrition from those who voted for/backed Trump as though the act of voting for him or even supporting him from afar was a crime.  "But why did you support him?" "But how could you support him?" "Explain why you supported him" "Admit you're a racist, sexist hick lover!" (okay so that last one was one that wasn't put to me - yet - and I'm disappointed.    )

People voted for Trump.  Their 'why' is the X beside his name  They are not obliged say why on the ballot sheet.  Indeed, thus why polls are increasingly getting it wrong - people are getting smart enough to lie when asked 'why?' - or 'who?'.  Pollsters seem to think voters want to help their narrative agenda through elections.  No, some voters are obviously loving sowing confusion with the pollsters.

[SecretFly]

Was that Notch that put us on Off Topic?!

That lad and power.  Should be Trump's defence secretary. (ie. official red button presser when Trump has his hands full with other ..things)

[Sin é]

Yes, I'd have voted for Trump.
 I think Trump is a waffler
 (Some find him highly offensive, I appreciate that - I have to say I find him simply funny).  
Trump to me is the right eejit at the right moment.  America needed shock treatment.  All their ills, all their tension, all their worries.... they happened not on Trump's watch.  Something different had to happen to see what 'unorthodox' might achieve.  I'm willing to trust my instincts that my personal choice, and the choice of America, was right.  We won't be able to tell until he gets into the job.  And that's why I'd have voted for him.

Just to skim down to the bits where you state your positive case for trump. Trump is a waffler, the right eejit, unorthodox and will be the shock treatment america needs. That's your view fair enough, but it sounds pretty nihilist to me. The US isn't Italy or Australia. The US president can literally start a nuclear war on their own. Risking a waffling, right eijit with that responsibility is like a drunk man throwing the planet on black. Ah sure it was worth a flutter...

I have said this before, I hope I am wrong on Trump. I hope he is a just a Poopie republican president, who Frak over the very people who elected him as little as possible (though i doubt it, people once again vote against their economic interest). That's just about the best case. The worst case is terrifying. But sure we all love a cute hoor waffler. That makes it alright.

Little I say on this site in terms of opinion gets retracted, because I speak honestly here.  No need for rethinks or blushes.  Trump is a waffler.  Trump is an eejit.  Trump is unorthodox and America needed shock treatment (in my opinion).  That all sticks.  I meant it when I said it - it holds - no revision.  

He is what he is but I still had plenty of reasons for backing him.  I don't have to like him or think him wonderfully smart, kind, good and erudite, I don't have to be concerned about how he might deal with foreign leaders.   I'm not worried about how well or badly he'll handle an autocue, how good his speeches might be.  I don't care about any of that.  I have my reasons.  No apologies.  No guilt.  

I'm not concerned that many of the rest of you on 606 might think my reasoning wrong, suspect or potentially nihilistic - and even if it were nihilistic, that would still be my position and reasoning.  That keeps being my point; don't expect acts of contrition from those who voted for/backed Trump as though the act of voting for him or even supporting him from afar was a crime.  "But why did you support him?" "But how could you support him?" "Explain why you supported him" "Admit you're a racist, sexist hick lover!" (okay so that last one was one that wasn't put to me - yet - and I'm disappointed.    )

People voted for Trump.  Their 'why' is the X beside his name  They are not obliged say why on the ballot sheet.  Indeed, thus why polls are increasingly getting it wrong - people are getting smart enough to lie when asked 'why?' - or 'who?'.  Pollsters seem to think voters want to help their narrative agenda through elections.  No, some voters are obviously loving sowing confusion with the pollsters.

I see Trump is hiring all his globalist pals from Goldman Sachs Fly. And Hilary won the popular vote

[SecretFly]

Hillary won the popular vote in less States, Sin. Trump won the popular vote in 29 of them - there are 50. Do the maths.

You believe in a democracy that would allow California, New York and Florida to forever have the casting vote to decide the President for the other 47? Yep, that's what your lady the EU is trying to manufacture as we speak, so I'm not surprised that you'd back States of High Population dictating to the smaller population ones.

[Sin é]

Not disputing who won the election. Just pointing out that Hilary is more popular than theDonald

Like in the UK with Scotland and Northern Ireland Fly?

What do you think of all these globalist pals of theDonald getting jobs in his administration?

[SecretFly]

Sin, I think if Trump turns (and boy, is he crazy enough to do a dramatic 180 degree turn.  He lives for controversay) - but if he does, he'll be cooked by the Republicans that already despise him yet smile for now through clenched teeth.  Even slick Hannity over on Fox has warned Trump that he expects Trump to deliver on promises or Fox will be coming after him.

But on the Globalist thing - isn't that how Trump does business?  It's said he loves taking in diverse opinions into central roles and letting them battle it out - almost like Gladiators.  He obviously thinks people work better when surrounded by incandescent levels of testosterone

However, if he has Globalists on his team, what better people to have on a team that wants to dismantle a big bit of it?  They know how it works, they'll know the best bricks to pull out to dismantle it.  And don't forget, Trump has these guys surrounded by his "racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Globalist, pro-Bible, pro Daniel Boone" wolves.  If the Globalists get smart, the wolves will be given fresh meat.

Oh PS (might as well get everything in whilst I'm at it) forgot the Scotland & NI bit.  UK is a single pseudo-sovereign State.  (If they get Brexit, they'll be back to fully sovereign )  
Scotland had their chance, and blew it.  Northern Ireland still mostly loves the Union Jack; so in a sense, they've also blown it.  So in terms of the American Election.  Northern Ireland v Scotland v England isn't California v Montana v Texas... I'm afraid it's just Sacramento v Los Angelus v San Francisco.  I'm afraid if you want to be One Entity, you have to take the rough with the smooth.... as the US Democrats have been finding out.

[Gwlad]

I do enjoy seeing a Trump supporter offer more reasoned argument than the man he is supporting is actually capable of expressing himself. Bodes well for the future prosperity and security of the free world.

It's also amusing to see someone claim that he won't justify voting for Trump - perhaps because given the medium of reasoned argument its an indefensible position- and then proceed to justify voting for him ad nauseam.

That's the great thing about being a Trumpeter, secret or not, you don't have to justify anything. Anti reason is the true Winner, it makes you cooler and Trumpier, a collective wallow in the banality of bigoted ignorance where to be ignorant is a benchmark of how low you've sunk. The lower the better right? A vote for Trump isn't nihilist (please), to vote Trump means ignorance has actually triumphed again as it did in the UK, make no mistake.

Truth is, to support Trump all you need is to be inherently weak, a sheep sucked in with a lot more sheep, by a Hitler-esque pedagogue,
a man who doesn't actually want to be President of the USA but does wants to exploit the power and privilege that adorns such a grave office Ask yourself do you really identify with and support a racist, bigoted misogynist idiot with the IQ of, well, a Trump supporter?

Watch as he reaps what you and yours have sown. He will de-construct global security, destroy the global economy (while advertising his daughter's jewelry) and with it millions of lives will be destroyed while he ignores the killing of more innocents as he starts his first war - this is one President we know will be a war President.

He breeds hate and misunderstanding at a time when we need hope, compassion and stability in the White House.

[navyblueshorts]

I do enjoy seeing a Trump supporter offer more reasoned argument than the man he is supporting is actually capable of expressing himself. Bodes well for the future prosperity and security of the free world.

It's also amusing to see someone claim that he won't justify voting for Trump - perhaps because given the medium of reasoned argument its an indefensible position- and then proceed to justify voting for him ad nauseam.

That's the great thing about being a Trumpeter, secret or not, you don't have to justify anything. Anti reason is the true Winner, it makes you cooler and Trumpier, a collective wallow in the banality of bigoted ignorance where to be ignorant is a benchmark of how low you've sunk. The lower the better right? A vote for Trump isn't nihilist (please), to vote Trump means ignorance has actually triumphed again as it did in the UK, make no mistake.

Truth is, to support Trump all you need is to be inherently weak, a sheep sucked in with a lot more sheep, by a Hitler-esque pedagogue,
a man who doesn't actually want to be President of the USA but does wants to exploit the power and privilege that adorns such a grave office Ask yourself do you really identify with and support a racist, bigoted misogynist idiot with the IQ of, well, a Trump supporter?

Watch as he reaps what you and yours have sown. He will de-construct global security, destroy the global economy (while advertising his daughter's jewelry) and with it millions of lives will be destroyed while he ignores the killing of more innocents as he starts his first war - this is one President we know will be a war President.

He breeds hate and misunderstanding at a time when we need hope, compassion and stability in the White House.

[Derbymanc]

Gwlad and Navy showing exactly why people like Trump end up winning. Surely by lumping all and sundry into one basket shows you as the sheep as you can't imagine anyone thinking different than you?

For the record, i can't stand Trump, wouldn't have voted for him but can see a whole swath of America being dissilusioned (*spelling) and being ignored, I've linked an article from cracked to help explain why some people voted Trump (from a trump hating website btw)

http://www.cracked.com/blog/dont-panic/

[rIck_dAgless]

Wonder if Michelle Obama is mad that an immigrant is taking her job?

[Sponsored content]