The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

superflyweight wrote:


As Macbeth says of life, "full of sound of fury.  Signifying nothing."  

So you don't have an argument then. Do you actually think that a 7 word quote from fictional literature discredits everything I've said?

This is too easy

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

The definition has moved over the years but that in itself is partly due to what actually classes as a race, white, black, asian etc is not a 'race', there's one race, the human one. Being anti-Muslim is 'cultural racism'.

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:


As Macbeth says of life, "full of sound of fury.  Signifying nothing."  

So you don't have an argument then. Do you actually think that a 7 word quote from fictional literature discredits everything I've said?

This is too easy

What do you consider easy? Do you believe the object of rational debate is to win somehow?

Or would you say it is more to do with providing facts or opinion in such a way that they are palatable to others?

If the former then I am confused as to what constitutes a win. And if the latter, you are not making it easy at all.

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

Wow, you're excitable.

Why would calling Trump a racist lower his reputation in the estimation of the 'reasonable man'?

the-goon wrote:...The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

Trump's attempt to stop certain immigrants from entering the U.S., his comments re. Mexicans etc could all be construed as 'racist'. How about unfairly discriminatory? Dress it up how you like. The man's a turd of the first order and now he's POTUS. Guess we'll have to live with it for however long, but people are still going to skewer him on his own lunatic comments and actions. They're still going to point out his hypocrisy, which he doesn't even have the sense to feel embarrassed about. Hopefully it won't be long until something demonstrably impeachable comes out. "Drain the swamp"?? I still haven't stopped giggling.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon wrote:...The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

Trump's attempt to stop certain immigrants from entering the U.S., his comments re. Mexicans etc could all be construed as 'racist'. How about unfairly discriminatory? Dress it up how you like. The man's a turd of the first order and now he's POTUS. Guess we'll have to live with it for however long, but people are still going to skewer him on his own lunatic comments and actions. They're still going to point out his hypocrisy, which he doesn't even have the sense to feel embarrassed about. Hopefully it won't be long until something demonstrably impeachable comes out. "Drain the swamp"?? I still haven't stopped giggling.

The US can let in or ban whomever they choose, it's called sovereignty. 16 muslim countries do the same for Israelis, Obama did the same for Iraqis in 2011. By your logic, Obama is also a racist. Proving my point that the word has lost all meaning.

If he does something truely impeachable, then you have a point. Until then, can we tone down hysteria?

Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

The definition has moved over the years but that in itself is partly due to what actually classes as a race, white, black, asian etc is not a 'race', there's one race, the human one. Being anti-Muslim is 'cultural racism'.

'cultural racism' has to be the most ridiculus term I've heard in a while. Culture is merely a set of ideas, practices and traditions You can't be racist against an idea, only a person. FGM is part of some countries' culture, are you a "cultural racist" to say it's vile? This is what religious fundimentalists do to try and discredit criticism against their religion, they try to conflate religion (ideas) to race or ethnicity if you prefer (what ppl are), you are doing the same with culture.

What a hideous, offensive analogy.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Please expand on this. What did he do exactly, how was it measurably differrent to Trump?

At the end of the day, he banned certain immigrants from the US, therefore racist. By your logic, not mine.

No, he didn't ban anyone. Do some reading from a credible source, for a change.

the-goon wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon wrote:...The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

Trump's attempt to stop certain immigrants from entering the U.S., his comments re. Mexicans etc could all be construed as 'racist'. How about unfairly discriminatory? Dress it up how you like. The man's a turd of the first order and now he's POTUS. Guess we'll have to live with it for however long, but people are still going to skewer him on his own lunatic comments and actions. They're still going to point out his hypocrisy, which he doesn't even have the sense to feel embarrassed about. Hopefully it won't be long until something demonstrably impeachable comes out. "Drain the swamp"?? I still haven't stopped giggling.

The US can let in or ban whomever they choose, it's called sovereignty. 16 muslim countries do the same for Israelis, Obama did the same for Iraqis in 2011. By your logic, Obama is also a racist. Proving my point that the word has lost all meaning.

If he does something truely impeachable, then you have a point. Until then, can we tone down hysteria?

Citing the examples of Muslim nations banning immigrants is hardly a sensible justification or a suitable aspiration for the POTUS, I would suggest. Obama's actions weren't preceded by the sort of bilge rhetoric that Trump has consistently used and continues to use. Trump's actions would tend to support the idea that he's a right wing stooge and/or harbours some nasty thoughts all on his own.

FWIW, I agree re. the 'hysteria', but then life would be boring wouldn't it? If this was North Korea we might comment, but it wouldn't be a surprise would it? The fact this is the U.S., who do so love to bang on about their freedoms and being the 'Leader of the Free World' etc etc, tends to make it more of a talking point. Trump's bare-faced lying and actions, while laying into people he accuses of making things up and doing exactly what he lambasted others for (i.e. golf, for example) is hypocrisy of the highest order. It should be both called out and ridiculed.

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Please expand on this. What did he do exactly, how was it measurably differrent to Trump?

At the end of the day, he banned certain immigrants from the US, therefore racist. By your logic, not mine.

For example -
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011

Your presumptions upon my logic are not correct.

That doesn't look like it's from Breitbart, Jules. Hardly credible!

Breitbart is mainstream media, superF. I was told not to trust them by SecretF. You should have seen the piece they did on Ted Heath.

Was it about his driving?

Apparently he passed his test, despite failing his three-point turn. Allegations of a cover-up.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Please expand on this. What did he do exactly, how was it measurably differrent to Trump?

At the end of the day, he banned certain immigrants from the US, therefore racist. By your logic, not mine.

For example -
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011

Your presumptions upon my logic are not correct.

Even though Politifact is hardly impartial i'll bite. I will not entertain Vox.

The differences Politifact state:

There was a specific threat from Iraqis in 2011. Today, most of Islamic State (and sister groups) come from these failed states. So there is most certainly a specific threat. The article refers to 3 terrorist attacks from those countries, is that not a specific threat? So this argument is nul and void.

Narrower is scope as Obama's only impacted refugees and Trump includes visitors as well. This isn't really an argument. This just means Obamas ban was rubbish, and wouldn't actually stop Iraqis with mal-intent from entering the US, the actual purpose of the EO. They could come as visitors rather than refugees.

And those are the 2 key differences, that aren't really differences.

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Please expand on this. What did he do exactly, how was it measurably differrent to Trump?

At the end of the day, he banned certain immigrants from the US, therefore racist. By your logic, not mine.

For example -
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011

Your presumptions upon my logic are not correct.

Even though Politifact is hardly impartial i'll bite. I will not entertain Vox.

Are you impartial? Why should anyone entertain you (except maybe Robbie Williams, and that's because he wants you to let him)?

Will this do - http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

the-goon wrote:This just means Obamas ban was rubbish....aren't really (any) differences.

So using your logic, Trump's ban is also rubbish - since Obama and Trump did "the same thing".

the-goon wrote:

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

The definition has moved over the years but that in itself is partly due to what actually classes as a race, white, black, asian etc is not a 'race', there's one race, the human one. Being anti-Muslim is 'cultural racism'.

'cultural racism' has to be the most ridiculus term I've heard in a while. Culture is merely a set of ideas, practices and traditions You can't be racist against an idea, only a person. FGM is part of some countries' culture, are you a "cultural racist" to say it's vile? This is what religious fundimentalists do to try and discredit criticism against their religion, they try to conflate religion (ideas) to race or ethnicity if you prefer (what ppl are), you are doing the same with culture.

You may describe it as 'ridiculus'.
Fortunately though others do not.
Such as the UN, the Equality Ombudsman and scientific studies that show there are numerous forms of racism not just biological but religious, scientific and cultural.

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

The definition has moved over the years but that in itself is partly due to what actually classes as a race, white, black, asian etc is not a 'race', there's one race, the human one. Being anti-Muslim is 'cultural racism'.

'cultural racism' has to be the most ridiculus term I've heard in a while. Culture is merely a set of ideas, practices and traditions You can't be racist against an idea, only a person. FGM is part of some countries' culture, are you a "cultural racist" to say it's vile? This is what religious fundimentalists do to try and discredit criticism against their religion, they try to conflate religion (ideas) to race or ethnicity if you prefer (what ppl are), you are doing the same with culture.

You may describe it as 'ridiculus'.
Fortunately though others do not.
Such as the UN, the Equality Ombudsman and scientific studies that show there are numerous forms of racism not just biological but religious, scientific and cultural.

What is scientific racism? I'm curious. Are you able to explain how you can be racist towards an idea though?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:This just means Obamas ban was rubbish....aren't really (any) differences.

So using your logic, Trump's ban is also rubbish - since Obama and Trump did "the same thing".

So Trump and Obama bans were both rubblish and racist. Common ground at last!

My mate Wingrove is building a wall to stop the council tenants nicking his guttering.

I told him he was a racist but he told me to f*ck off.

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:This just means Obamas ban was rubbish....aren't really (any) differences.

So using your logic, Trump's ban is also rubbish - since Obama and Trump did "the same thing".

So Trump and Obama bans were both rubblish and racist. Common ground at last!

Perhaps according to you they were both rubbish and racist i.e. the same. Many people can see the differences between them.

Galted wrote:My mate Wingrove is building a wall to stop the council tenants nicking his guttering.

I told him he was a racist but he told me to f*ck off.

Did you give a kicking with your Rockports?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Please expand on this. What did he do exactly, how was it measurably differrent to Trump?

At the end of the day, he banned certain immigrants from the US, therefore racist. By your logic, not mine.

For example -
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011

Your presumptions upon my logic are not correct.

Even though Politifact is hardly impartial i'll bite. I will not entertain Vox.

Are you impartial? Why should anyone entertain you (except maybe Robbie Williams, and that's because he wants you to let him)?

Will this do - http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

I'm not impartial, and I won't claim to be unlike sites like Politifact. So when they aren't, they come across as smug and hypocritical. I would like to think that I am objective, but certainly capable of being wrong, or interpretting information incorrectly and getting the wrong idea. I would like to think that I am capable of admitting I'm wrong, and would change my view point as information changes or new information arises.

However, so far I've haven't seen Trump (or Obama) be a racist (in the true sense of the word) or whatever else, nor have I seen him do something truely awful. What I do see are accusations against him that hyped up or simply not true. I don't see anybody even trying to give him or his supporter/defenders the benefit of the doubt at any point, it means I won't be either when it comes to their reasoning.

the-goon wrote:

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

The definition has moved over the years but that in itself is partly due to what actually classes as a race, white, black, asian etc is not a 'race', there's one race, the human one. Being anti-Muslim is 'cultural racism'.

'cultural racism' has to be the most ridiculus term I've heard in a while. Culture is merely a set of ideas, practices and traditions You can't be racist against an idea, only a person. FGM is part of some countries' culture, are you a "cultural racist" to say it's vile? This is what religious fundimentalists do to try and discredit criticism against their religion, they try to conflate religion (ideas) to race or ethnicity if you prefer (what ppl are), you are doing the same with culture.

You may describe it as 'ridiculus'.
Fortunately though others do not.
Such as the UN, the Equality Ombudsman and scientific studies that show there are numerous forms of racism not just biological but religious, scientific and cultural.

What is scientific racism? I'm curious. Are you able to explain how you can be racist towards an idea though?

Well just a glance back at last century and the teachings of Nietzsche regarding racial superiority/inferiority should guide you regarding scientific racism.

Depends on what you consider to be truly awful. He's not a mass murderer, or child molester etc.

There is no doubt that Obama's and Trump's EO's were different in specifics and practicalities, as well as tone and nature. That isn't to do with benefit of the doubt, that's verifiable based on what is in the public domain.

But, for example, citing the Australian killing of a women as a terrorist attack, when it is well known not to be, thus causing further distress to the victim's mother, purely to further his political agenda. Do you not find that to be at least a bit awful?
Considering how easy it would have been not to do that, and leave the grieving mother in peace?

Should we not hold the POTUS accountable to the highest standard, given his role?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Galted wrote:My mate Wingrove is building a wall to stop the council tenants nicking his guttering.

I told him he was a racist but he told me to f*ck off.

Did you give a kicking with your Rockports?

Yes.
No.

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Galted wrote:My mate Wingrove is building a wall to stop the council tenants nicking his guttering.

I told him he was a racist but he told me to f*ck off.

Did you give a kicking with your Rockports?

Yes.
No.

Good man
Wuss

What do people think of the latest;

Transgender bathroom use plan withdrawn and

Intend to expand nuclear arsenal.

First one I'm not bothered about - though he has stated the opposite during his campaign.

Second is a bit worrying, would be great if this planet could do away with those types of weapons eventually. Complete decommissioning is unlikely anytime soon but another nuclear arms race can only end badly.

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

That was the ONE incident I referred to.  One of them was a born & bred Yank, the other was a Saudi (not one of the 7 banned countries).

White supremacist & applie-pie American Dylan Root killed roughly the same number of people in his domestic terror attack/hate crime.

Appreciate I was too trigger fingered and there have been a few more (e.g. Boston, carried out by two white guys not on Trump's list of banned countries.....).

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

Funnily enough kiddo I'll take the advice/opinion of the qualified & practicing lawyer.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Short. Sweet. On point.

SecretFly could learn a lot from you, Julius.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obama in 2011 did not do the same. He did something different.

Short. Sweet. On point.

SuperFly could learn a lot from you, Julius.

I think you've got your 'flys in a muddle.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

That was the ONE incident I referred to.  One of them was a born & bred Yank, the other was a Saudi (not one of the 7 banned countries).

White supremacist & applie-pie American Dylan Root killed roughly the same number of people in his domestic terror attack/hate crime.

Appreciate I was too trigger fingered and there have been a few more (e.g. Boston, carried out by two white guys not on Trump's list of banned countries.....).

Err, Orlando? Where 50 ppl died? Fort hood in 2009, 13 deaths, Seattle 2014 3 deaths, Tennassee 2015, 5 deaths,

Also, San B had 14 deaths, Dylan roof killed 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

You seem to have an aversion to the facts.

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Hero wrote:

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

The definition has moved over the years but that in itself is partly due to what actually classes as a race, white, black, asian etc is not a 'race', there's one race, the human one. Being anti-Muslim is 'cultural racism'.

'cultural racism' has to be the most ridiculus term I've heard in a while. Culture is merely a set of ideas, practices and traditions You can't be racist against an idea, only a person. FGM is part of some countries' culture, are you a "cultural racist" to say it's vile? This is what religious fundimentalists do to try and discredit criticism against their religion, they try to conflate religion (ideas) to race or ethnicity if you prefer (what ppl are), you are doing the same with culture.

You may describe it as 'ridiculus'.
Fortunately though others do not.
Such as the UN, the Equality Ombudsman and scientific studies that show there are numerous forms of racism not just biological but religious, scientific and cultural.

What is scientific racism? I'm curious. Are you able to explain how you can be racist towards an idea though?

Well just a glance back at last century and the teachings of Nietzsche regarding racial superiority/inferiority should guide you regarding scientific racism.

Ah right, so basically trying to scientifically justify racial superiority using phoney science then. Fair enough. It's plain old racism. Science is objective and provable so cannot be racist by definition as it cannot discrimiate. it's poor wording IMO.

Are you able to explain how one can be racist towards an idea though, still don't know how this is possible?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement.

The pejorative "racist" has been used so often, it has actually changed it's meaning. It used to mean someone discriminates based on race, now it means someone who disagrees with my left wing/social justice ideology.

Funnily enough kiddo I'll take the advice/opinion of the qualified & practicing lawyer.

Calling someone a racist, who isn't DOES lower the reputation of the individual.

It's like saying, I have a poor opinion of you because we disagree on X, calling you or someone else calling you a child diddler wouldn't lower my opinion of you, therefore it's ok. You have no recourse for libel.

This is an example, I don't share this view at all.

I wonder what the ratio is for White Supremacists v Muslims as regards incarcerations in Prisons through the USA.

I'd say there are a damn good many white supremacists in prison for all kinds of crime - crimes against their partners, spouses, children, neighbours, workmates, bosses... crimes of corruption, drug dealing, pimpdom, robbery, embezzlement, assaulting police officers etc etc.

I think those kind of people will keep being taken off the streets by the law enforcement agencies during Trump's time in office. Like I said, they can't very well be deported for crimes or denied entry because vetting suggests they are white supremacists. So they're taken care of in their own country. The Dylan Roof guy got the Death Sentence.

Now back to why America has to automatically allow in foreign potential Muslim Supremacists or any other kind of non-American with a history or crime or supremacist thought? Why does America have to accept someone else's problems just to placate the chattering classes of other Nations who are offering both Turkey and now Libya money to keep them out of their own?

The US is entirely within its rights to deny entry to innocent people, innocent refugees, innocent asylum seekers etc. based purely on their race or religion. But in doing so, it loses its historical place as a country that is built on and welcomes those people in need of refuge. And also loses much of its moral high-standing in those matters.

Oh, and by doing so, it foments resentment and hatred among people who would otherwise not feel that way - leading to a more dangerous world for everyone.

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

That was the ONE incident I referred to.  One of them was a born & bred Yank, the other was a Saudi (not one of the 7 banned countries).

White supremacist & applie-pie American Dylan Root killed roughly the same number of people in his domestic terror attack/hate crime.

Appreciate I was too trigger fingered and there have been a few more (e.g. Boston, carried out by two white guys not on Trump's list of banned countries.....).

Err, Orlando? Where 50 ppl died? Fort hood in 2009, 13 deaths, Seattle 2014 3 deaths, Tennassee 2015, 5 deaths,

Also, San B had 14 deaths, Dylan roof killed 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

You seem to have an aversion to the facts.

How many of those were carried out by non-US citizens from one of the 7 countries Trump tried to ban?

Orlando, for example, was a born & bred American who was a frustrated homosexual that lost the plot and only created any Muslim terrorist links immediately prior the shooting in search of justification.

The Fort Hood(s) were also born & bred Americans with scant links to anything 'Muslim terrorist'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Oh, and by doing so, it foments resentment and hatred among people who would otherwise not feel that way - leading to a more dangerous world for everyone.

So, "if you don't let us/them in, we will get angry and murder innocent civilians"? That's not a reason to invite people in, and no one nation should bend to that sort of threat.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The US is entirely within its rights to deny entry to innocent people, innocent refugees, innocent asylum seekers etc. based purely on their race or religion. But in doing so, it loses its historical place as a country that is built on and welcomes those people in need of refuge. And also loses much of its moral high-standing in those matters.

So it's proving itself more hypocritical than the EU, who waves the finger yet does the money business with Turkey and Libya to play the anti-innocent refugee, anti-asylum seekers game in an even more underhanded way?

What did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say with such beautiful and pointed brevity?:

" If you [Europeans] committed this big crime (the Holocaust), then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price? This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country."

Europeans have such a grand old reputation for welcoming the afflicted and an even more notorious old reputation for forcefully displacing and/or killing their own peoples.  More Nations than Germany were anti-semitic in the decades leading to WWII, and what a nice solution it was for many of them that the aftermath of that war saw the creation of a State of Israel (borderless by definition in the Independence Declaration) as a new 'safer' home in the deserts of Palestine.

The US has a right to deny entry and construct its own vetting procedures.  It has the right to formulate its own methods, just as Nations of the EU, and the EU as a bloc, formulate their methods.

Hate breeds hate.

By placing the ban it actually feeds groups like ISIS. They want the West to react, they want the US to build up hatred of Muslims because that in turn feeds their recruitment drive. 
Imagine being an American born teenage Muslim of Syrian parents, seeing family not being allowed into the country and now being looked at constantly with distrust and as a 2nd class citizen.

Munchkin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Oh, and by doing so, it foments resentment and hatred among people who would otherwise not feel that way - leading to a more dangerous world for everyone.

So, "if you don't let us/them in, we will get angry and murder innocent civilians"? That's not a reason to invite people in, and no one nation should bend to that sort of threat.

It's not a threat, it's a reaction to racism. A threat would need to come first. Certainly, there are people who are already a threat, but there are others not currently a threat, who will react to racism against them in a violent way. That's the world we live in.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The US is entirely within its rights to deny entry to innocent people, innocent refugees, innocent asylum seekers etc. based purely on their race or religion. But in doing so, it loses its historical place as a country that is built on and welcomes those people in need of refuge. And also loses much of its moral high-standing in those matters.

So it's proving itself more hypocritical than the EU, who waves the finger yet does the money business with Turkey and Libya to play the anti-innocent refugee, anti-asylum seekers game in an even more underhanded way?

What did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say with such beautiful and pointed brevity?:

" If you [Europeans] committed this big crime (the Holocaust), then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price? This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country."

Europeans have such a grand old reputation for welcoming the afflicted and an even more notorious old reputation for forcefully displacing and/or killing their own peoples.  More Nations than Germany were anti-semitic in the decades leading to WWII, and what a nice solution it was for many of them that the aftermath of that war saw the creation of a State of Israel (borderless by definition in the Independence Declaration) as a new 'safer' home in the deserts of Palestine.

The US has a right to deny entry and construct its own vetting procedures.  It has the right to formulate its own methods, just as Nations of the EU, and the EU as a bloc, formulate their methods.

So the US lowering it's morals to those of the EU is a good thing?

Hero wrote:Hate breeds hate.

By placing the ban it actually feeds groups like ISIS. They want the West to react, they want the US to build up hatred of Muslims because that in turn feeds their recruitment drive. 
Imagine being an American born teenage Muslim of Syrian parents, seeing family not being allowed into the country and now being looked at constantly with distrust and as a 2nd class citizen.

ISIS (and their backers - not all of them Muslim or Arabic) actively are engaged in creating mayhem in their own sectors of heavy influence (Iraq, Syria, strands of them in African Nations) - with the very design to create mass migration, to create the very tensions that now exist across the Western World.  

You think that ISIS/and other like minded groups haven't used terror for the very purpose of creating biblical levels of displacement and crowding Europe and America with refugees?  No the migrants/refugees are not all hidden terrorists - they don't have to be - the numbers of them that have been migrating have been creating disruption and serious political tension all across Europe and now into America that readily sees what is happening in Europe.

That's the war.  That's another front.  The innocent migrants are being used as a stampede to destabilise Western Nations - and it's working.  The evidence is all around us, that it is working.