CahillsCornerFlag
Player Valuation: £70m
Rather. *adjusts monacle
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
Rather. *adjusts monacle
I wouldn't suggest things are perfect, but there seems an enormous disconnect to me between whatever the perceived problems are, and the proposed solutions to them. I can't see how Brexit or Trump will help poor folks one jot.
terry nodder
Player Valuation: £8m
Ok then what about Trumpettes? For his legions of female followers?
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Well no- but surely it is as hard to see how continuing along the same path, with the same people in charge, is going to help them either?
Two questions for you Dave.
1) When has life been better for the poor in Britain and America than it is today?
2) What will Trump and/or Brexit do to help the poor in the two countries?
An interesting time for world politics, just like after world war 1 and a period of deep recession we see extremist politics that saw a rise in nationalism and the spawn of fascisim, they say history repeats itself and while im not comparing brexit or Trump getting elected to the rise of Hitler etc, i will say we are seeing a pattern of extreme nationalism and apathy toward the political establishment which were ingredients in the rise of the former. The fact that is two of the world biggest democracies and ironically the two countries that led the charge against political extremism is staggering.
If you stay around long enough you always see history repeat itself.
If you stay around long enough you always see history repeat itself.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
1) I said 'relatively'. And it's also as much about the feeling of being able to progress as much as actual living standard.
2/ They will bring nothing. It's not my argument that they will.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
I know that this was directed to Dave, but the answer is (at least for the UK):
1) 1962 - 1997
2) Themselves? Very little. Because of the changes that those victories will force on their opponents? Far more.
About a decade late there. Most of them were on the payroll. May have caused one of the bankruptcies.
Also a technical and musical point of order:
Trumpet Section (orchestra) != section full of trumpets (Gwladys End points at Park End points at Gwladys End)
Last edited:
orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
"Choice of saviour"
So by that statement, you'd have seen Clinton as the lesser of two evils.
Tell us again how Obama was hamstrung for 8 years and in no way created a climate whereby Donald J. F'in Trump has just become President.
You won't, you'll retreat to a Guardian best of 10 list of go-to obfuscation because you've allowed yourself, as you've already admitted, to be blinded by Twitter and memes.
magicjuan
Player Valuation: £60m
NOAM CHOMSKY: "What do you think about the antics of Donald Trump, in tangent to your earlier idea about American exceptionalism?"
Well, actually, I think we should recognize that the other candidates are not that different. I mean, if you take a look at—just take a look at their views. You know, they tell you their views, and they’re astonishing. So just to keep to Iran, a couple of weeks ago, the two front-runners—they’re not the front-runners any longer—were Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. And they differed on Iran. Walker said we have to bomb Iran; when he gets elected, they’re going to bomb Iran immediately, the day he’s elected. Bush was a little—you know, he’s more serious: He said he’s going to wait 'til the first Cabinet meeting, and then they'll bomb Iran. I mean, this is just off the spectrum of not only international opinion, but even relative sanity.This is—I think Ornstein and Mann are correct: It’s a radical insurgency; it’s not a political party. You can tell that even by the votes. I mean, any issue of any complexity is going to have some diversity of opinion. But when you get a unanimous vote to kill the Iranian deal or the Affordable Care Act or whatever the next thing may be, you know you’re not dealing with a political party.It’s an interesting question why that’s true. I think what’s actually happened is that during the whole so-called neoliberal period, last generation, both political parties have drifted to the right. Today’s Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans. The Republicans have just drifted off the spectrum. They’re so committed to extreme wealth and power that they cannot get votes, can’t get votes by presenting those positions. So what has happened is that they’ve mobilized sectors of the population that have been around for a long time. It is a pretty exceptional country in many ways. One is it’s extremely religious. It’s one of the most extreme fundamentalist countries in the world. And by now, I suspect the majority of the base of the Republican Party is evangelical Christians, extremists, not—they’re a mixture, but these are the extremist ones, nativists who are afraid that, you know, "they are taking our white Anglo-Saxon country away from us," people who have to have guns when they go into Starbucks because, who knows, they might get killed by an Islamic terrorist and so on. I mean, all of that is part of the country, and it goes back to colonial days. There are real roots to it. But these have not been an organized political force in the past. They are now. That’s the base of the Republican Party. And you see it in the primaries. So, yeah, Trump is maybe comic relief, but it’s just a—it’s not that different from the mainstream, which I think is more important.
Chomsky, 22/09/15
Well, actually, I think we should recognize that the other candidates are not that different. I mean, if you take a look at—just take a look at their views. You know, they tell you their views, and they’re astonishing. So just to keep to Iran, a couple of weeks ago, the two front-runners—they’re not the front-runners any longer—were Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. And they differed on Iran. Walker said we have to bomb Iran; when he gets elected, they’re going to bomb Iran immediately, the day he’s elected. Bush was a little—you know, he’s more serious: He said he’s going to wait 'til the first Cabinet meeting, and then they'll bomb Iran. I mean, this is just off the spectrum of not only international opinion, but even relative sanity.This is—I think Ornstein and Mann are correct: It’s a radical insurgency; it’s not a political party. You can tell that even by the votes. I mean, any issue of any complexity is going to have some diversity of opinion. But when you get a unanimous vote to kill the Iranian deal or the Affordable Care Act or whatever the next thing may be, you know you’re not dealing with a political party.It’s an interesting question why that’s true. I think what’s actually happened is that during the whole so-called neoliberal period, last generation, both political parties have drifted to the right. Today’s Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans. The Republicans have just drifted off the spectrum. They’re so committed to extreme wealth and power that they cannot get votes, can’t get votes by presenting those positions. So what has happened is that they’ve mobilized sectors of the population that have been around for a long time. It is a pretty exceptional country in many ways. One is it’s extremely religious. It’s one of the most extreme fundamentalist countries in the world. And by now, I suspect the majority of the base of the Republican Party is evangelical Christians, extremists, not—they’re a mixture, but these are the extremist ones, nativists who are afraid that, you know, "they are taking our white Anglo-Saxon country away from us," people who have to have guns when they go into Starbucks because, who knows, they might get killed by an Islamic terrorist and so on. I mean, all of that is part of the country, and it goes back to colonial days. There are real roots to it. But these have not been an organized political force in the past. They are now. That’s the base of the Republican Party. And you see it in the primaries. So, yeah, Trump is maybe comic relief, but it’s just a—it’s not that different from the mainstream, which I think is more important.
Chomsky, 22/09/15
The thing is, these things are ridiculously difficult, and if you listen to Trump, Farage et al you'd be forgiven for thinking they're insanely easy. You've mentioned education for instance, and that's absolutely crucial, not just from 5-21 but throughout life. We began by thinking folks lacked opportunities, and we've had 70 years or so of free schooling throughout the childhood of every youngster in the country, yet there are still far too many that leave school without both the skills to enter the workforce, or the appreciation of learning that will support them throughout life. That's crippling, but if the answer was easy, it would surely have been done by now.
I mean there was a study published earlier this week saying that many more jobs were lost through automation than through outsourcing work to Mexico. Is Trump going to go around smashing up the looms? Or is he going to say that for society as a whole, technological progress is a great thing, but we need to help those who lose their jobs to re-train?
It's the same argument with migration but you replace the loom with a Pole.
- Status