Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[ilikecheese]

Infact it's your camp that doesnt understand democracy very well. Crying after popular vote and trying to illegitimize his presidency in various ways just because americans voted WRONGLY IN YOUR OPINION....you lose you have to accept it and move on. Be democratic. ...respect democracy!

I repeat protesting is a right given to us by the constitution of the USA. Like it or not they are doing what they have every right to do.

You have to remember less than 63 million people voted for him and over 74 million people didn't vote for him. He spoke of being the President for all Americans during his acceptance speech but has done nothing but divide us further with every tactless tweet and sound bite that he says. His nominations and appointments are not those of someone trying to bring all Americans together.

He's spent the last two months rallying his base...not visiting one state he lost...not doing anything to try to win support from those that oppose him.

He has one person to blame for the protests...Donald Trump.

Protesting against Trumps views or policies is democratic. Protesting that the result was not legitimate because they don't happen to like Trumps views or policies isn't democratic.

Freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate are part of the foundations of the nation.

Besides there is proof of Russian influence...so it's not as if it was the cleanest election. The right complained for YEARS about ACORN...yet are just fine with Russian influence in our election.

 

[JonS]

And nor should you. Middle eastern conflict is terribly complex and its hard to attribute killings to somebody who took the reigns after it had already started. Look further than that though - what about social policy? How have these people treated their poorest, most vulnerable members of society?

Trump isn't even president yet and he has treated them disgracefully.

Agreed but let's see what he does when he's in power. If he manages to make their lives better economically and do so without any racial bias I will excuse his trash talk.

Similarly if he manages to reduce US and Russia nuclear arms without starting any new conflict with China I will excuse him being such an ass.

Of course these are big "ifs" and we don't yet know which one of us will be vaulting the other's comments on here in years to come...

 

[JonS]

Middle eastern conflict is terribly complex and its hard to attribute killings to somebody who took the reigns after it had already started.

Not sure I agree. I am near pacifist (may make an exception to fight a Hitler type situation) and would take responsibility and stop the killing and the (unsuccessfully interventionist) foreign policy as soon as I could.

 

[Seanjd]

Not sure I agree. I am near pacifist (may make an exception to fight a Hitler type situation) and would take responsibility and stop the killing and the (unsuccessfully interventionist) foreign policy.

Hard to define what a 'Hitler type situation' is though - how long do you wait before a terrorist group grow? I'm of the opinion that it certainly isn't up to Britain to deal with Middle Eastern terrorism, however, my point was that because the ball was already rolling, if you will, it's difficult for the next government to just put an outright stop on all conflict. The wasps nest has already been disturbed.

 

[JonS]

Hard to define what a 'Hitler type situation' is though - how long do you wait before a terrorist group grow? I'm of the opinion that it certainly isn't up to Britain to deal with Middle Eastern terrorism, however, my point was that because the ball was already rolling, if you will, it's difficult for the next government to just put an outright stop on all conflict. The wasps nest has already been disturbed.

Agreed. Important to try though...

 

[bring the ghost on]

Not sure I agree. I am near pacifist (may make an exception to fight a Hitler type situation) and would take responsibility and stop the killing and the (unsuccessfully interventionist) foreign policy as soon as I could.

Radical Islam is the fascism of our time, surely?

 

[JonS]

Radical Islam is the fascism of our time, surely?

Yes probably and now we've helped cause it its hard to know what to do to help change it.

Not having Saudi as an ally might help as might dealing with it at home (I'm in the UK where the mosques are Saudi funded and their Imans Saudi trained)

 

[tsubaki]

And nor should you. Middle eastern conflict is terribly complex and its hard to attribute killings to somebody who took the reigns after it had already started. Look further than that though - what about social policy? How have these people treated their poorest, most vulnerable members of society?

Trump isn't even president yet and he has treated them disgracefully.

To be fair the Middle East conflict is easy to understand, once you recognize the fact that the fundamentalist Sunni groups / states have always been allied to the West.

It took an awful lot for al-Qaeda to find itself on the naughty list (Khobar Towers (which the Iranians are still officially blamed for), the first WTC attack, USS Cole, the Kenya Embassy bombing etc), and even then the US / UK largely ignored them once Iraq was started. Also one suspects that if IS had released its hostages unharmed, al-Baghdadi would be in Baghdad now.

 

[Clint Planet]

Radical Islam is the fascism of our time, surely?

Not really. There is NO chance of Britain being "taken over" by Muslims or "conquered" by ISIL - the vast majority of Muslims are decent, solid people who have as little truck with Radical Islam as you or I have with the KKK. Sadly, Muslims are portrayed as Fifth Columnists by hatemongers and meat-heads in much the same way that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in the 30s.

By all means, be suspicious of Islam if you really feel you must, but be also suspicious of anyone invoking fabled nationalist ideals and portraying decent people as an "enemy within."

 

[TX Bill]

You've lost a lot of respect and credibility posting that tweet. Dog-whistle racism that blaming the victims of hate crime for a rise in hate crime? Really?

On the contrary, racial relations in this country went down hill under the Obama administration. That's a fact. Anybody claiming otherwise, as the tweet claimed, is just flat out wrong. But please, would you care to tell us how that isn't a fact and how race relations improved over the last 8 years? Your retort actually is the one that lacks any credibility.

Come back with some facts rather than leftist talking points....talking points that got Trump elected.

 

[Tubey]

On the contrary, racial relations in this country went down hill under the Obama administration. That's a fact. Would you care to tell us how that isn't a fact and how race relations improved over the last 8 years? Your retort actually is the one that lacks any credibility.

Come back with some facts rather than talking points.

How is Obama responsible for white people being more insecure about ethnic minorities gaining equality in the USA under his leadership?

The "birther" movement spoke volumes to me about who was at fault for race relations declining.

 

[TX Bill]

is this the only article you guys have read?

you're not wrong (though i would hardly be shocked if some of the details in that story don't entirely hold up), but it is more complicated than you care to acknowledge.

Chavez came to power pledging to invest Venezuela's oil wealth in the Venezuelan people, as opposed to more conventional destinations like Miami real estate. Actually, his predecessor promised more or less the same thing, but then about-faced immediately after taking power, cutting taxes on the rich, reducing public services, attacking unions, selling off state assets to cronies - the usual formula.

Chavez, on the other hand, was sincere to a surprising extent, and even the OAS, which is prone to fainting at the lightest whiff of 'socialism,' had to acknowledge that he made real progress on things like reducing inequality, improving access to health care and education, or lowering child poverty. This is why he still has a core support base among the poor (Madura, much less so - it's important not to conflate them), and why he kept winning elections, which, again, his opponents had to concede were mostly fair by Venezuelan standards, albeit less so each time.

On the other hand, he was undeniably a demagogue with an authoritarian streak, increasingly willing to use the state to serve personal ends and to repress his enemies. In the end, like Castro, he was really not much more than a standard-issue caudillo ("strongman," perhaps), with the usual accompanying clientalism and patronage networks, but more grandiose ideological pretensions. Both failed to accept that changing the substance of their countries' politics was limited without also changing the structure.

And both ultimately failed to overcome deep-seeded structural economic dependency, Chavez with oil and Castro with Soviet-subsidized sugar. I'm not sure Venezuela would be dramatically better off under a different leader, given its singular dependence on a sole commodity whose value has collapsed.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/post-chavez-venezuela-enters-downward-spiral/

Still, conservatives should ask themselves why they only care about corruption in countries that make an effort to reduce poverty, illiteracy, inequality, malnutrition, preventable disease etc.

If you're genuinely upset by corruption, and not just acting out vestigial Cold War flag-waving "support the home team/U-S-A U-S-A!!!" impulses, then write your Congressman about what's happened in Brazil too:

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/30...-of-dilmas-impeachment-and-temers-corruption/


Or for that matter, Israel:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-corruption-allegations-against-benjamin-netanyahu

But it's not more complicated than acknowledged. That's just typical leftist speak. Translation: "This article was fact based and but doesn't fit the narrative...oh...and Israel."

 

[JonS]

Not really. There is NO chance of Britain being "taken over" by Muslims or "conquered" by ISIL - the vast majority of Muslims are decent, solid people who have as little truck with Radical Islam as you or I have with the KKK. Sadly, Muslims are portrayed as Fifth Columnists by hatemongers and meat-heads in much the same way that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in the 30s.

By all means, be suspicious of Islam if you really feel you must, but be also suspicious of anyone invoking fabled nationalist ideals and portraying decent people as an "enemy within."

I'm not suspicious of Islam but am suspicious of its increasingly common current Saudi-sponsored incarnation where people seem to have some sympathy for terrorism, refusal to integrate or allow equality of the sexes.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Not really. There is NO chance of Britain being "taken over" by Muslims or "conquered" by ISIL - the vast majority of Muslims are decent, solid people who have as little truck with Radical Islam as you or I have with the KKK. Sadly, Muslims are portrayed as Fifth Columnists in much the same way that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in the 30s.

By all means, be suspicious of Islam if you really feel you must, but be also suspicious of anyone invoking fabled nationalist ideals and portraying decent people as an "enemy within."

You seem to be insinuating that I am propagating a campaign against Muslims when nothing is further from the truth. I would never suggest that radical Islam is in any way representative of the 99% of Muslims who are normal, law abiding people. Really, the religion is just a means to an end, a doctrine which is being abused to attain power and spread a fascist ideology.

However, most Muslims being decent people does not change the fact that what has emanated in the Middle East is a very dangerous, expansionist political ideology, nor does it mean we should ignore it at fear of being blasphemous.

To say radical Islam is not a threat to the UK is not accurate. Whilst ISIS doesn't have the size or power to "conquer" or "take over" anywhere in Europe, it has targeted European countries repeatedly through terror attacks and it is clear that it aims to seize and control areas in the Middle East to build itself up as a significant force.

Ultimately, taking an interventionist stance in bombing ISIS held areas has helped stifle its growth and I can only consider that to be a good thing.

 

[TX Bill]

How is Obama responsible for white people being more insecure about ethnic minorities gaining equality in the USA under his leadership?

The "birther" movement spoke volumes to me about who was at fault for race relations declining.

Who said white people were more insecure? I'm not. None of the "white people" I know aren't. Why would you talk out of your arse like that when it's clear you don't have a clue about race relations in this country. I live here mate. I see it. Obama's approach to race relations was one of many reasons why Trump is now president.

Deal with it mate or at the very least, get yourself educated about it.