Kenshin
Player Valuation: £40m
Sorry Bill, i saw a mention of guns. I'll stick on topic in the future.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
neil999
Player Valuation: £80m
He's just resorted to angry retorts rather than responding properly, clear sign he is losing the argument...Sad!
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
he's gone to a safer space now
Trump is a good laugh , everyday he gives us something new
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
What Donald Trump learned from Hugo Chávez
From firing contestants on television to the way they harness voters' dissatisfaction, the president have more in common than you'd suspect.
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/02/what-donald-trump-learned-hugo-ch-vez
Of course the forum Trumplings who were banging on about Chavez don't/won't see it.
And, of course, Trump is a con man whereas Chavez, whatever else, was at least sincere in trying to help his constituents. Rather than fire them on his game show, Trump has appointed the the oligarchs to run the government. Another one for the "Chavez's only crime as far as Americans are concerned was trying to help the poor" file. He'd definitely have avoided the US coup attempt if he'd just stuck to squirreling away the oil money in Miami real estate like his forebearers.
The Republican Party - "people who see the formulation: 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and are horrified by the latter, but actually tempted by the former."
* * *
With each new story from the White House, each new made-for-television drama, Donald Trump more closely resembles Hugo Chávez. The showmanship and swagger, the blunders and the brilliance, the obsessions, ambitions, contradictions and sheer brio, even the tweets – it has all happened before in Venezuela.
I covered Chávez from 2006 to 2012 before moving to the United States. I am now struck daily by a sense of déjà vu. Trump is using the same playbook. The fixation with crowd sizes and victory margins in elections, the war on the media, the threats against companies, the conspiracy theories, the strange cabinet appointments, the picking of fights with neighbours, the blizzard of stunts and executive actions, is all pure Chávez.
The comparison will offend supporters of both presidents but is, in a way, a compliment. Chávez, who died in 2013, ruined the economy and gutted institutions, but he won election after election and is still revered by millions. If Trump is even half as shrewd, he will win again in 2020.
Chávez was patient. He started cautiously and secured his control over all branches of government before turning radical. Trump lacks such restraint. Yet there are striking parallels of style and method. Both sensed voters’ desire for radical disruption. They swept to power vowing to overturn establishments, to banish “los corruptos” and “drain the swamp”.
Both had the gift of the gab. In the army, Chávez specialised in communications and moonlighted as a compère, hosting a beauty pageant. Both signalled their outsider status with colloquial speech, improvised riffs, bawdy humour, vitriolic insults and grandiose promises.
Both mastered television. While Trump was hiring and firing contestants on The Apprentice, Chávez was doing it for real on his weekly TV show, Aló Presidente. “Fuera!” he cried, ousting executives of the national oil company, PDVSA, and blowing a whistle, like a football referee.
Chávez also obsessed over his popularity. The media conspired to reduce his “victorias enormes” and used misleading camera angles to diminish his “gigantesca” crowds, he said.
When Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, called the media “the opposition party” he was following Andres Izarra, Chávez’s information minister. Venezuela's media did, in fact, work to overthrow Chávez, notably during a 2002 US-backed coup which briefly ousted the comandante. This delegitimised the press and helped Chávez mould his own state media empire. His favourite TV host, an attack dog called Mario Silva, made US shock jock Sean Hannity seem tame.
Bannon's escalation of hostilities is astute. No matter what the boss does, or what is reported, it can all be framed as Trump v Media, and by extension Trump v Establishment. The longer he is in office the more useful this will be – he can be forever the insurgent, his heart in the right place, battling the elites.
Chávez fuelled polarisation. A third of the population adored him, a third loathed him; and, come election time, he courted the floating middle, the so-called ni-nis. He did this by baiting his opponents, and they fell for it. They bellowed and marched, feeling powerful. Yet their tone and rhetoric alienated people. The floaters sided with the guy who spoke their language.
Chávez picked fights. He phoned business leaders live on air to demand that they stop ripping off customers, expelled US diplomats, mobilised troops on the Colombian border and threatened to jail opponents. He used Twitter to great effect, interrupting televised events to respond to messages. He peddled conspiracy theories – assassination plots, fake moon landings, secret electromagnetic weapons – to bolster his world-view.
Both leaders promised golden ages of “winning” through infrastructure projects and new trade deals. As reality catches up with his promises, Trump may emulate another Chávez tactic: blasting his own government. Attack incompetent or treacherous minions who sabotaged the great vision. Name and shame in an Oval Office version of The Apprentice.
If the lesson for Trump’s opponents is to beware of overreaction, the lesson for his aides is to forfeit ego. Do not shine too brightly, because there is only one sun king.
I once asked Nuris Orihuela, the former head of Chávez’s space programme, about his suggestion that capitalism killed life on Mars. “The president is a good man,” she replied. “He speaks from the heart and looks you in the eye . . . So really, there is no reason to worry.”
Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway performed a similar pirouette when defending her boss’s mockery of a disabled reporter. “Look at what’s in his heart,” she said.
From firing contestants on television to the way they harness voters' dissatisfaction, the president have more in common than you'd suspect.
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/02/what-donald-trump-learned-hugo-ch-vez
Of course the forum Trumplings who were banging on about Chavez don't/won't see it.
And, of course, Trump is a con man whereas Chavez, whatever else, was at least sincere in trying to help his constituents. Rather than fire them on his game show, Trump has appointed the the oligarchs to run the government. Another one for the "Chavez's only crime as far as Americans are concerned was trying to help the poor" file. He'd definitely have avoided the US coup attempt if he'd just stuck to squirreling away the oil money in Miami real estate like his forebearers.
The Republican Party - "people who see the formulation: 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and are horrified by the latter, but actually tempted by the former."
* * *
With each new story from the White House, each new made-for-television drama, Donald Trump more closely resembles Hugo Chávez. The showmanship and swagger, the blunders and the brilliance, the obsessions, ambitions, contradictions and sheer brio, even the tweets – it has all happened before in Venezuela.
I covered Chávez from 2006 to 2012 before moving to the United States. I am now struck daily by a sense of déjà vu. Trump is using the same playbook. The fixation with crowd sizes and victory margins in elections, the war on the media, the threats against companies, the conspiracy theories, the strange cabinet appointments, the picking of fights with neighbours, the blizzard of stunts and executive actions, is all pure Chávez.
The comparison will offend supporters of both presidents but is, in a way, a compliment. Chávez, who died in 2013, ruined the economy and gutted institutions, but he won election after election and is still revered by millions. If Trump is even half as shrewd, he will win again in 2020.
Chávez was patient. He started cautiously and secured his control over all branches of government before turning radical. Trump lacks such restraint. Yet there are striking parallels of style and method. Both sensed voters’ desire for radical disruption. They swept to power vowing to overturn establishments, to banish “los corruptos” and “drain the swamp”.
Both had the gift of the gab. In the army, Chávez specialised in communications and moonlighted as a compère, hosting a beauty pageant. Both signalled their outsider status with colloquial speech, improvised riffs, bawdy humour, vitriolic insults and grandiose promises.
Both mastered television. While Trump was hiring and firing contestants on The Apprentice, Chávez was doing it for real on his weekly TV show, Aló Presidente. “Fuera!” he cried, ousting executives of the national oil company, PDVSA, and blowing a whistle, like a football referee.
Chávez also obsessed over his popularity. The media conspired to reduce his “victorias enormes” and used misleading camera angles to diminish his “gigantesca” crowds, he said.
When Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, called the media “the opposition party” he was following Andres Izarra, Chávez’s information minister. Venezuela's media did, in fact, work to overthrow Chávez, notably during a 2002 US-backed coup which briefly ousted the comandante. This delegitimised the press and helped Chávez mould his own state media empire. His favourite TV host, an attack dog called Mario Silva, made US shock jock Sean Hannity seem tame.
Bannon's escalation of hostilities is astute. No matter what the boss does, or what is reported, it can all be framed as Trump v Media, and by extension Trump v Establishment. The longer he is in office the more useful this will be – he can be forever the insurgent, his heart in the right place, battling the elites.
Chávez fuelled polarisation. A third of the population adored him, a third loathed him; and, come election time, he courted the floating middle, the so-called ni-nis. He did this by baiting his opponents, and they fell for it. They bellowed and marched, feeling powerful. Yet their tone and rhetoric alienated people. The floaters sided with the guy who spoke their language.
Chávez picked fights. He phoned business leaders live on air to demand that they stop ripping off customers, expelled US diplomats, mobilised troops on the Colombian border and threatened to jail opponents. He used Twitter to great effect, interrupting televised events to respond to messages. He peddled conspiracy theories – assassination plots, fake moon landings, secret electromagnetic weapons – to bolster his world-view.
Both leaders promised golden ages of “winning” through infrastructure projects and new trade deals. As reality catches up with his promises, Trump may emulate another Chávez tactic: blasting his own government. Attack incompetent or treacherous minions who sabotaged the great vision. Name and shame in an Oval Office version of The Apprentice.
If the lesson for Trump’s opponents is to beware of overreaction, the lesson for his aides is to forfeit ego. Do not shine too brightly, because there is only one sun king.
I once asked Nuris Orihuela, the former head of Chávez’s space programme, about his suggestion that capitalism killed life on Mars. “The president is a good man,” she replied. “He speaks from the heart and looks you in the eye . . . So really, there is no reason to worry.”
Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway performed a similar pirouette when defending her boss’s mockery of a disabled reporter. “Look at what’s in his heart,” she said.
Kenshin
Player Valuation: £40m
just wanted to ask one thing in the wave of anti trump media and opinion.
why doesn't the opinion of anyone else matter? The stuff in the media about banning people travelling is wrong for sure and i am not discussing that. All the americans who voted for Trump and believe it to be a good thing, why is everyone disregarding their opinion in all of this? Trump is doing what was on his agenda, people backed that idea and millions of americans backed it to vote for him.
Dare i say it, that the opinions of millions has been glossed over in the past month or so in favour of the 'right' opinion and reading through this thread alone you can see a microcosm of anyone disagreeing with it all being aggressively put in their place, playfully or otherwise.
I just don't get why people can believe their opinion is right and other opinions are wrong to the point of ignoring the other side exists.
why doesn't the opinion of anyone else matter? The stuff in the media about banning people travelling is wrong for sure and i am not discussing that. All the americans who voted for Trump and believe it to be a good thing, why is everyone disregarding their opinion in all of this? Trump is doing what was on his agenda, people backed that idea and millions of americans backed it to vote for him.
Dare i say it, that the opinions of millions has been glossed over in the past month or so in favour of the 'right' opinion and reading through this thread alone you can see a microcosm of anyone disagreeing with it all being aggressively put in their place, playfully or otherwise.
I just don't get why people can believe their opinion is right and other opinions are wrong to the point of ignoring the other side exists.
Seanjd
Player Valuation: £30m
I think, what it boils down to, is the fact that banning a religion from entering your country is a bit wrong.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Unless I have hotels in them.
He didnt the 5 top muslim countries by population were allowed in.
The counties banned did not offer assistance to the usa in vetting travellers hense the ban
Some of the very same countries are among several that totally ban anybody with an israeli passport from entering there country,
Not like the USA which was for 3 months while the put a diffrent system in place.
Not a fan of his but this isnt one he can't be hit with , banning muslims
Last edited:
Although it was a campaign pledge
He talks constant crap , but he didnt ban muslims depite the frenzy in the media
Seanjd
Player Valuation: £30m
Firstly, it doesn't matter if those countries ban Isrealis - that has nothing to do with why he has banned Muslims from those countries entering the USA.
Secondly, he has banned Musljms from those countries. Christians, from those countries, for example, are allowed in, so it is a Muslims ban.
How when the vast majority of muslims can still go to the USA.
Ps 6 of the first people sent back were christian
- Status