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

[gordonjblair]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
The left may well have a point with regards to the chronic lack of equality, but calling people names isn't going to help change their minds.
If you want to influence someone, you have to show them respect, but there is little of this in evidence from either side.
If you want the right to be less reactionary, attack them less and reason with them more... also, if you want the left to be slightly less naive and more pragmatic, perhaps don't refer to them as liberal fascists.
The only thing that is beyond doubt, is that the level of debate (whether in the US election, or Brexit) was atrocious, and again, all sides were as bad as each other.

 

[verreauxi]

Or maybe it's that leftist liberal thinking is generally based on idealism: how we wish things to be. Young people are very attracted to this idea.

And rightist conservative thinking is based on lived experience, an acceptance of how things work whether we like it or not. Something that, broadly, older people will more identify with.

This quote sums up conservative thinking to a tee: that the world is what it is, that there is a natural order to things so just get over it. As if there is some immutable laws of human nature that ultimately govern our politics and how we behave toward each other, and conservatives are privy to them and liberals are not.

My take is that "an acceptance of how things work whether we like it or not" also happens to be the status quo of traditional (Judeo-Christian informed) values + white privilege + a healthy appetite for defending the status quo, which is another reason why white European/European-descended older males like conservative values--they don't want to give up what they got.

 

[SteveSC]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
The left may well have a point with regards to the chronic lack of equality, but calling people names isn't going to help change their minds.
If you want to influence someone, you have to show them respect, but there is little of this in evidence from either side.
If you want the right to be less reactionary, attack them less and reason with them more... also, if you want the left to be slightly less naive and more pragmatic, perhaps don't refer to them as liberal fascists.
The only thing that is beyond doubt, is that the level of debate (whether in the US election, or Brexit) was atrocious, and again, all sides were as bad as each other.

By that logic Trump be very unpopular by his own side if that's the case. All he does is insult people including his own base and party. All he does is call people names.

i agree that respect should be first and foremost but to say the left is equally as bad is hilarious.

The right has spent the best part of 8 years calling the left snowflakes and taking personal shots at Obama and the Clinton's.

Since Trump has been elected he has used bigoted comments and just about every insult he can think off taking shots at the left like calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas".

Respect should start with the commander and chief. If he cannot do it then what hope is there.

Also the right call the left snowflakes when they get triggered by their insults like they are egging them on but get deeply insulted when it is thrown back at them from the opposition. They are ok with insulting each other just not a democrat doing it.

 

[mezzrow]

And you guys wonder why the left are angry?

I don't wonder. I know why you're angry. Life is suffering.

 

[dholliday]

Does the gender pay gap exist? Yes it does. Why not work to fix that...why is that divisive?

I disagree that the gender pay gap exists. In fact there are laws in place to protect against such things. What do you understand the term gender pay gap to actually mean? That on average men earn more than women or that for the exact same job/duties/position/status/hours men earn more than women?

Regressive racism? It wasn't long ago that black folks weren't allowed to right any articles.

You don't think it's condescending, divisive and regressive to have black writers author only about race? From the right side of the spectrum black writers tend not to focus on their skin colour, this is surely more progressive.

See also the famous Martin Luther King statement which is being ignored and disrespected by many on the modern Left: "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Should more black folks be CEO's? I have no idea. I haven't studied that. That said if qualified people are being overlooked simply because of the color of their skin then yeah...that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Doesn't seem divisive to me.

But what's if they're not being overlooked because of their skin? What's if they're not being overlooked at all, that they are getting in at a rate which can be fairly expected given the demographic development of a given Western nation? Is it then not condescending, divisive and regressive to still frame mainstream debate as if there is a racist problem?


More examples of divisive identity politics hiding under a 'progressive/inclusive' umbrella causing problems further down the line:

- If the US Left weren't so fixated on Hilary being the first female President we likely wouldn't have President Trump now.

- Gorden Brown calling a traditional Labour voter "a bigot" because she voiced concerns about her area becoming unsafe due to immigrant criminality. She likely voted UKIP then. If her concerns were listened to (not necessarily agreed with) then she may have remained a Labour voter. A butterfly-effect of the Brexit vote to come.

- Similar happened here in Germany when critics of the media's coverage of the migrant waves of 2015/16, and anyone who raised valid concerns about Islam, were outcast as Nazi-sympathisers. They certainly were not, but like the Labour voter, were pushed to protest-vote. The AfD got near 13% despite a heavy anti agenda in the media.


TL/DR: pushing division causes division shocker.

 

[SteveSC]

I don't wonder. I know why you're angry. Life is suffering.

Haha!! Ah yes blame the left for suffering haha!! That's rich!! Maybe put pressure on the people you voted for to hold the bumbling president accountable. Maybe recognise when he [Poor language removed] up and admit it.

Eight years of Obama and the right never shut up about him and would not stop insulting him, blocking him, questioning his citizenship but now the shoe is on the other foot you guys can't take it and you call the left "snowflakes". You want the opposition to be silent then?

 

[gordonjblair]

By that logic Trump be very unpopular by his own side if that's the case. All he does is insult people including his own base and party. All he does is call people names.

i agree that respect should be first and foremost but to say the left is equally as bad is hilarious.

The right has spent the best part of 8 years calling the left snowflakes and taking personal shots at Obama and the Clinton's.

Since Trump has been elected he has used bigoted comments and just about every insult he can think off taking shots at the left like calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas".

Respect should start with the commander and chief. If he cannot do it then what hope is there.

Also the right call the left snowflakes when they get triggered by their insults like they are egging them on but get deeply insulted when it is thrown back at them from the opposition. They are ok with insulting each other just not a democrat doing it.

Trump's abysmal approval ratings are precisely because he has alienated a portion of his support.

If the Commander in Chief can't show respect, that is absolutely no excuse for anyone else to lower themselves to his level. The way to highlight his infantile behaviour isn't for everyone to descend to a squabbling, name calling mess.

 

[SteveSC]

Trump's abysmal approval ratings are precisely because he has alienated a portion of his support.

If the Commander in Chief can't show respect, that is absolutely no excuse for anyone else to lower themselves to his level. The way to highlight his infantile behaviour isn't for everyone to descend to a squabbling, name calling mess.

But not were it counts. The majority of his base don't care that he shows no respect. They think he is a master wind up artist and not a thin skinned teen boy with his barrage of tweets insulting whomever doesn't agree with him

They think thats not official communication and its his opinions only and although public should not be taken seriously. Like i said in many posts as long as they control everything he will continue to show no respect and not get called out.

Other than that i agree with your reply.

 

[ilikecheese]

I disagree that the gender pay gap exists. In fact there are laws in place to protect against such things. What do you understand the term gender pay gap to actually mean? That on average men earn more than women or that for the exact same job/duties/position/status/hours men earn more than women?





You don't think it's condescending, divisive and regressive to have black writers author only about race? From the right side of the spectrum black writers tend not to focus on their skin colour, this is surely more progressive.

See also the famous Martin Luther King statement which is being ignored and disrespected by many on the modern Left: "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."




But what's if they're not being overlooked because of their skin? What's if they're not being overlooked at all, that they are getting in at a rate which can be fairly expected given the demographic development of a given Western nation? Is it then not condescending, divisive and regressive to still frame mainstream debate as if there is a racist problem?


More examples of divisive identity politics hiding under a 'progressive/inclusive' umbrella causing problems further down the line:

- If the US Left weren't so fixated on Hilary being the first female President we likely wouldn't have President Trump now.

- Gorden Brown calling a traditional Labour voter "a bigot" because she voiced concerns about her area becoming unsafe due to immigrant criminality. She likely voted UKIP then. If her concerns were listened to (not necessarily agreed with) then she may have remained a Labour voter. A butterfly-effect of the Brexit vote to come.

- Similar happened here in Germany when critics of the media's coverage of the migrant waves of 2015/16, and anyone who raised valid concerns about Islam, were outcast as Nazi-sympathisers. They certainly were not, but like the Labour voter, were pushed to protest-vote. The AfD got near 13% despite a heavy anti agenda in the media.


TL/DR: pushing division causes division shocker.

Every study I've seen using various methodologies show a gender pay gap. The gap is not wide when making an apples to apples comparison, but even then there is a gap.

Can you prove that black writers are only allowed to write articles about race? If that is the case then yeah that is a problem. I see black people on TV all the time that talk about wide and varying topics though.

Can you prove statistically that black CEO's are equally demographically represented?

I am not going to respond to everything you wrote. Regarding the MLK quote. I couldn't agree more with it. Hopefully someday we will actually make it there as a society. We are not there yet.

 

[gordonjblair]

- If the US Left weren't so fixated on Hilary being the first female President we likely wouldn't have President Trump now.

I disagree with this, Clinton didn't lose because people were fixated on having a female President, just as Obama didn't win because people were fixated on having a black President.

Obama won because he was a charming, charismatic symbol of hope, who convinced America that they could.

Clinton lost because she's electoral poison, with all the warmth of personality of a frozen halibut (and not one of the friendly ones, but a proper miserable arsehole halibut that probably wore a knitted tank top and carried a clipboard everywhere, a real officious cnut). She was quite possibly the only candidate the Dems could have fielded that would have lost to Trump, but not due to her gender.

 

[mezzrow]

Haha!! Ah yes blame the left for suffering haha!! That's rich!! Maybe put pressure on the people you voted for to hold the bumbling president accountable. Maybe recognise when he [Poor language removed] up and admit it.

Eight years of Obama and the right never shut up about him and would not stop insulting him, blocking him, questioning his citizenship but now the shoe is on the other foot you guys can't take it and you call the left "snowflakes". You want the opposition to be silent then?

No blame implied. It's no person's fault that life is suffering. There is much less suffering than there used to be. Trump can't fix it all, and getting rid of Trump won't fix it either.

All I can do is fix myself up. It's all any of us can do. Even in an earthly utopia you eventually die, you know. So will everyone you know and love. There is suffering and pain on the road to that inevitability. It's a big reason religion is a worldwide human phenomenon. Mankind won't shed that skin so easily.

I'm what you would call a "fixer-upper" for sure. I haven't said anything about Obama for months. It'll be okay. Really.

 

[dholliday]

Can you prove statistically that black CEO's are equally demographically represented?

I am not going to respond to everything you wrote. Regarding the MLK quote. I couldn't agree more with it. Hopefully someday we will actually make it there as a society. We are not there yet.

I said black CEO's are getting in at a rate which can be fairly expected given the demographic development of a given Western nation, this means you can't expect an absolute equal proportion to the demographic ratio as black people haven't been part of society as long as the natives (natives talking about Europe here...bit of a sticky issue this term in the USA, I gather).

It takes time. But black and ethnic-minority chiefs are getting in, and the numbers suggest at this rate within a couple more generations the percentages will be roughly in-line with absolute demographics.

With the rest we could be here all day, but I also heartily agree on the bolded part.

 

[dholliday]

I disagree with this, Clinton didn't lose because people were fixated on having a female President, just as Obama didn't win because people were fixated on having a black President.

Obama won because he was a charming, charismatic symbol of hope, who convinced America that they could.

Clinton lost because she's electoral poison, with all the warmth of personality of a frozen halibut (and not one of the friendly ones, but a proper miserable arsehole halibut that probably wore a knitted tank top and carried a clipboard everywhere, a real officious cnut). She was quite possibly the only candidate the Dems could have fielded that would have lost to Trump, but not due to her gender.

I agree with all of that, mate. Just that Hilary was being pushed because of her gender by quite a few mainstream media publications, and when she didn't win, misogyny was blamed.

 

[verreauxi]

I agree with all of that, mate. Just that Hilary was being pushed because of her gender by quite a few mainstream media publications, and when she didn't win, misogyny was blamed.

Who was using misogyny as the excuse for her loss? I don't recall seeing that.

 

[ilikecheese]

Who was using misogyny as the excuse for her loss? I don't recall seeing that.

I noticed that he failed to mention Russian interference as well.