Jump to content

This morning...


The Red Telephone
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

1. I am making the assumption with your views and your dismissal of the things Trump has said that you've never really faced meaningful discrimination in your life. Whether it be based on your race, colour, religion (or lack of one), gender etc.

This is what allows you to be so blasé about Trump by simply calling him "un-PC". I find Nigel Farage odious but almost everything "offensive" he has said I can agree comes into this category. Trump goes several levels beyond Farage.

Do you think taking a film crew to the gym to publicly humiliate a Miss Universe contestant about her weight as he did is just "un-PC"? Or do you in fact think it's behaviour degrading to women?

Do you think saying a judge can't make a decision on a case because he's Mexican is simply un-PC? Or do you think maybe this is outright discriminatory behaviour? 

I mean I could go on here. There's a clear fundamental difference.

2. There is a huge difference in being critical of a religion and its teachings (not that I recall Trump ever engaging in much talk about the Koran itself) and saying people from that religion can't come to this country. Unless the video you posted has Christopher Hitchens advocating stopping Muslims from entering a country, I'm not particularly interested in your efforts to steer the argument from this point.

And plenty of "moderate" Muslim women I know work at the very top of my profession earning more than their husbands. So just as I don't judge Christians or even the religion today by what the Bible says (because there is some vile stuff in there), nor do I judge Islam by those standards.

I do find practices in various Muslim countries abhorrent, but I also see homosexuals getting locked up in various Christian African countries too for example. It's a complicated picture. 

3. A Cold War with Russia was never going to be the same prospect as it was before. The entire geopolitical environment is totally different to how it was in those days. If you haven't noticed, the Iron Curtain doesn't exist anymore and the Kremlin doesn't have anything like the influence and control over dozens of countries to do their bidding. Of course some commentators are saying the Trump victory does make Russian incursions to make those days happen again more likely but who knows. 

4. Where does morality end and corruption begin? You accused Clinton of being corrupt, but has she ever even come close to being convicted of anything? Of course I think things she has done are undoubtedly shady too, but the "crooked" tag was being used far more against Clinton than it was against Trump. Which was just ridiculous.

5. When did I even talk about slaves? I wasn't referring to slaves - slavery ended a very long time ago but in the period that Trump supporters usually refer to when they want to "Make America Great Again" - i.e. the 1950s - many still had black housekeepers and cleaners. But why even stop there? Does the fact you might see a Pakistani doctor or have a Mexican driver suddenly disqualify you from being a racist? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, just because you find people from minorities useful for your personal interests it doesn't mean you can't be racist against them. 

1. Still sadly just conjecture. An opinion you hold against someone for no reason other than your own assumption. Although actually in a courtroom when they choose jurors they ask if there are any reasons why they couldn't stand. He questioned whether the judge would have any reason to dislike him - and he's completely at liberty to ask this whether you agree with it or not.

2. Trump said he would like to vet visitors or refugees or immigrants more based on that fact that there had been a spate of terrorist attempts all including Muslims. If it was still the 60s and 70s he might have said the same thing against the Irish, or ETA. But to claim it's racist, by definition is just factually bad English.
3. Russia is a diminished threat but as we see from their action in Ukraine and Syria, they're still willing to become involved. Trump has said many times he would like to improve relations with them.
4. Yes, it's a good question and we'll probably never find out if Clinton really did do anything corrupt, just like we'll never know if Trump really touched any women inappropriately.
5. When you mentioned black servants I thought you meant slavery. But I think it's still poor analysis from the Left to claim this election was ever just about race.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Yes I suppose every person who despises black people, women etc pays them exorbitant amounts of money and helps them develop as employees etc...  Right...  right...

People who expected Clinton to win easily must really wonder why this all happened then and they can only come up with racism and sexism. It's poor analysis. 

Pays them?! Erm...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

He also worked at his father's property company when it discriminated against black potential tenants...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0

Again - my point had nothing to do with why Trump won the election. I was picking up on your argument that he isn't bigoted because he may or may not employ people of minority backgrounds (as he is required to do by law).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Not been there, where I drink usually depends on my route home. If I'm going via Greenwich it's The Yacht next to the river, Blackheath it's either the Railway or Princess of Wales or if I'm going via North Greenwich I like The Pilot Inn just by the Dome.

(I do love that in the middle of this political discussion there's a sub-conversation on the best pubs in Royal Greenwich)

Fun fact: the row of houses next to the Pilot Inn is where Blur's Parklife video was filmed (you probably already knew this...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

1. Still sadly just conjecture. An opinion you hold against someone for no reason other than your own assumption. Although actually in a courtroom when they choose jurors they ask if there are any reasons why they couldn't stand. He questioned whether the judge would have any reason to dislike him - and he's completely at liberty to ask this whether you agree with it or not.

2. Trump said he would like to vet visitors or refugees or immigrants more based on that fact that there had been a spate of terrorist attempts all including Muslims. If it was still the 60s and 70s he might have said the same thing against the Irish, or ETA. But to claim it's racist, by definition is just factually bad English.
3. Russia is a diminished threat but as we see from their action in Ukraine and Syria, they're still willing to become involved. Trump has said many times he would like to improve relations with them.
4. Yes, it's a good question and we'll probably never find out if Clinton really did do anything corrupt, just like we'll never know if Trump really touched any women inappropriately.
5. When you mentioned black servants I thought you meant slavery. But I think it's still poor analysis from the Left to claim this election was ever just about race.
 

1. It might be conjecture but I would bet my bottom dollar it's true. Please, tell me about the times you've been discriminated against in your life if it isn't. There are plenty of people out there who recognise this and so have the insight to realise their own life experiences probably means they can't judge Trump's words and actions by the same means as others who have experienced similar things in real life. Indeed - there have even been a fair few Republicans in positions of privilege who have condemned Trump's various remarks. It is a big shame you have absolutely no insight about this. 

He specifically used the fact the judge was Mexican as a reason why he might dislike him. Not based on any statements the judge himself made or any other personal or professional qualities of that judge. Either that says a lot about the statements Trump had been making up to that point (and that any Mexican would have good reason to be biased against him) or it says a lot about that statement itself. Pick one. 

2. The vast majority of terrorist attacks weren't by Muslim immigrants or refugees though were they? They were by Muslims already living in the countries concerned - often they had been born there in fact. There were sometimes a couple of refugees/new immigrants tacked on but that was about it. So it was a nonsensical policy purely aimed at scapegoating 11 million people who had moved to that country and lived there peacefully together with billions of others around the world.

No one suggested that about Irish immigration to the UK in the 1960s. Indeed there was a strong ant-Irish sentiment in the old days in England - however had someone suggested actually not allowing Irish people to move to the UK because of the IRA there would have been uproar. And that was decades ago. Not sure why you're bringing up ETA either as no one has ever suggested Basques not be allowed anywhere - there is no historical precedent to this. 

3. Is Trump improving relations with Russia a particularly good thing? I don't think the icy attitude of Clinton/Obama towards Russia was a bad thing. This isn't the 20th century anymore. Russia is a greatly diminished power and the prospects of that developing into a meaningful war between the two countries were always very, very slim. 

4. Trump is up in court on charges of basically corruption and fraudulent practices in relation to Trump University. This whole idea that "they're both as bad as each other" because Hillary was the corrupt one and Trump was the one who made questionable statements/behaviour falls down completely when you consider the multiple corruption angles on Trump too. 

5. I didn't use the word "servant" either. And nor did I (or anyone I've seen) ever say this was just about race. But discrimination and bigotry play a large part in his election, whether its against women, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled people or any of the other various groups Trump has insulted throughout his campaign. 

Edited by arcade fireman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, somecoolusername said:

Pays them?! Erm...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

He also worked at his father's property company when it discriminated against black potential tenants...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0

Again - my point had nothing to do with why Trump won the election. I was picking up on your argument that he isn't bigoted because he may or may not employ people of minority backgrounds (as he is required to do by law).

The link you sent me was for a white guy, or is he now bigoted against his own race now too? :rolleyes:

The second link admits there's no actual evidence that he was bigoted. And certainly a lot of latinos and blacks didn't think so either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

1. Still sadly just conjecture. An opinion you hold against someone for no reason other than your own assumption. Although actually in a courtroom when they choose jurors they ask if there are any reasons why they couldn't stand. He questioned whether the judge would have any reason to dislike him - and he's completely at liberty to ask this whether you agree with it or not.

2. Trump said he would like to vet visitors or refugees or immigrants more based on that fact that there had been a spate of terrorist attempts all including Muslims. If it was still the 60s and 70s he might have said the same thing against the Irish, or ETA. But to claim it's racist, by definition is just factually bad English.
3. Russia is a diminished threat but as we see from their action in Ukraine and Syria, they're still willing to become involved. Trump has said many times he would like to improve relations with them.
4. Yes, it's a good question and we'll probably never find out if Clinton really did do anything corrupt, just like we'll never know if Trump really touched any women inappropriately.
5. When you mentioned black servants I thought you meant slavery. But I think it's still poor analysis from the Left to claim this election was ever just about race.
 

There couldn't possibly have been emphatic like as strong an emphasis on race as some are making out, Trump got more Hispanic and African-American support than Mitt Romney and that wouldn't make any sense if race had been such a decisive issue. (That's with the caveat that less African-Americans turned out than did for Obama - although obviously you'd expect that to some extent, and there were some issues with some AA's not being allowed to vote in some states too)

Edited by Zac Quinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

The link you sent me was for a white guy, or is he now bigoted against his own race now too? :rolleyes:

The second link admits there's no actual evidence that he was bigoted. And certainly a lot of latinos and blacks didn't think so either.

Nope. If you actually read it it pertains to hundreds of contractors who have worked for Trump on a variety of projects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, somecoolusername said:

yeah, and all the driving scenes are around that area of North Greenwich, before it was developed. You actually get a split second view of the Sun in the Sands as they drive around it. Anyways... :lol:

When I get home the first thing I'm going to do is watch that video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

1. It might be conjecture but I would bet my bottom dollar it's true. Please, tell me about the times you've been discriminated against in your life if it isn't. There are plenty of people out there who recognise this and so have the insight to realise their own life experiences probably means they can't judge Trump's words and actions by the same means as others who have experienced them. Indeed - there have even been a fair few Republicans in positions of privilege who have condemned Trump's various remarks. It is a big shame you have absolutely no insight about this. 

He specifically used the fact the judge was Mexican as a reason why he might dislike him. Not based on any statements the judge himself made or any other personal or professional qualities of that judge. Either that says a lot about the statements Trump had been making up to that point (and that any Mexican would have good reason to be biased against him) or it says a lot about that statement itself. Pick one. 

2. The vast majority of terrorist attacks weren't by Muslim immigrants or refugees though were they? They were by Muslims already living in the countries concerned - often they had been born there in fact. There were sometimes a couple of refugees/new immigrants tacked on but that was about it. So it was a nonsensical policy purely aimed at scapegoating 11 million people who had moved to that country and lived there peacefully together with billions of others around the world.

No one suggested that about Irish immigration to the UK in the 1960s. Indeed there was a strong ant-Irish sentiment in the old days in England - however had someone suggested actually not allowing Irish people to move to the UK because of the IRA there would have been uproar. And that was decades ago. Not sure why you're bringing up ETA either as no one has ever suggested Basques not be allowed anywhere - there is no historical precedent to this. 

3. Is Trump improving relations with Russia a particularly good thing? I don't think the icy attitude of Clinton/Obama towards Russia was a bad thing. This isn't the 20th century anymore. Russia is a greatly diminished power and the prospects of that developing into a meaningful war between the two countries were always very, very slim. 

4. Trump is up in court on charges of basically corruption and fraudulent practices in relation to Trump University. This whole idea that "they're both as bad as each other" because Hillary was the corrupt one and Trump was the one who made questionable statements/behaviour falls down completely when you consider the multiple corruption angles on Trump too. 

5. I didn't use the word "servant" either. And nor did I (or anyone I've seen) ever say this was just about race. But discrimination and bigotry play a large part in his election, whether its against women, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled people or any of the other various groups Trump has insulted throughout his campaign. 

1. I have to prove that I've been discriminated against to fulfill my right to voice my opinion and to be allowed to speak about this?! That's a ridiculous statement.

2. An ideology doesn't care about how long you've lived in a country. There's a very real threat from radical Islam and to ignore it is typical of extremist Left thought. Bury your head in the sand mentality. It doesn't matter who the main terrorist threat is at any point, but you'd expect to be more cautious whoever it was.

3. Yes, it's a good thing. Russia and the USA on either side of the issue in Syria has already seen extra troops in Europe - one sign of a beginning Cold War. How can you not see that? If Trump eases tensions with Russia, then yes of course it's a good thing.

4. Obviously people being ripped off by Trump University wasn't much of an issue for people who just wanted jobs and more opportunities - something that Trump said he would do for them. Would I prefer my president to rip some people off for some bullshit business class or taking bribes from foreign countries? Hmmm, that's a toughie.
5. You said housekeeper and maids I think, I can't remember, so I conveniently melded them in to one word - servants. And again, nobody seemed to care about these 'bad' words when all they really care about is a living and having their voices heard. White women love him, 30% of Latinos voted for him and he did better with the black community than his last predecessor. Not bad for someone you keep calling bigoted. Clearly they didn't think he really was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans in the House and Senate have worked very hard to tarnish any kind of Legacy Obama will leave on America. He had good ideas and seemed to want to do things for the right reasons but the very old fashioned Republicans will have none of that.

What really saddens me is like with Teresa May basically binning the Environmental/Climate position sorry "merging" it into another existing role.

Trump's policy to make America great again is to build, build, build and pull as much resources out of the ground as possible, it's an absolute disaster for the progress made in Paris and the Climate Control positions Obama brought into Government. Also rumours that the person he will place in charge of this department is also a believer that Climate issues are pure fiction.

Truly frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

1. I have to prove that I've been discriminated against to fulfill my right to voice my opinion and to be allowed to speak about this?! That's a ridiculous statement.

2. An ideology doesn't care about how long you've lived in a country. There's a very real threat from radical Islam and to ignore it is typical of extremist Left thought. Bury your head in the sand mentality. It doesn't matter who the main terrorist threat is at any point, but you'd expect to be more cautious whoever it was.

3. Yes, it's a good thing. Russia and the USA on either side of the issue in Syria has already seen extra troops in Europe - one sign of a beginning Cold War. How can you not see that? If Trump eases tensions with Russia, then yes of course it's a good thing.

4. Obviously people being ripped off by Trump University wasn't much of an issue for people who just wanted jobs and more opportunities - something that Trump said he would do for them. Would I prefer my president to rip some people off for some bullshit business class or taking bribes from foreign countries? Hmmm, that's a toughie.
5. You said housekeeper and maids I think, I can't remember, so I conveniently melded them in to one word - servants. And again, nobody seemed to care about these 'bad' words when all they really care about is a living and having their voices heard. White women love him, 30% of Latinos voted for him and he did better with the black community than his last predecessor. Not bad for someone you keep calling bigoted. Clearly they didn't think he really was.

1. You like building straw men. At which point did I say you don't have a right to speak on this? I have a right to speak and voice an opinion on, for example, trans issues. However I accept my voice as someone who is straight and has never struggled with his own gender is not worth as much as someone who has had to deal with homophobia and gender dysphoria. It's about insight and humility. You seem to have very little of either. 

2. Don't talk such nonsense. PLENTY of people both in the US and around the world from the centre and right were outraged by Trump's words. This isn't just a left thing. In terms of recent ISIS attacks there is very little threat from people who have recently arrived in the country. Most of the threat comes from terror cells consisting of people who know the country well enough to plan and co-ordinate complex attacks within it. Being "more cautious" doesn't equate to a blanket ban on an entire religion of people coming into the country. Such policies sow divisions, legitimise discrimination against those people in society, give rise to the far right - but why should you give a solitary shit about any of those things? After all, who cares, it's not like those things would affect you. 

3. Extra troops in Europe does not equate to the start of a Cold War. Tensions between countries with large militaries are common place. However as I said, the Cold War occurred in entirely different geopolitical circumstances to today. There is no evidence to back up your idea that a Cold War would have happened. 

4. Only you've listed probably the worst thing Hillary may have done (the "bribes" were to the Foundation, with the IRS investigating whether the Clintons themselves were enriched from the Foundation), with just one of the litany of things Trump did. More false equivalence. 

5. Bigots can be of any colour. There are plenty of people bigots from the Black community who hated Obama's push for gay rights. Plenty of Latino people who hate Muslims more than they care about what Trump said (the figure was 27%, FWIW). Plenty of women who would fit both those descriptions. So again, that doesn't prove anything at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

1. You like building straw men. At which point did I say you don't have a right to speak on this? I have a right to speak and voice an opinion on, for example, trans issues. However I accept my voice as someone who is straight and has never struggled with his own gender is not worth as much as someone who has had to deal with homophobia and gender dysphoria. It's about insight and humility. You seem to have very little of either. 

2. Don't talk such nonsense. PLENTY of people both in the US and around the world from the centre and right were outraged by Trump's words. This isn't just a left thing. In terms of recent ISIS attacks there is very little threat from people who have recently arrived in the country. Most of the threat comes from terror cells consisting of people who know the country well enough to plan and co-ordinate complex attacks within it. Being "more cautious" doesn't equate to a blanket ban on an entire religion of people coming into the country. Such policies sow divisions, legitimise discrimination against those people in society, give rise to the far right - but why should you give a solitary shit about any of those things? After all, who cares, it's not like those things would affect you. 

3. Extra troops in Europe does not equate to the start of a Cold War. Tensions between countries with large militaries are common place. However as I said, the Cold War occurred in entirely different geopolitical circumstances to today. There is no evidence to back up your idea that a Cold War would have happened. 

4. Only you've listed probably the worst thing Hillary may have done (the "bribes" were to the Foundation, with the IRS investigating whether the Clintons themselves were enriched from the Foundation), with just one of the litany of things Trump did. More false equivalence. 

5. Bigots can be of any colour. There are plenty of people bigots from the Black community who hated Obama's push for gay rights. Plenty of Latino people who hate Muslims more than they care about what Trump said (the figure was 27%, FWIW). Plenty of women who would fit both those descriptions. So again, that doesn't prove anything at all. 

1. I don't need to go to the sun to know it's hot :P
2. He has famously backtracked on banning on all Muslims as well. I never said I supported that...
3. Large numbers and arms in Europe on the border with Russia doesn't seem like the start of a new Cold War to you? I wonder what does. Perhaps you need actual nukes to go off first? :rolleyes:

4. There's that word again. Again, I've said it many times now, it's just your opinion and you have no idea what the reasons were for people voting. I think it's really poor analysis that you think it can be summarized in 'bigotry'.
5. Glad we're getting somewhere on this one. We're agreed then, that it had little to do with racism. Finally!

4. You really like the words false equivalence, but it's obviously not if a lot people think there's enough smoke to warrant there being a fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Yeah I read it. Lots of people. All different races. Proves that he's not actually racist, thanks

So bosses can never discriminate against their workers? So if a male boss hires a woman who is young and attractive to make inappropriate remarks to her and physically sexually harasses her,  the fact he hired her in the first place proves he's not sexist according to your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

:lol::lol::lol:

Imagine actually thinking that employing people from all races PROVES you're not a racist.

Fuck me, what are you doing on a Glastonbury forum?

Hahaha, so you think you can tell people where they can go and what music they can like and which forum they can go to now? You can't go around making so many assumptions about people and brandishing people as being "not Glastonbury material".

The tolerant Left is a modern masterclass :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

1. I don't need to go to the sun to know it's hot :P
2. He has famously backtracked on banning on all Muslims as well. I never said I supported that...
3. Large numbers and arms in Europe on the border with Russia doesn't seem like the start of a new Cold War to you? I wonder what does. Perhaps you need actual nukes to go off first? :rolleyes:

4. There's that word again. Again, I've said it many times now, it's just your opinion and you have no idea what the reasons were for people voting. I think it's really poor analysis that you think it can be summarized in 'bigotry'.
5. Glad we're getting somewhere on this one. We're agreed then, that it had little to do with racism. Finally!

4. You really like the words false equivalence, but it's obviously not if a lot people think there's enough smoke to warrant there being a fire.

Never once did I say it could be summed up by bigotry. Just that it played a large part in his election.

I've just realised I'm trying to hold debate with someone who seriously thinks employing people from other races proves you're not racist.

It's a step even below someone claiming someone can't be racist because they have black friends. If you genuinely believe that then your views on these issues are far too warped to be reasoned with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Hahaha, so you think you can tell people where they can go and what music they can like and which forum they can go to now? You can't go around making so many assumptions about people and brandishing people as being "not Glastonbury material".

The tolerant Left is a modern masterclass :D

You seem to have a very poor grasp of comprehension. Is English your first language?

It's just that you keep getting meanings out of my sentences that aren't there. I'm not saying you can't come to Glastonbury. 

I'm saying that I can't imagine enjoying going to Glastonbury as much as I do, with its overriding ethos if it stood so diametrically opposed to my own. And I just can't imagine someone so far to the right getting so much enjoyment out of it. 

Edited by arcade fireman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats shot themselves in the foot by not going for Sanders as their candidate. He would have wiped the floor with Trump, I have no doubt about that. Would have attracted at least some of the disillusioned working class vote away from Trump, doesn't have the baggage that Hilary has and would have reached out more to the young voters/minorities that Hilary didn't manage to as she was expected to. Was the perfect anti-establishment candidate from the left to fight Trump. But they severely underestimated him and his appeal, and just assumed their usual establishment candidate would get in by default. As others have said they need to take a look at themselves, as a party - they lost this election just as much, if not more,than Trump won it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2016 at 9:37 AM, Quark said:

1. Efestivals

2. Brexit Britain

3. Trump Towers

9. Pablo Honey.

Seriously, that Pablo Honey gag works in any context.

I've tried, I really have, but I just don't get this gag!  I know it's going to be blindingly obvious...  Help a girl out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, verrymerry said:

I've tried, I really have, but I just don't get this gag!  I know it's going to be blindingly obvious...  Help a girl out?

Pablo Honey is widely (and correctly) regarded as the worst of Radiohead's nine albums. And over on the Radiohead thread we love a list and Pablo Honey always comes last. Now when there's any kind of list, ol' Pablo brings up the rear. 

It sounds like fucking rubbish patter when you lay it out like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...