This morning...

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Even moderate Republican opinion on Jewish people is traditionally heavy handed.

Um... Whats your point? All republicans are anti-semitic?

The thing about trump putting a literal goddamn nazi in a position of power, is that it is a test of his enemies and supporters. Will they back down and let it slide? If they do, he knows he can carry on in this vein. it's the first of several tests each of which determine how far supporters will go and how little enemies will do.Each obedience test will occur after the results of the last have been sufficiently normalized. There is never one single test, a poll asking "is it ok to kill Jews?" Instead: a series of tests, each edging toward atrocity, each relying on the previous one to have normalized the outcome of this one. After you put a nazi in power, is him doing anti-semitic things really that shocking? How you react to this obedience test, is *exactly* how you will react to the next. It'll feel just as easy/difficult morally.

Edited November 15, 2016 by zahidf

[clarkete]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

In Trump's case, I don't think he actually holds those views personally, but is speaking them anyway because he actually thinks it's politically expedient (and it seems like he's right).

So those comments about the judge,  or the gold star family? (who meet Neil's  criteria of needing  to be within the states).   Ignoring the delay in denouncing David Duke and his dad going to a kkk rally. 

There are plenty of things in his speeches but I'm not going through that sh*t for you lot. 

It would have been interesting if this had come out,  but I cynically  suspect his support would not have cared that much. 

http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/theres-allegedly-apprentice-footage-of-donald-trump-saying-the-n-word/

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, zahidf said:

So the worries of those organisations should be ignored?

No.

I'm pointing out that the likes of you are not holding anyone to account by using bullshit, by claiming things which aren't true or by using hyperbole.

You know, just like Trump.

There's no short-term solution to Trump apart from holding him to account for the specific actions he takes, but I do know that if his opponents keep on going the full Trump exactly as you're doing, we're not going to get out of bullshit land

 

55 minutes ago, zahidf said:

He demonised syrian refugees currently living in the USA. Spread lies also about New Jersey muslims celebrating in the streets the day after 911. That prejudiced enough?

Yep, Trump used fear of 'the other' as part of his campaign. 

The first is clearly about not-Americans. I'm in no way trying to suggest it's in any way justified, but that distinction between Americans and not Americans has been one he's used constantly, and it shouldn't be ignored as most commentaries (yours particularly) tend to do.

The 2nd one is him repeating an urban myth. I'm pretty sure he knew it was a myth because he's claimed to have seen it himself, but then again I've got firm memories of Phil Collins saying he'd leave the UK if Labour won and Paul Merton outing Savile as a paedo on HIGNFY, both of which supposedly never happened.

But what's also important with that - without excusing anything of it - is what they're said to be doing. Anyone celebrating those attacks in that way would be as un-American as it gets in the standard view of an American.

He's used racism as part of his campaign, I don't disagree. I fully condemn it. But his targets were not anyone that any American might regard as an American.

He's also appointed a black man to his advisory committee thing, in one of the very first things he did following his win. Everything is very clearly not the one way thing you present it as. 

I don't like the result, but the result was that democracy won. I don't like the result, but right now i'm seeing far more fascist tendencies from Trump opponents than I am anything of Trump.

The result is what it is, we have to live with it, it can't be altered. There's still the power to protest and alter the things which Trump might do, but for all the while people are protesting Trump's existence they're diminishing their own future power thru protest, because they're protesting against democracy itself.

Edited November 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The thing about trump putting a literal goddamn nazi in a position of power

and there you go again.

He's a bigot, he's for white privilege, he's the raving right.

But he's yet to express the desire for growing room, talked of the final solution, or ordered any gas chambers.

 

 

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

and there you go again.

He's a bigot, he's for white privilege, he's the raving right.

But he's yet to express the desire for growing room, talked of the final solution, or ordered any gas chambers.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No.

I'm pointing out that the likes of you are not holding anyone to account by using bullshit, by claiming things which aren't true or by using hyperbole.

You know, just like Trump.

There's no short-term solution to Trump apart from holding him to account for the specific actions he takes, but I do know that if his opponents keep on going the full Trump exactly as you're doing, we're not going to get out of bullshit land

 

Yep, Trump used fear of 'the other' as part of his campaign. 

The first is clearly about not-Americans. I'm in no way trying to suggest it's in any way justified, but that distinction between Americans and not Americans has been one he's used constantly, and it shouldn't be ignored as most commentaries (yours particularly) tend to do.

The 2nd one is him repeating an urban myth. I'm pretty sure he knew it was a myth because he's claimed to have seen it himself, but then again I've got firm memories of Phil Collins saying he'd leave the UK if the tories won and Paul Merton outing Savile as a paedo on HIGNFY, both of which supposedly never happened.

But what's also important with that - without excusing anything of it - is what they're said to be doing. Anyone celebrating those attacks in that way would be as un-American as it gets in the standard view of an American.

He's used racism as part of his campaign, I don't disagree. I fully condemn it. But his targets were not anyone that any American might regard as an American.

He's also appointed a black man to his advisory committee thing, in one of the very first things he did following his win. Everything is very clearly not the one way thing you present it as. 

I don't like the result, but the result was that democracy won. I don't like the result, but right now i'm seeing far more fascist tendencies from Trump opponents than I am anything of Trump.

The result is what it is, we have to live with it, it can't be altered. There's still the power to protest and alter the things which Trump might do, but for all the while people are protesting Trump's existence they're diminishing their own future power thru protest, because they're protesting against democracy itself.

On your second point: muslims in new jersey are american citizens. He made up they were celebrating 911 to make them seem non american and attack them. 

 

You asked for an example of him going after Americans. There you go! 

I am not saying we should impeach him. Im saying we should fight against his racist crap from day one and not let it br normalised 

You know 'i have one black person working for me' doesnt stop u being a racist?

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and there you go again.

He's a bigot, he's for white privilege, he's the raving right.

But he's yet to express the desire for growing room, talked of the final solution, or ordered any gas chambers.

 

 

He does like to know how many jews they are in a room before he goes into it though. And he is anti semitic and a racist!

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, The Nal said:

Worst presidential candidate since Walter Mondale. 

Sadly in saying such things you will be called misogynistic, which is not helpful at all. See also: calling her unlikable. She WAS unlikable, and it was nothing to do with her sex. Some people just have something about them that you cant warm to. Men and women.

 

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

On your second point: muslims in new jersey are american citizens. He made up they were celebrating 911 to make them seem non american and attack them. 

Yep, that's perhaps it. We can only guess at his motivations.

But he still could have said 'all Muslims are bad' or whatever, but he didn't. Instead he went for a specific circumstance, where the claimed activity was clearly 'un-American'.

It very deliberately allows for a distinction of 'good Muslim' and 'bad Muslim'. 

It's a fair guess that that was certainly a part of his motivations - otherwise he'd have just said all were bad, without the need of a distinction.

It's wrong, very very wrong. I'm not thinking otherwise. But it's not what you pretend it is.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

He does like to know how many jews they are in a room before he goes into it though. And he is anti semitic and a racist!

PMSL.

So not Nazi death squads then.

Care to explain why you used the word 'nazi' and claimed it as literal?

 

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, that's perhaps it. We can only guess at his motivations.

But he still could have said 'all Muslims are bad' or whatever, but he didn't. Instead he went for a specific circumstance, where the claimed activity was clearly 'un-American'.

It very deliberately allows for a distinction of 'good Muslim' and 'bad Muslim'. 

It's a fair guess that that was certainly a part of his motivations - otherwise he'd have just said all were bad, without the need of a distinction.

It's wrong, very very wrong. I'm not thinking otherwise. But it's not what you pretend it is.

Not having that sorry. New Jersey muslims did nothing wrong and he pretended thousands of them were celebrating 911. Its not 'A few who celebrated were wrong to do so'. Quote below. Its clear racism against muslim americans 

Oh. he also said in the capaign he wanted a national database for all muslims (including muslim americans). That nazi enough for you?

 

"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.    

 

[DeanoL]

40 minutes ago, clarkete said:

So those comments about the judge,  or the gold star family? (who meet Neil's  criteria of needing  to be within the states).   Ignoring the delay in denouncing David Duke and his dad going to a kkk rally. 

There are plenty of things in his speeches but I'm not going through that sh*t for you lot. 

It would have been interesting if this had come out,  but I cynically  suspect his support would not have cared that much. 

http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/theres-allegedly-apprentice-footage-of-donald-trump-saying-the-n-word/

The thing is, he's never held office before. When he was off spouting ridiculous stuff before running for President it was likely as much to get publicity for his latest business venture or TV show. If you look at how he's actually acted (prior to the campaign) he essentially comes across as a big business democrat.

Doesn't mean it's all okay. He'll also be trying to go through with some of the nonsense he's said and doesn't even believe in, because that's how he'll have history record him as an effective president and how he'll stay popular. But I don't think he has genuine deep-seated racist or homophobic views. Whereas I think plenty of other republicans do, and keep quiet about it.

[clarkete]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The thing is, he's never held office before. When he was off spouting ridiculous stuff before running for President it was likely as much to get publicity for his latest business venture or TV show. If you look at how he's actually acted (prior to the campaign) he essentially comes across as a big business democrat.

Doesn't mean it's all okay. He'll also be trying to go through with some of the nonsense he's said and doesn't even believe in, because that's how he'll have history record him as an effective president and how he'll stay popular. But I don't think he has genuine deep-seated racist or homophobic views. Whereas I think plenty of other republicans do, and keep quiet about it.

The second point of my post was about them having behind the scenes recordings of him using racist language on the apprentice.   There are folks who have come out publicly to say so.   Clearly that's not for publicity. 

[Alex DeLarge]

Well, Trump has now said Roe vs. Wade can be overturned.

Women across America might loose their right to an abortion, I can't believe that people voted for this  moron. Tell me again how he was just being contrarian and pretending to be evil for the sake of votes?

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Not having that sorry. New Jersey muslims did nothing wrong and he pretended thousands of them were celebrating 911. Its not 'A few who celebrated were wrong to do so'. Quote below. Its clear racism against muslim americans 

It's racism, and it's designed to play on that. 

But it's also designed to play on other things too, which make it about something not the same as you claim of it.

As I say, it creates a distinction of 'good' and 'bad', and it uses a line for that distinction which few Americans (including Muslims, i'd hope) would reject. The vast majority of Americans would reject those 'bad' as being Americans, and fuck all to do with their race and everything about the claimed action of them.

It's despicable, tho also very cleverly despicable - because it doesn't only work on racists.

 

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Oh. he also said in the capaign he wanted a national database for all muslims (including muslim americans). That nazi enough for you?

and he also said there'd been a misunderstanding and that's not what he said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

I'm not going to try to decypher his shifting sands jobbie, apart from pointing out that he was probably taking advantage of it being able to mean anything to anyone, and that worked to his advantage.

But, if you want to take him literally, why no attention to him making clear it's an action (whatever action he's meaning, which isn't clear) required in response to circumstances that didn't apply a year before (he's talking about one or more of the bombings/killings in France)?

Which makes them about something different to just racism, because the racist motivations would be the same at all times.

I'm not trying to defend trump, I'm trying to get you to stop going overboard with your own words. They're as bad as Trump for that, and they give no opportunity for a reduction in the polarisation.

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Well, Trump has now said Roe vs. Wade can be overturned.

Women across America might loose their right to an abortion, I can't believe that people voted for this  moron. Tell me again how he was just being contrarian and pretending to be evil for the sake of votes?

Sorry, but in the context of American politics overturning Roe vs Wade doesn't class as evil, it classes as a desire of a large minorty for a very long time.

Even over-turning Roe vs Wade doesn't revoke their rights to an abortion, as that merely passes the decision about it down to individual states.

[Alex DeLarge]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Even over-turning Roe vs Wade doesn't revoke their rights to an abortion, as that merely passes the decision about it down to individual states.

Many states would love to get rid of abortion, or at least regulate it to a scary degree, this is why it's worrying.

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, clarkete said:

The second point of my post was about them having behind the scenes recordings of him using racist language on the apprentice.   There are folks who have come out publicly to say so.   Clearly that's not for publicity. 

Do you think there can be a big difference between the use of racist language and some of suggestions being made for the extreme things Trump is certain to do? 

I'm not trying to excuse the language, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that even now in 2016 some people can use language like that (perhaps?) habitually, or that someone who'd use that language might be a full-on racist.

But even if that's habitual Trump, it still doesn't mean he's certain to implement a fully-racist regime of the style of (say) the USA of the past, let alone the full on Nazi stuff that zahidf likes to suggest.

Trump is a ridiculous man.

Currently being out-done by some brainless detractors.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Many states would love to get rid of abortion, or at least regulate it to a scary degree, this is why it's worrying.

that reflects the fact that many americans want abortion to be heavily regulated. 

As our PM said only last night, liberals who fail to see that many people have not consented to their ideology are their own worst enemies.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Many states would love to get rid of abortion, or at least regulate it to a scary degree, this is why it's worrying.

you mean some states might decide by using democracy?

OK, fascism it is then. What's your problem with Trump, again? :P

 

[Alex DeLarge]

Just now, eFestivals said:

you mean some states might decide by using democracy?

OK, fascism it is then. What's your problem with Trump, again?

Okay, so if the majority of Brits were against abortion, the Tories should just axe it. Got ya. Thanks for accusing me of being a fascist for being fearful of the lives that could be lost if abortion is restricted or highly regulated.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Alex DeLarge said:

Okay, so if the majority of Brits were against abortion, the Tories should just axe it. Got ya. Thanks for accusing me of being a fascist for being fearful of the lives that could be lost if abortion is restricted or highly regulated.

I'm pointing out that decisions around issues like this are arrived at via the democratic process, and that's the only method we have as a society of deciding what is right or wrong. 

Perhaps take a minute to think about what it is when someone starts saying that their own view is going to make the decision for 'the people'?

Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best method we've come up with, unless you're about to tell me different...?

[Alex DeLarge]

Just now, eFestivals said:

I'm pointing out that decisions around issues like this are arrived at via the democratic process, and that's the only method we have as a society of deciding what is right or wrong. 

Perhaps take a minute to think about what it is when someone starts saying that their own view is going to make the decision for 'the people'?

Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best method we've come up with, unless you're about to tell me different...?

Okay, you're deflecting the topic of abortion then into one about democracy. 

If the election was democratic, Hillary would be President Elect. 

At the moment, the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose. Why should the majority be disagreed with? I thought America was a democracy.

[clarkete]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you mean some states might decide by using democracy?

OK, fascism it is then. What's your problem with Trump, again?

 

Err roe vs wade? 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Okay, you're deflecting the topic of abortion then into one about democracy. 

If the election was democratic, Hillary would be President Elect. 

Nope. Democracy can be defined and operated in a number of different ways. 

There's good and bad about each implementation, and you have to pick one version and then work to that until such time as you might pick another..

By the measure of democracy the USA uses, Clinton lost, fair and square. Wishing it operated a different system doesn't change the loss into a win.

 

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

At the moment, the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose. Why should the majority be disagreed with? I thought America was a democracy.

'The majority' isn't necessarily the same as the winner in a democracy (see above).

And parties having policy platforms which it's unlikely that many of their supporters support in full is one of the weaker aspects of representative politics, but it's how it goes. If a majority couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton with that at risk then it's a pretty fair conclusion that the chunk who voted for Trump were happy with the trade-off they got with other policy positions

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Err roe vs wade? 

I was pointing out that there's those calling Trump a fascist who are suggesting that democracy be rejected to remove Trump. It's not big and it's not clever.

I'm starting to realise that there's a lot of people about who've never really felt like they've been on the losing side of an election before.

(if you're of my views, pretty much all of them feel like a loss )