This morning...

[DeanoL]

20 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Theres a time and a place though. By your reasoning, you're ok with the Westboro Baptist Church turning up to protest at gay peoples funerals. Or the NRA nutters turning up in towns after mass shootings. 

Sure its their right but, nah.

I guess the "time and place" notion is what bothers me the most about the whole thing. If you can't have your views challenged in a theatre of all places, where can you?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Yes, I do hold the President Elect at a higher standard than myself. I'm very unfit to lead a country.

some people are super special people, to be held to higher standards than the norm?

That view is, to me, then end of everything civilised - the absolving of yourself of responsibility.

You might as well be claiming that not a single one of a president's supporters could ever be held responsible for any bad consequences as it's all the fault of Super-Special-Man for putting himself up for election in the first place.

Me, I believe in equality, that there are no super-special people, only people.

[Alex DeLarge]

Just now, eFestivals said:

some people are super special people, to be held to higher standards than the norm?

That view is, to me, then end of everything civilised - the absolving of yourself of responsibility.

You might as well be claiming that not a single one of a president's supporters could ever be held responsible for any bad consequences as it's all the fault of Super-Special-Man for putting himself up for election in the first place.

Me, I believe in equality, that there are no super-special people, only people.

So you wouldn't expect the Prime Minister to have  more experience in politics than you? I don't want them to be superior to me, I want someone who has the right qualities/ experience for the job, like I said before different qualities are important for different jobs.

A surgeon should be good under pressure and have a lot of experience with biology, someone who works as a teacher should be able to gauge children's educational needs well as well as knowing the syllabus. 

Sure, Trump could make some mistakes and say untrue things, but every time he has he hasn't apologised or revoked the lies he's sprouted and the words he said actually have an effect on his supporters.

[zahidf]

58 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm perfectly happy for those who disagree with Pence to criticise him for it.

I'm no less happy for those - such as Trump - who disagree with criticisms of Pence for that (and/or the time and place of that criticism) to make their own criticisms.

I believe the best ideas will win out in a battle of ideas.

I don't believe in fascism where someone appoints themselves as arbiter of what is allowed to be said.

Yeah, i dont think expecting people in higher positions in society to have more responsibility and dignity than others to an extent.

If you looked up a brain surgeon and he was ranting at 3 in the morning about minor slights, you would think they were unbalanced and unprofessional.

Same for a world leader. He needs to more dignified than some random guy because he has a lot more power and responsibility

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Hopefully after Trump's 'transgender people can use whatever bathroom they want' and 'gay marriage should stick', he isn't going to enact any of Pence's wacky ideas about gay people. It doesn't seem like his priority at all which is reassuring.

Trump isn't going to do all that the nutters have been claiming was 100% certain?  I can't tell you I'm surprised.

However, that sort of "gays can be converted" idea is still a pretty big idea within Republicans - just standard republicans, who won all the same states as they normally do - so I wouldn't be hugely surprised if something around that did progress - but which would be no different no matter who a republican president might be.

From our side of the pond where ideas are different it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that sort of thing is extreme, when it's not for the USA.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

So you wouldn't expect the Prime Minister to have  more experience in politics than you? I don't want them to be superior to me, I want someone who has the right qualities/ experience for the job, like I said before different qualities are important for different jobs.

I wouldn't necessarily expect them to, no. It's normal that they are, but it doesn't have to be the default.

There's no law that says they have to serve a political apprenticeship of some kind, and no one - certainly not politicians - has a monopoly on good (or bad ) ideas. It's more important that the good ideas can rise than they're controlled by particular channels.

I wouldn't put myself up for election, but for nothing to do with experience or superiority. I'm simply aware that my manner isn't one people would lap up in enough numbers.

The very point of Trump is that he's not from the normal political schooling, and that side of things I think is actually a good thing (if it could come without the other parts) - as it will hopefully remind people that we're all just the same people.

It's precisely because some hold the idea that candidates should be special that politicians have been let off the hook so very often. It allows them to claim they know better than you, when they don't. There is only a person's opinion.

 

4 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

A surgeon should be good under pressure and have a lot of experience with biology, someone who works as a teacher should be able to gauge children's educational needs well as well as knowing the syllabus. 

Not the same.

There is no special skill required to have an opinion - which is the only thing *all* politicians have to offer.

 

4 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Sure, Trump could make some mistakes and say untrue things, but every time he has he hasn't apologised or revoked the lies he's sprouted and the words he said actually have an effect on his supporters.

Yep, Trump played a dirty game. Even Trump would probably agree with that.

BUT ... he played that game where he had about 5% of the same funding as Clinton and where *EVERY* major title was against him. By playing that game he generated what's been estimated as £2Bn's worth of free publicity. "Businessman appreciates the power of marketing and the power of the media" isn't really a big story.

He played despicably, but also very cleverly. He said some outrageous things, but also very different things from how those things are standardly reported - and so he has zahidf dangling on his string and working for him, not against him. Zahidf is so very important to Trump that Bannon is tweeting his thanks to people like zahidf for helping Trump's victory.

And however much you might like him to, Trump isn't going to explicitly insult his supporters by doing the sort of thing you suggest above.

We are where we are, and it's now all about what Trump actually does.

(and as I've already pointed out, if the Muslim register was particularly likely, there wouldn't have been all the tweeting to try and push Trump into doing it. Further attacks somewhere might bring it about, but outside of further attacks it looks unlikely judging by that tweeting).

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yeah, i dont think expecting people in higher positions in society to have more responsibility and dignity than others to an extent.

If you looked up a brain surgeon and he was ranting at 3 in the morning about minor slights, you would think they were unbalanced and unprofessional.

Same for a world leader. He needs to more dignified than some random guy because he has a lot more power and responsibility

But according to you Trump can never be dignified because of the platform he stood on, so now you're just waffling to yourself.

If you want him to be a good president you first have to accept his right to be president.

And if you accept his right to be president you also have to accept his right to introduce policies that you're against but which he has support for.

That's not me saying everyone should sit back and let him do his worst, that's me saying he should be given the space to do his best - which he's not being given when a private visit to the theatre by one of his sidekicks becomes a political event, and with objections based around a lot of misrepresentations (the sort of stuff that has ended up being posted in this thread).

When his every action has the screaming banshees out in force it merely becomes a pointless pissing contest from which nothing good for anyone at all can ever come. If you want him to act with dignity it requires you to allow him some dignity.

I'd much rather Trump wasn't president, but he is. We have to live with it just as we'd expect 'the other side' to live with 'our' victory.

[The Nal]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Oh, I know it's shit, but it's the different shit people wanted.

Yep agree, which is why I posted it. Most of his speeches were that vague and silly. 

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

I guess the "time and place" notion is what bothers me the most about the whole thing. If you can't have your views challenged in a theatre of all places, where can you?

Almost anywhere else. Not on a private night out with the family. 

[shuttlep]

I have always thought Americans were weird. We only see the TV Americans , the TV show that are nice and frilly. Not the bible belt Americans. The hard core that hate everything liberal. Even free heath care scares them into thinking socialism is on the way. America has gone with Trump and I can understand why , it's not like he can be there forever 8 years and he will have to go that is if he makes it past 4 years.

 

The UK and brexit is a shame as in 8 years time when everyone who vated the remain will still be here and most of the old folk who voted in their drives to leave will be dead. we will be out of Europe and most likely no way back in .

[DeanoL]

56 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's not me saying everyone should sit back and let him do his worst, that's me saying he should be given the space to do his best - which he's not being given when a private visit to the theatre by one of his sidekicks becomes a political event, and with objections based around a lot of misrepresentations (the sort of stuff that has ended up being posted in this thread).

Not sure I buy the premise that the VP-elect to a President-elect who campaigned along racially divisive lines just happens to be going on an outing to a show renowned for the diversity in its casting policy. And that it was intended to be an entirely apolitical event and purely for entertainment purposes. And at no point did anyone suggest to him that it would be somewhere good for him "to be seen at". I think it had already been politicised.

(And Pence isn't just a Trump 'sidekick'. Pence is the next President of the US if Trump gets bored/killed.)

[Alex DeLarge]

40 minutes ago, shuttlep said:

I have always thought Americans were weird. We only see the TV Americans , the TV show that are nice and frilly. Not the bible belt Americans. The hard core that hate everything liberal. Even free heath care scares them into thinking socialism is on the way. America has gone with Trump and I can understand why , it's not like he can be there forever 8 years and he will have to go that is if he makes it past 4 years.

The UK and brexit is a shame as in 8 years time when everyone who vated the remain will still be here and most of the old folk who voted in their drives to leave will be dead. we will be out of Europe and most likely no way back in .

The dems need to be clever with who they pick in 2020. I've seen Chris Murphy spoken about, but the footage of him standing up for gun control won't go over well with moderates. Sanders will be too old to run and it's stupid to expect Michelle Obama to run considering she hates politics and Trump supporters see her as someone establishment.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Not sure I buy the premise that the VP-elect to a President-elect who campaigned along racially divisive lines just happens to be going on an outing to a show renowned for the diversity in its casting policy. And that it was intended to be an entirely apolitical event and purely for entertainment purposes. And at no point did anyone suggest to him that it would be somewhere good for him "to be seen at". I think it had already been politicised.

(And Pence isn't just a Trump 'sidekick'. Pence is the next President of the US if Trump gets bored/killed.)

I'm just using that as an example of attacking these people's existence, rather than anything of what they might do.
(I've already said I don't much care either way about the theatre thing, but the responses around "Trump isn't allowed to answer back" are a bit pathetic. Free speech is something allowed on both sides).

The time to protest that Trump might be president is over, cos he is president. It's now about what he does as president, rather than that he is president.

Otherwise it's just about a non-acceptance of 'the other side' being able to win - and that, to me, is much worse than anything Trump looks likely to do.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

The dems need to be clever with who they pick in 2020. I've seen Chris Murphy spoken about, but the footage of him standing up for gun control won't go over well with moderates. Sanders will be too old to run and it's stupid to expect Michelle Obama to run considering she hates politics and Trump supporters see her as someone establishment.

Thing is, if everyone were to stand on the same positions as this year, the outcome is likely to be the same.

People want to suggest Trump is nothing about the usual republicans, yet he won all of the states that are always republican, and they're full of all the same republican views as they ever were - one of which is around gun control. 

Like it or not, the Dems have to offer something that's the want of 'the other side' to help entice some of those people over.

Refusing to bend to anything about them is pretty much deciding to lose and allowing them to do much more than the things of 'theirs' than the Dems might offer them.

[The Nal]

8 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

The dems need to be clever with who they pick in 2020. I've seen Chris Murphy spoken about, but the footage of him standing up for gun control won't go over well with moderates. Sanders will be too old to run and it's stupid to expect Michelle Obama to run considering she hates politics and Trump supporters see her as someone establishment.

Could've been Anthony Weiner! I like Murphy from the little I've seen of him. Connecticut senator though. Still establishment, which they'll probably want more of after 4 years of The Donald!

I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo or Cory Booker. Who is long overdue a serious run. Check out Street Fight if you haven't already. Very interesting. 

[zahidf]

Cory Brooker would be good. Maybe have Bernie as VP. 

[Alex DeLarge]

8 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Could've been Anthony Weiner! I like Murphy from the little I've seen of him. Connecticut senator though. Still establishment, which they'll probably want more of after 4 years of The Donald!

I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo or Cory Booker. Who is long overdue a serious run. Check out Street Fight if you haven't already. Very interesting. 

I'll check it out this week, cheers for the recommendation!

I'd love Julian Castro to run, he seems like a politician who really has his head screwed on, it'll probably be someone shit again though. 

[DeanoL]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Thing is, if everyone were to stand on the same positions as this year, the outcome is likely to be the same.

People want to suggest Trump is nothing about the usual republicans, yet he won all of the states that are always republican, and they're full of all the same republican views as they ever were - one of which is around gun control. 

Like it or not, the Dems have to offer something that's the want of 'the other side' to help entice some of those people over.

Refusing to bend to anything about them is pretty much deciding to lose and allowing them to do much more than the things of 'theirs' than the Dems might offer them.

What do you think Trump offered to win democrats over, out of interest?

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

What do you think Trump offered to win democrats over, out of interest?

I think the main one was him not being Hillary.

As I've pointed out a few times: while Trump is very flawed, so is Clinton.

It's quite easy for some to conclude you're nicer to Muslims by registering them than blowing the fuck out of them, as just one example. I'm glad that's a dilemma I haven't had to resolve to pick a side to vote for.

Or that the person more likely to make america great again is the one saying it and the one who isn't hugely funded by foreigners.

Edited November 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: tho really, Trump won because republicans stayed tribal - they voted at about the normal levels that had them lose to Obama - while too many people couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

[shuttlep]

 I find it mad that only something like 48 % of Americans voted. I know the UK isn't that much higher around 78% , but with what was happening with the two candidates does that show that over half of America just didn't care or that they didn't connect with either candidate? where they both terrible so many stayed away?

 

I wonder what the proportions where of those who didn't vote? mainly  young or old and so on.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, shuttlep said:

 I find it mad that only something like 48 % of Americans voted. I know the UK isn't that much higher around 78% , but with what was happening with the two candidates does that show that over half of America just didn't care or that they didn't connect with either candidate? where they both terrible so many stayed away?

 

I wonder what the proportions where of those who didn't vote? mainly  young or old and so on.

Particularly with Clinton, yes, she was so terrible that many stayed away. 

It's probably that factor more than any other single factor which gave Trump his victory. His own vote was lower than previous losing candidates.

[waterfalls212434]

for all the grief being given to people for dissing trump etc....billy bragg has a good point here......tell me there wouldn't be widespread national civil disorder on a `national guard being deployed` level right now if trump lost despite winning the popular vote by such a margin? I think Donald has got off pretty damn lightly so far especially considering his appointments, for all the whining about how difficult a time hes supposedly getting from us `liberals` Damn sure theres no militias going round with guns as would be the case if it was the other way round.
 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[zahidf]

Also Trump is already lining his pockets

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

tell me there wouldn't be widespread national civil disorder on a `national guard being deployed` level right now if trump lost despite winning the popular vote by such a margin?

I don't really get the point of this. Well I do, actually. It's another hate stick

We can only hypothesise, and of course for anyone who's going to bother, they'll be a Trump hater and will dream up whatever they want.

And it just ends up as an attempt to smear Trump over something that's not happened.

It may or may not have turned out how you think (no matter what you think ), but this is an attempt to stir hatred on the basis of nothing at all. 

People can only be held to account for what they do, not what someone might invent them doing.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Also Trump is already lining his pockets

 

how much does he have to do before he can be impeached?

Tho i guess he's still in the clear until the day he takes up office, and I guess it also makes clear where his priorities are for his presidency.

So another thing from the standard republican list, then.