/ President Trump

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
IceKing - on 13 Sep 2016
He's going to win isn't he?

You know that creeping doom feeling you may have had as the referendum votes were being counted (remainers anyway), well, with Clinton being ill, that camera phone footage of her practically collapsing and the polls pretty much even, well, I have that feeling again.

Did you see this? From 1999 apparently, disturbingly prescient https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/774626474498334722
4
summo on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

sadly you are right, if she drops out then what, Bernie. Principled etc.. but zero hope of winning. So it's still Trump. Only hope is she makes a major recovery and runs a few marathons to prove she's is healthy, otherwise it's all over before it's started.

Funny how a nation that is hardly famous for it's health, can be swing so easily.
ultrabumbly on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:
It's okay, they've let John Hinckley Jr. out as a contingency.
Post edited at 16:29
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> sadly you are right, if she drops out then what, Bernie. Principled etc.. but zero hope of winning. So it's still Trump. Only hope is she makes a major recovery and runs a few marathons to prove she's is healthy, otherwise it's all over before it's started.

>
Her VP candidate, Kaine, is apparently reasonably normal and doesnt have the Hilary negatives. Possible he could get the nod to run. A long shot I guess.
1
summo on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Her VP candidate, Kaine, is apparently reasonably normal and doesnt have the Hilary negatives. Possible he could get the nod to run. A long shot I guess.

the US campaign is so long and drawn out. I'm not sure how much the voters will adapt to a late runner. I think many get comfortable in their view of who they are voting for months in advance.
Post edited at 16:37
Lemony - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:


> Funny how a nation that is hardly famous for it's health, can be swing so easily.

Has there been a big swing, the polls I've seen put him exactly where he was a week ago?
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> the US campaign is so long and drawn out. I'm not sure how much the voters will adapt to a late runner. I think many get comfortable in their view of who they are voting for months in advance.

Agreed, but there's a lot of people who fear Trump but can't bring themselves to vote Hilary.
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

I think he could win but it sstill more likely she will.

The US election is about battle ground states and she has a much easier path to the electoral college.
Polls are far from tied.
2
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Her VP candidate, Kaine, is apparently reasonably normal and doesnt have the Hilary negatives. Possible he could get the nod to run. A long shot I guess.

She wont drop out, she was ill. She had pneumonia and was working through it ignoring advice.

Trumps tax returns could finish him over night, the fact he's demanding transparency about her health and wont be transparent about his financial health is staggeringly hypocritical.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> sadly you are right, if she drops out then what, Bernie. Principled etc.. but zero hope of winning. So it's still Trump. Only hope is she makes a major recovery and runs a few marathons to prove she's is healthy, otherwise it's all over before it's started.

> Funny how a nation that is hardly famous for it's health, can be swing so easily.

Bernie can't.

His name is not on the tickets.

Kaine can I think but I'm not even sure on that. I think people can still write in another name but Hillary will run.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> sadly you are right, if she drops out then what, Bernie. Principled etc.. but zero hope of winning. So it's still Trump. Only hope is she makes a major recovery and runs a few marathons to prove she's is healthy, otherwise it's all over before it's started.

> Funny how a nation that is hardly famous for it's health, can be swing so easily.

Absolutely no chane its all over.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

All over.. yet according to Nate Silver she's actually got more chance than yesterday..
1
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

My understanding is that if she drops out anybody can be added to the ticket and the party votes who stands. Kaine stays as VP candidate if he doesnt get the predidential nomination,
meffl - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Part of the problem in my opinion is the media talking it up into a self fulfilling prophecy. "Will fears about her health cost her the Presidency?" Possibly, if the news won't stop talking about it for like thirty seconds. She was ill - George Bush Snr puked on the Japanese PM FFS.

To a very minor extent the OP is buying into and contributing to this.
cb294 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Pleeeaasse let this be correct. My worry is that many Trump voters are too embarrassed to answer truthfully when polled, but will be motivated to vote. Radicals and nutters tend to be underestimated in polls in most countries.

CB
3
Trangia - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

>

> You know that creeping doom feeling you may have had

I agree. Up till now I've felt confident. Not any more - scary times.

Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

Its brexit over again... Clinton ahead in the polls but her voters are less motivated against motivated and often uneducated Trump supporters but in the US people will not cross party lines.

There's groups like the conservative Catholics who will vote trump just to see a more conservative justice voted in who will be pro-life. Pro 2nd Ammendment people etc, its not that they want Trump they just want to control the supreme court as that is where they think changes can be made or blocked.
5
Escher - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I haven't checked myself but John Sopal has said quite a few times on the bbc the last few days that the polls are much closer than before. If you trust him as a decent journo, and I do that sounds a bit different to 'far from'. I don't know enough about US sources to take a reliable balanced look myself (i.e. I don't know all unobvious biases in the US media, Fox news natch) so rely on decent Brit journos to do it for me. They say the polls are close and getting closer, the phrase neck and neck was used, I have no reason to disbelieve them. Very happy to be educated on the matter though. Thanks
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Escher:

> I haven't checked myself but John Sopal has said quite a few times on the bbc the last few days that the polls are much closer than before. If you trust him as a decent journo, and I do that sounds a bit different to 'far from'. I don't know enough about US sources to take a reliable balanced look myself (i.e. I don't know all unobvious biases in the US media, Fox news natch) so rely on decent Brit journos to do it for me. They say the polls are close and getting closer, the phrase neck and neck was used, I have no reason to disbelieve them. Very happy to be educated on the matter though. Thanks

National polls are but they dont matter that much, what does matter is the battle ground states. NY will be 99% clinton, whether she's 99% or 80% it doesnt matter as she will win NY but Ohio, Iowa, NH, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania etc matter far more. And because of the Hispanic vote once reliably red states are coming blue.

Thats why the polls can be close and the 538 prediction states around 70% for Clinton, she's a much wider path, there are many combinations of battleground states she can win, if he loses Florida or Ohio its almost impossible he can get in.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Escher:
This site collects polling data which is good.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.htm...

LA times Polls always put Trump much further ahead than the other polls. Not sure why but they always have him a good 5 points stronger than any other poll.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-hampshire/

538 lets you look at the forecasts for each state and these are what will decide who wins.

538 is about the best out there but they can be wrong. The problem is trump supporters often haven't voted much so they are harder to predict.
Post edited at 17:27
1
balmybaldwin - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Sounds similar to recent polling here where predictions were upset by unusual voter turn outs
Sean Kelly - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

Looking forward to the ' US/UK summit ' between President Trump and Prime Minister Corbyn!!
pec on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> sadly you are right, if she drops out then what, Bernie. Principled etc.. but zero hope of winning. So it's still Trump. >

Don't worry, ther is an alternative to Trump if Clinton has to drop out

http://www.votealicecooper.com/

IceKing - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Thank you
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

God help us. It amazes me that people would vote for such a horrible person.
JSTaylor - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

The problem here is that within a liberal democracy everyone gets to vote regardless of their level of education, prejudices, and other human failings. As with Brexit, the U.S. Presidential election is seeing "dark forces" tapping into unsavoury themes and falsehoods which are finding resonance with certain quarters of the electorate. Despite the "obvious" failings and shortcomings in these arguments and assertions it is proving very difficult to counter them. Be afraid, be very afraid...
3
wbo - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:
Nate Silver/538 is really your go to source for predictions.

I would bear in mind they need to go through the debates. As its not a pet audience I suspect Trump may suffer when the facts intrude. There is also plenty of time for some Donald scandal to emerge
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to wbo:
Matt Lauer was terrible the other night though, Trump = ratings so they just won't upset him. CNN are tougher but even Anderson Cooper and Cuomo let him off too easily. Lauer just wasn't fact checking him which in today's day and age is so easy to do.

Hillary isn't a good politician or speaker, but she is a lawyer and can argue well so I think, if well moderates, she will do well. Trump wants a shouting match and insults.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Sounds similar to recent polling here where predictions were upset by unusual voter turn outs

There are a lot of Brexit similarities, angry white man, encouraging support of racists, lies, new demographics voting. I can very much see a trump presidency but I still think Hillary will win.

Im hopeful his Tax returns finish him, I just can't see him being able to get to November releasing nothing
5
Pete Pozman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

The massive worry is why isn't he finished already. The depths he has plumbed with his racist, sexist, ignorant utterings should have seen him buried by now. There is a strange feeling, like in the referendum that the good guys are holding back.
2
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The massive worry is why isn't he finished already. The depths he has plumbed with his racist, sexist, ignorant utterings should have seen him buried by now. There is a strange feeling, like in the referendum that the good guys are holding back.

Staggering really, but we've still not seen him break that 40% barrier.

Rallies don't mean that much, Bernie had them, and there's many more examples of huge rallies meaning little. He preaches to the converted and reached out to african americans with a 'your education is useless, your jobs are useless, what do you have to lose' speech which killed him in that demographic. Hispanics he killed again with his hardline immigration speech after seeming to weaken...




2
gavmac on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

I'm in the US for work at the moment and reminding myself daily- don't talk politics. I watched Trump following his daughters speech today ... Truly has there ever been a more odious, self serving, arrogant, vile, ignorant tw*t of a man. He's not going to win though- he's just not, he can't - please tell me he won't win.
2
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:


That's an awfully sweeping statement, and I have no doubt if you had chosen a different race in that statement, then the UKC snowflake brigade would be kicking off.

You types keep telling us to not make generalisations and gob off an awful lot about stereotypes and the like, and yet here you are.
11
Pete Pozman - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Surely there can't be a Trump supporter here. Look at him, listen to him. You don't need to listen to trendy lefty hipster types at all to make your mind up. These are the weirdest times when values that have been accepted by both wings of mainstream politics for 70 years are being ignored. People can have an alternative view without deciding to trust an odious nasty fantasist. Trump is a monster.
2
balmybaldwin - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Well it would be stupid to call trump an angry black man wouldn't it?
2
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Trump and Clinton are both bellends.

People are voting trump because they are fed up of the regressive left.

People are voting Clinton "because they don't want another white man"

Irony?

"Oh trumps a racist"
"I am voting Clinton because she's not a white man"


Either way, they are going to get shafted.
Post edited at 08:40
4
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:

You missed my point. someone tried to make a similarity about trump supporters and brexit supporters being racists and xenophobes.

You are aware Trump has black voters?

It's always about race with you liberals.


10
RomTheBear - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> It's always about race with you liberals.

It's always about race with you racists.
8
GarethSL on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

> He's going to win isn't he?

Surely the CIA have hit squads just for this kind of thing? Of has hollywood been lying to me?

2
Oceanrower - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to GarethSL:

If the CIA don't, I'm pretty sure some other (non American) government department will be 'having a word'!
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Hillary is fine. That's why they chucked her into that black van like coal into a chute ;-) As for Trump, his medical report will make Ivan Drago from Rocky IV look like a wheezy asthmatic with fallen arches and a nut allergy. I thought everyone knew he has never, ever been unwell. (except that one time of course... when his draft for Vietnam landed on the door mat. Then he was very poorly indeed)
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

'It's always about race with you liberals. '

No it's not, it's also about economics, gender issues, equality of opportunity, rule of law, social justice, environment - you know, all the boring stuff that stops all of us regressing to the Stone Age.

But don't you worry about any of that, you just carry on believing what you want to believe.

5
RomTheBear - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Strange times we live in, the anti-PC brigade has become nastier than the PC brigade. You can't even point out fairly blatant racism and xenophobia without being accused of being of a super hipster liberal luvvy lefty metropolitan elite.
6
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Well, in fairness, you couldn't point out any fears about immigration without being accused of being a racist for the last 15 odd years (Gillian Duffy etc...)

I wonder if that's why people are becoming immune to the insult? Like antibiotics, I wonder if it has been overused and become less effective?
1
Bob Hughes - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> You are aware Trump has black voters?

some but not many. 7% of black voters said they'd vote Trump according to Pew research. 91% said they'd vote Hillary.



Pete Pozman - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Hillary is fine. That's why they chucked her into that black van like coal into a chute ;-) As for Trump, his medical report will make Ivan Drago from Rocky IV look like a wheezy asthmatic with fallen arches and a nut allergy. I thought everyone knew he has never, ever been unwell. (except that one time of course... when his draft for Vietnam landed on the door mat. Then he was very poorly indeed)

Yeah and a veteran shared his Purple Heart with Trump in honour of that sacrifice. Not only is he a liar and a bully but he is by anyone's criteria a coward. And he had the gall of a 100% imbecile to castigate McCain for being captured by the Vietcong. Even if you are a rednecked "patriot" this fat old man baby cannot be your choice, or what are you seeing that is invisible to me. (Not you Bjartur; Bootrock.)
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
Pete Pozman - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Trump and Clinton are both bellends.

> People are voting trump because they are fed up of the regressive left.

> People are voting Clinton "because they don't want another white man"

> Irony?

> "Oh trumps a racist"

> "I am voting Clinton because she's not a white man"

> Either way, they are going to get shafted.

Why is Clinton a bell end? Is it possible you think the main turn off regarding Trump is his whiteness/maleness?
2
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Oceanrower:

CIA/FBI are too busy investigating Clinton, to do anything about a few comments from Trump.



And it all depends on the media you read, its all bias and motivated by self interest. You say 7%, I have read a few reports from 25%, to 4-12%. But its the power of the media. They try and paint a picture they want you to see.

Economy? Like NAFTA?
Like Hillarycare?
Gender Issues and equality of opportunity? (vote of hillary, she's a woman, she must be good at that)
social justice? ;
Like representing a man who raped a 12 year old girl and chuckling about aspects of the case, and ending in a plea bargain?
like the men she left to die in Bengahzi and played down a massive, organised and lethal terrorist attack, and lied to the families?
Helping to create an Iranian Nuclear deal?
Ending all deportation and increasing and allowing illegal immigration?
Fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behaviour and lying?
Lied about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia?
Getting people sacked so she can put her own people in, which backfired and she ended up getting fined for it?


Come on, just admit your voting for her because you don't like Trump.

They are both arseholes. Don't try and take the morale high ground just because Hillary has a vagina.

As a point of interest, Kenya is building a wall to stop its immigration problem with Somalia.
7
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
What I am seeing, is that people are fed up with the regressive left, people are sick of the Ultra PC, Left wing rhetoric. Look at Politics in Europe, that political parties rising and gaining more and more popularity are the far right, people are getting pushed. People are giving an inch and miles are getting taken.

People are fed up. Pushed to extreme measures. Reasonable folk are feeling the need to take drastic measures.
Post edited at 11:32
14
Oceanrower - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> CIA/FBI are too busy investigating Clinton, to do anything about a few comments from Trump.

> And it all depends on the media you read, its all bias and motivated by self interest. You say 7%, I have read a few reports from 25%, to 4-12%. But its the power of the media. They try and paint a picture they want you to see.

> Economy? Like NAFTA?

> Like Hillarycare?

> Gender Issues and equality of opportunity? (vote of hillary, she's a woman, she must be good at that)

> social justice? ;

> Like representing a man who raped a 12 year old girl and chuckling about aspects of the case, and ending in a plea bargain?

> like the men she left to die in Bengahzi and played down a massive, organised and lethal terrorist attack, and lied to the families?

> Helping to create an Iranian Nuclear deal?

> Ending all deportation and increasing and allowing illegal immigration?

> Fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behaviour and lying?

> Lied about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia?

> Getting people sacked so she can put her own people in, which backfired and she ended up getting fined for it?

> Come on, just admit your voting for her because you don't like Trump.

> They are both arseholes. Don't try and take the morale high ground just because Hillary has a vagina.

> As a point of interest, Kenya is building a wall to stop its immigration problem with Somalia.

Really not sure why you're aiming any of this at me.
Tyler - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Im hopeful his Tax returns finish him, I just can't see him being able to get to November releasing nothing

My worry is hrs he's allowing the tax return issue to build up a head of stream and then release them. They'd only have be a bit better than his opponents suggest for it to be a major PR win. There'd have to be a major smoking gun for the issue to harm him more than it is already. Assuming he pays some taxes and can spin things the tax return issue may give him a filip on the eve of the election before the any message other than "See, I do pay taxes despite what the democrat liars say" sinks in to the electorate. The detail will be lost.

Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Oceanrower:


Nah man, don't worry, I am brash and lack some kind of social skills, I don't attack people, Just their posts.
Don't take it personally, I am sure your a nice person.

this forum layout isn't the best, the CIA bit was aimed at you. But the rest, you can disregard and the rest of the snowflake brigade can pick it up.
8
wbo - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock: most polls are running Trump between 1 and 3% black vote. It seems unreal to be so low, but so did Mitt Romney polling zero votes in some districts in the last election but it was tested by distrustful republicans and found to be true.

Trump may well be a rebellion against the establishment, but he's an idiot who'll say whatever pops into his head so god only knows what he would actuAlly do. The only thing I can tell you is he'll get richer. He has a record of sexual misconduct, dodgy business dealings, plenty of business failure too and petty corruption - does that bother you?

Hillary a liberal. She's probably slightly right of David Cameron. But I'm tempted to think she cares about things beyond her wallet so would likely be ok
2
lummox - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to wbo:

I love the term regressive Left in the context of the U.S.

Bootrock is cracking me up.
3
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to lummox:

Unless he's posting from a secure unit I'm not finding his posts that funny. He has a lot of issues.
4
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to lummox:

Sometimes you gotta introduce a little anarchy.






2
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Madness and Genius are 2 sides of the same coin.
2
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Not always. Really.
3
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

When you point a finger at someone, Remember there are 3 pointing back.
3
cb294 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Madness and Genius are 2 sides of the same coin.

But idiocy and supporting Trump (or at least spreading his propaganda bullshit) are the same side of the coin.

CB
2
KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
1
ebdon - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I'm not sure about using Kenya as an example of international best practice of how a country should be run........
1
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

A bird in the hand, is worth 2 in the bush.
1
KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> A bird in the hand, is worth 2 in the bush.

You think they should stick with the current president then as opposed to the two main candidates?
Radical idea but given the two in question I can see it appealing to many.
1
Bootrock on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Man run in front of car, man get tired.


Man run behind car, he get exhausted.

felt - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
Man run on train, he run faster than train.

Man run on plane, plane run on treadmill.

Treadmill run on steam, watermiller lose job.
Post edited at 20:23
1
RomTheBear - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Absolutely no chane its all over.


> All over.. yet according to Nate Silver she's actually got more chance than yesterday..

I'm not sure you read this properly, he has 1/3 chance of winning according to this model.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

What race?
> That's an awfully sweeping statement, and I have no doubt if you had chosen a different race in that statement, then the UKC snowflake brigade would be kicking off.

> You types keep telling us to not make generalisations and gob off an awful lot about stereotypes and the like, and yet here you are.

2
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm not sure you read this properly, he has 1/3 chance of winning according to this model.

No I doont think you read it properly, up the thread they were saying Trump has it won. So a 30% chance is not all over for Clinton, shes the overwhelming favourite as it stands. Still all to play for but she's the clear favourite.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> You missed my point. someone tried to make a similarity about trump supporters and brexit supporters being racists and xenophobes.

> You are aware Trump has black voters?

> It's always about race with you liberals.

I didnt say all were, I said some were.

Farage's poster with the refugees mirroring a very similar Nazi one was such an example.

Trump has refused to disavow a KKK leader. He took out adds calling for the death penalty for 5 innocent white men, he marked the housing applications of 'coloured' people with a' c'

He has actively tried to recruit the angry white man. Its the last stand in a country becoming increasingly Hispanic.

That is just a simple fact.

Hillary has actively tried to recruit the black vote and has 97-99% of the black vote but she has a long history of supporting and minorities.

The Clintons give millions to the Clinton Foundation each year and globally fund a huge amount of kids HIV treatment medications. trump has not donated to his own foundation for almost a decade so it seems..

They are worlds apart.
2
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

>

> You are aware Trump has black voters?

Very few.

He also has / had hispanics for Trump but many left after his hard line stance.

Trump has hughe historic issues with black workers and black people of NYC. He cant overcome that with a 'what have you got to lose comment'. Whilst he was encouraging the death penalty for innocent black teens Hilary was fighting for the education of black children. That is why she has the support, not speaches or policies but historic actions.
2
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> You missed my point. someone tried to make a similarity about trump supporters and brexit supporters being racists and xenophobes.

> You are aware Trump has black voters?

> It's always about race with you liberals.

I think you also miss the point that sometimes some groups/politicians do attract racist supporters.

"the great White hope" as some of his supporters call him.. that is a tad racialist.. go on admit it?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-white-supremacists-trump-20160723-story.h...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/12/why-this-leading-white-nationalist-i...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/donald_trump_s_white_supremacist_su...
http://nhpr.org/post/white-supremacist-pac-inundates-vermont-robocalls-trump
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/11/white-nationalists-cut-robocall-for-trump
2
Timmd on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to JSTaylor:
> The problem here is that within a liberal democracy everyone gets to vote regardless of their level of education, prejudices, and other human failings. As with Brexit, the U.S. Presidential election is seeing "dark forces" tapping into unsavoury themes and falsehoods which are finding resonance with certain quarters of the electorate. Despite the "obvious" failings and shortcomings in these arguments and assertions it is proving very difficult to counter them. Be afraid, be very afraid...

Without comparing anybody with anybody from the late 1930's in Germany (there's some un written rule that one shouldn't do), there were people there who thought that soon people would wake up to the 'obvious' and that things would change for the better, but they didn't do.
Post edited at 01:16
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Without comparing the situation to Nazi Germany, you're going to compare the situation to Nazi Germany. ...?

;-)

Trump is a nasty, divisive figure, poisoning the well of public discourse and attacking the fabric of society itself. But that point can be made without turning to reductio ad hitlerum arguments- populist bigot he may be, but I don't think we're on a slippery slope towards death camps or any sort of Final Solution. ..
2
Rob Exile Ward on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

'I don't think we're on a slippery slope towards death camps or any sort of Final Solution. ..'

Except that no doubt that the huge majority of perfectly normal Germans wouldn't have thought they were in the early 30s. And many Yugoslavs didn't in the late 80s. And no doubt the Russians today don't think of themselves on a slippery slope leading to Gulags. I don't suppose very many people ever do realise where their country is heading until it arrives.

In a country that is not humiliated and ashamed by Guantanamo, which has no control over who can purchase and use serious weaponry, where the police can act with impunity even on explicitly racist grounds, where the military still largely operate outside the rule of international law, I'm not sure of the limit to the depths a US under President Trump could sink.
5
KevinD - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't suppose very many people ever do realise where their country is heading until it arrives.

It is always slightly disturbing reading history books and seeing how people were pretty oblivious to what, in hindsight, were bloody big clues.

1
baron - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Except that when Mr Trump becomes President he doesn't get to decide what happens in the USA.
He has to deal with the Senate and Congress before getting what he wants.
Ask Mr Obama how easy that is!
Nevis-the-cat - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> When you point a finger at someone, Remember there are 3 pointing back.

mostly in Norfolk.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I just don't think that a Trump presidency leads to some sort of kristallnacht moment or cattle trucks on their way to gas chambers- and when people draw Nazi comparisons, that's what is being implied; not that they were 'a bit bad', but that they harnessed advances in science and technology to the goal of the extermination of entire peoples they found distasteful.

As has been pointed out, even if elected, Trump will be restricted in his actions by congress. I think the bigger danger is not that he will do something bad; its that he's given the impression he will do lots of (stupid) things that he will not be able to deliver on. When his supporters see he is just another politician, their alienation from the political process will be even more entrenched, and where that leads 10, 20, 30 years from now is uncertain, and worrying, territory
Post edited at 10:22
Pete Pozman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

What the hell is going on? It's like a fascist virus dormant since the 40s has resurfaced from some foetid cellar and is infecting the planet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37335544

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37335543
1
snoop6060 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:
I hope he does win.

It will distract us even further from the absolute and utter mess that our own political system is currently in.

Seems we like his policies too. We are currently erecting a wall in France to make sure nobody can get in to the UK that we don't want (rich Russians only please, they are very much welcome). Perhaps even got the French to pay for it. A wall and a big moat, like the good old days. Get the hot oil ready.

He is pretty funny which is something I guess.
Post edited at 10:54
1
Jimbocz - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Without comparing the situation to Nazi Germany, you're going to compare the situation to Nazi Germany. ...?

> ;-)

> Trump is a nasty, divisive figure, poisoning the well of public discourse and attacking the fabric of society itself. But that point can be made without turning to reductio ad hitlerum arguments- populist bigot he may be, but I don't think we're on a slippery slope towards death camps or any sort of Final Solution. ..

While I generally agree with you, I think you are under estimating just how much damage a bad President can do. Remember George Bush? There might not be death camps and final solutions in America, but there sure is a lot of death in the Middle East that he is directly responsible for. Isis was born in Iraq as a consequence of the US invasion and I'm sure we can find some death camps associated with those guys.

I'd guess that a Trump presidency will indeed be more of the same for the Americans, continued prosperity, cheap oil and more stuff. Any death camps won't be in America.

RE the main topic of this thread, I'm terrified enough at the prospect of President Trump that I've actually donated money to Hillary's campaign.
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Jimbocz:
i've no quibble with most of that.

but in that sense, Bush was just following in the centuries-old tradition of western powers interfering militarily in distant parts of the world for their own motivations, with a poor understanding of the likely consequences of the intervention and little sign of a strategy to deal with them when they arise.

not setting out to diminish the seriousness of this; but its a long way from an advanced state directing its resources towards the deliberate extermination of entire races, which was the hallmark off Naziism, and sets it apart as a virtually unique evil.

Trump, if he wins, clearly has the capacity to visit evil on the world, though his hand will be fettered to a degree by the political process in the US, but i think Nazi parallels are misplaced and unhelpful, as they allow his supporters to turn the tables on his critics and level the charge of absurd hyperbole.

And my concerns are less that he will be Dubya II, and more for the corrosive effect his rhetoric, and the expectations this is building in his supporters, will have on the functioning of civic society; leading too ever greater polarisation and mistrust between races, classes, political parties, religions, and states. at some point, the gaps become too wide to bridge, and Trump is pushing at the weaknesses that exist and making them worse.
Post edited at 12:50
1
Jimbocz - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Both of those points are fair enough.

About the second, I think the outcome you fear is already materialising. Regardless of whether he wins or not, I've still got to face the fact that %45 of the people back home were willing to vote for him. Polarisation and mistrust are two very good words for that.

Along those lines, I'm very worried about the post Brexit phenomenon of yobs believing that it is acceptable to abuse people on the streets . I would not want to be a scarf wearing Muslum, or even a turban wearing Sikh in American the day after a Trump win.
1
Bootrock on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> In a country that is not humiliated and ashamed by Guantanamo, which has no control over who can purchase and use serious weaponry, where the police can act with impunity even on explicitly racist grounds, where the military still largely operate outside the rule of international law, I'm not sure of the limit to the depths a US under President Trump could sink.

There is gun control in the U.S, and it varies from state to state.

No they can't. Officers have felt full force of the law of their actions were proven to be excessive or more than reasonable force. Or a misuse
Of lethal force.

Not they don't, the biggest cause of death for young black men, are young black men. 3 out of 6 Officers that were involved in the Fresdie Gray death, were black. And they were dealt with by the law.

I don't see ISIS abiding by the Geneva Convention? Warfare is nasty. And you can't pull punches.
America offered Taliban and Al Qaeda treatment under the Geneva convention, under the premise that they abide by 5 rules, 2 of them were;
1 they were a uniform to determine them from local civilian population
2 to conduct operations in accordance with military law, Customs and traditions.
They did neither, and thus are not given protection under it.



4
Timmd on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> Without comparing the situation to Nazi Germany, you're going to compare the situation to Nazi Germany. ...?

> ;-)

> Trump is a nasty, divisive figure, poisoning the well of public discourse and attacking the fabric of society itself. But that point can be made without turning to reductio ad hitlerum arguments- populist bigot he may be, but I don't think we're on a slippery slope towards death camps or any sort of Final Solution. ..

He's talked about locking up Muslims (for no other reason) IIRC? Something along those lines. I don't think death camps are going to appear either, but that doesn't mean Trump can't lead the US to somewhere quite dark.
Post edited at 14:01
1
Timmd on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> I don't see ISIS abiding by the Geneva Convention? Warfare is nasty. And you can't pull punches.
> America offered Taliban and Al Qaeda treatment under the Geneva convention, under the premise that they abide by 5 rules, 2 of them were;
> 1 they were a uniform to determine them from local civilian population
> 2 to conduct operations in accordance with military law, Customs and traditions.
> They did neither, and thus are not given protection under it.

Which does nothing to justify 'chicken farmers' being jailed in Guantanamo on the incriminating word of another Afghan who doesn't like them, there's other cases like that I've read about in Guantanamo.

The torture of inmates there, and the existence of what's known as Camp No, a facility there which doesn't officially exist and isn't under the scrutiny of the authorities, is another dark stain on the US too, and the way in which 3 inmates who'd ended up dying after having tea towels shoved down their throats, had their bodies eventually end up with their wind pipes and that part of their throats removed, after 3 inmates had been seen by a guard being taken to Camp No, before 3 medical vans arrived and left some time later.

I ended up deciding I didn't want to have to deal with finding out more dark things and decided not to buy his book. I might do in the future. It seems like where there's a lack of scrutiny humans will always do bad things.
Post edited at 14:18
3
Timmd on 15 Sep 2016
andyfallsoff - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Your argument - that if the other side doesn't abide by Human Rights / international law on warfare, nor should the US / whoever else - is fundamentally misguided. Only by abiding by those rules whether or not others do, do we have any moral authority to criticise or to try and enforce the rules. Allow this to escalate, and what you end up with are two parties who are both seriously abusing human rights, the only defence for one of them being "he started it".

Two wrongs absolutely don't make a right.
2
andyfallsoff - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
Just to point out as well, your list of Hillary's supposed issues that are "being ignored" includes at least one that isn't true (sacked from Watergate). It's a popular meme, so if you take your news from pictures on social media you might believe it, but it has been debunked.

I haven't checked the rest but I don't know if everyone would agree that (for example) assisting with an Iranian nuclear deal is universally considered bad - another view might be that this has been one step towards reacceptance of a country that had previously been considered a threat (rightly or wrongly).
Post edited at 16:10
3
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Trumps trading at his shortest odds ever for the Presidency right now. Less than 2 to 1 on betfair
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
It seems like an anonymous person doesn't agree but won't articulate why.

I'm glad they've let everybody know... ;-)

I wholly agree btw.
Post edited at 16:35
4
Bootrock on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

You tell that to the parents of the kids smeared across the Tarmac in Nice.

All is fair in love and war. we should be an iron fist
In a velvet glove, and we should have taken that glove off a long time ago.

Oh boo hoo, a bit of a slapping around, sorry have you seen the latest video from ISIS?

And Andyfallsoff, you are quite right, she wasn't sacked but the comments made about her were true. And I don't have social media, despite what You might think, and I don't get my news from Memes...


11
Pete Pozman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:



> All is fair in love and war. we should be an iron fist

> In a velvet glove, and we should have taken that glove off a long time ago.

> Oh boo hoo, a bit of a slapping around, sorry have you seen the latest video from ISIS?

Are you sure you aren't Donald Trump, Bootrock? You sound exactly like him ... but how would he know about uk climbing.com ? Or that a thing like climbing exists... No I suppose you are just expressing your own views. Which are damnable.

2
Timmd on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> All is fair in love and war.

Tell that to the relatives of innocent Tamil civilians killed by indiscriminate shelling towards the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka .

It's emphatically wrong that all is fair in war.
Post edited at 18:25
3
Roadrunner5 - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> Trumps trading at his shortest odds ever for the Presidency right now. Less than 2 to 1 on betfair

He's making a come back, I thought just after his convention was his peak but he is getting closer.

But these odds lag a few days so we will see. I think his family leave ideas, no leave for fathers, so no leave for Gay parents, will further hurt him.

But this late on not much will change their view, it is the undecided who matter now.

I'm donating to Hillary.

Trumps plans are unworklable. Freedom for inner city kids to chose any school? My school is $8k a student, who pays that? How do you force a private school to accept without big government, which is very unconservative.

Forcing people out of business is also hurting him. He seems to have ignored 30-40 years of walking all over people and refusing to pay bills is hurting him.

Refusing to admit the first black president was born in America, he did it again today.... this hurts his black votes... he's trying to pander to all sides now. One minute he is chasing the african american vote, next minute the Alt Right..
Post edited at 01:25
2
off-duty - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I imagine I'm the only one who is stunned by the irony in using the existence of Guantanamo as a means to demonstrate the "fascist evil nature" of the West/US etc.

Gitmo is quite clearly the result of attempts to bring liberal, democratic processes to bear in regions and situations that are quite literally batttlefields.

The fascist and evil method of dealing with prisoners in those situations would be a bullet in the head.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to off-duty:

Firstly, let's clearly state, the US is neither fascist or evil in nature

But it does make mistakes. And indefinite extrajudicial detention, on the base of evidence the detained person isn't allowed to know, alongside the use of interrogation techniques that would clearly be seen as torture if they were done to US citizens by a foreign power, look exactly like the stock in trade of fascist regimes.

Gitmo won't go down as the US' s finest hour.
1
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> Firstly, let's clearly state, the US is neither fascist or evil in nature

Nope, but the USA will do anything* to look after it's people's* interests, businesses and finances.

*People; working, middle class and above
*Anything; anything means anything, what it can't force the military to do, ie stuff worse than what happens in gitmo, it will pay private contractors to do.

Once you accept that the USA has no other country or citizens interests at heart, not even in a moral or humane sense, you have a basis for things like their foreign policy, or TTIP negotiations.
Post edited at 07:48
1
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to off-duty:

I have no idea what you are replying to, clearly it's no post of mine. Gitmo was explicitly established to be beyond the rule of law-not great when that is what you claim to be fighting to uphold.
And I didn't come out with the cr*p about the West being fascist; but there are slippery slopes, and a Trump presidency would definitely be one.
1
off-duty - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Firstly, let's clearly state, the US is neither fascist or evil in nature

I agree. Many consider the imperialist US to be at the root of "everything" - I would disagree with that.

> But it does make mistakes. And indefinite extrajudicial detention, on the base of evidence the detained person isn't allowed to know, alongside the use of interrogation techniques that would clearly be seen as torture if they were done to US citizens by a foreign power, look exactly like the stock in trade of fascist regimes.

> Gitmo won't go down as the US' s finest hour.

There have been some horrible abuses reported there in terms of treatment and abuse. Equally when you have someone you know is a highly dangerous terrorist, but to disclose what you know and how you know it is going to get people killed, you are faced with a "bit of a pickle".

It's the efforts to squeeze evil monsters into a framework of liberal western values/processes that initially created Gitmo (and the greyer edges of some UK law).
Timmd on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to off-duty:
> I imagine I'm the only one who is stunned by the irony in using the existence of Guantanamo as a means to demonstrate the "fascist evil nature" of the West/US etc.
> Gitmo is quite clearly the result of attempts to bring liberal, democratic processes to bear in regions and situations that are quite literally batttlefields.
> The fascist and evil method of dealing with prisoners in those situations would be a bullet in the head.


It's not as black and white/binary as that (I'm vaguely surprised that might not have occurred to a member of the police?).
There have been Gitmo inmates who have been chicken farmers jailed on the word of another villager/somebody from another village, and people who work for Al Jazeera (for example) without any concrete or actual links to terrorism - other than knowing a terrorist in another quite separate context.

Even in times like these justice shouldn't be corrupted.

Edit: Not to mention the UK citizens without any provable links to terror who were jailed for years before being released...
Post edited at 14:19
off-duty - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> It's not as black and white as that (I'm vaguely surprised that might not have occurred to a member of the police).

> There have been Gitmo inmates who have been chicken farmers jailed on the word of another villager/somebody from another village, and people who work for Al Jazeera (for example) without any concrete or actual links to terrorism - other than knowing a terrorist in another quite separate context.

> Even in times like these justice shouldn't be corrupted.

I would suggest that viewing the occupants of Gitmo as predominantly innocent chicken farmers would be both naive and not supported by any evidence.

As I keep saying, the rule of law and rights should be respected. That's what we are all supposed to be about. That gets exceedingly more difficult when you are faced with situations where you are unable to prosecute due to lethal danger to sources, lack of an appropriate functioning country to prosecute them in, chaotic circumstances of detention - and yet to release them would quite literally be putting a gun in their hand to shoot both you and the persons that put them there.

It's an awful situation and undoubtedly there are some innocent people caught up in it - but given the easiest battlefield solution would be summary execution, then captivity must surely be preferable.

It says a lot for our society that we can have so much concern for, at its maximum capacity 14 years ago around 800 people, now around 200.
1
Oceanrower - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to off-duty:
> It's an awful situation and undoubtedly there are some innocent people caught up in it - but given the easiest battlefield solution would be summary execution, then captivity must surely be preferable.

I can see the law has changed over the last couple of hundred years.......

http://www.bartleby.com/73/953.html
Post edited at 14:27
krikoman - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:


> Helping to create an Iranian Nuclear deal?

And the problem with this is?
3
off-duty - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I can see the law has changed over the last couple of hundred years.......


So you accept there's a ratio guilty:innocent, it's just an argument about where it lies?
krikoman - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to off-duty:

> It's the efforts to squeeze evil monsters into a framework of liberal western values/processes that initially created Gitmo (and the greyer edges of some UK law).

It's the efforts they went to, to make sure they were outside the framework of western values that created Gitmo, surely.

It's tantamount to saying "don't do what I do, do what I say".

In setting up guantanamo the US lost any remaining respect they had in to outside world, apart from their usual allies, Saudi and Israel of course.

When your setting places and regimes up outside your territory so they are outside you laws, you've got to know some thing's not right.

Changing the English language to disguise kidnapping and rendition doesn't help.

Holding people without charge and without trial, simply isn't the world I want to live in.
2
Timmd on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to off-duty:
> I would suggest that viewing the occupants of Gitmo as predominantly innocent chicken farmers would be both naive and not supported by any evidence.

Except that I never said I did view them as 'predominantly' chicken farmers. That's rather putting words into my mouth, or onto my post.

> As I keep saying, the rule of law and rights should be respected. That's what we are all supposed to be about. That gets exceedingly more difficult when you are faced with situations where you are unable to prosecute due to lethal danger to sources, lack of an appropriate functioning country to prosecute them in, chaotic circumstances of detention - and yet to release them would quite literally be putting a gun in their hand to shoot both you and the persons that put them there.

If one looks into what happened straight after 9/11, there was an (understandable) urgency to go after anybody responsible, anybody with links to terror, and anybody who might be linked to terror. Which led to (amongst the dangerous people) innocent people being caught up, and either sent to Gitmo, or to unofficial 'black jail' for questioning, and torture too. I don't think it would have been overlooked that to have these places outside of the US (and unofficial too) would have been convenient - with US laws on human rights (for what they are) not having to apply.

> It's an awful situation and undoubtedly there are some innocent people caught up in it - but given the easiest battlefield solution would be summary execution, then captivity must surely be preferable.

I think that last point could be said about a lot of different kinds of suffering to be honest, which most people would rather avoid and not have happen to themselves or to other people they might care for.

> It says a lot for our society that we can have so much concern for, at its maximum capacity 14 years ago around 800 people, now around 200.

I agree.
Post edited at 15:12
1
Simon4 - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:
> He's going to win isn't he? (Trump)

> You know that creeping doom feeling you may have had as the referendum votes were being counted

Well if Guardianistas (and their American equivalents), keep losing popular votes (the last 2 GEs in the UK, the referendum, etc, etc) and become ever more hated and despised (and ever increasingly, ridiculed), possibly, just possibly, they should learn from the experience and change their approach.

Consider their audience, stop using private and arcane language and starting from ludicrous assumptions that no-one but them and their echo chamber are ever going to share.

Like they could stop being such preachy, self-righteous, sneering snobs, clinging to their self-proclaimed and entirely imaginary intellectual and moral superiority. Or stop being abusive and talking down to or at people and actually LISTEN to them. Perhaps they could not quite so often refer to anyone of different views to them as stupid, ignorant bigots, xenophobes, racists, uneducated and all the rest of the Guardianista catechism, thus immediately removing the faint chance that the people being harangued will change their view in the direction that the Guardianista wants.

Guardianistas may be quite good at influencing people, but only in the sense that the way to make a goat go in one direction is to tug it violently the other way. Set peoples teeth on edge at the start and you have not a snowball's chance in hell of converting them to your view.

Yes I realise this is abuse to Guardianistas, but then I am not trying in the least to persuade them of anything, not that it would be remotely worthwhile to try. Actually I would rather have them against me, I would not trust them for an instant as allies. So no irony here.

Na, not going to happen is it? Would require some humility and some self-knowledge. Also the catechism of abuse is all they know, they have no alternative. It was famously said of the Bourbon monarchy that they had "Learnt nothing and forgotten nothing", it is an equally good characterisation of the modern left.

As you were then - ideological purity in powerless irrelevance.
Post edited at 15:38
10
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:
Crikey. In the immortal words of Jim Perrin 'Sonorous, yes. But meaningful?'

I think you'll find most Guardianistas are pretty aware - and in despair - of the consequences of supporting Corbyn, and frankly in the US the Democrats don't seem to have done too badly in the last couple of elections, have they?
Post edited at 15:41
1
pneame on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> Well if Guardianistas (and their American equivalents), keep losing popular votes (the last 2 GEs in the UK, the referendum, etc, etc) and become ever more hated and despised (and ever increasingly, ridiculed), possibly, just possibly, they should learn from the experience and change their approach.

It's good to see you almost happy....

Although I don't think there is an American Guardianista. Not even the NYT
Jimbocz - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> You tell that to the parents of the kids smeared across the Tarmac in Nice

The attack in Nice and the Florida shooting had nothing to do with Islamic extremists. The perpetrators were far more interested in drinking and having sex with other men in than praying. They both starting going on about Isis at the last minute to make it seem that their pathetic actions have some global importance. In your argument, you are giving them far more credit than they deserve.


2
ebdon - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

Hillary clinton is somewhat to the right of Maggie T. i'm not sure the readers of a troubled minor newspaper would approve or are indeed at all relevant? i think you need some more up to date terms for the left wing nightmare that seems to haunt youre every waking moment.
1
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

'Even in times like these justice shouldn't be corrupted.'

Especially at times like this, justice shouldn't be corrupted.

What goes on in the heat of battle, or in a war zone, with a real danger of imminent death, is understandable. But the US worked itself into a froth about being at war everywhere, and squaddies and CIA agents 5,000 miles or more from any action at all were cold bloodedly engaging in psychological and physical torture.
2
wbo - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4: you're in the wrong place I think. This isn't the Jeremy Corbyn thread

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

"Guardianistas may be quite good at influencing people, but only in the sense that the way to make a goat go in one direction is to tug it violently the other way."

Very good !
1
dek - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "Guardianistas may be quite good at influencing people, but only in the sense that the way to make a goat go in one direction is to tug it violently the other way."

> Very good !

Last time they tried 'influencing' Americans, to vote against Bush...their interfering didnt go quite to plan, did it?
Mibbe the Donald, will buy the Guardian, and shut the rag down, or turn it into a golfing magazine? ;-)
1
Roadrunner5 - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I have no idea what you are replying to, clearly it's no post of mine. Gitmo was explicitly established to be beyond the rule of law-not great when that is what you claim to be fighting to uphold.

> And I didn't come out with the cr*p about the West being fascist; but there are slippery slopes, and a Trump presidency would definitely be one.


I think the problem was this was all new, home grown terrorisays moving around the world getting involved in wars, attacking there own and other countries. I don't think there was a legal framework suitable. For me the bad bit was holding people for years without trial and the I humane conditions, but that is the US criminal stystem in general.

They laugh at the liberal prisons in countries like Norway yet don't seem to understand the reoffending rates are high and they have one of, if not the, biggest prison population I the world.

Trump worries me domestically and internationally, with Russian aggression, then Syria and add Iran andNorth korea and which could get China involved, we could have some big wars.

Hillary is a hard bitch but she knows her stuff and will make sensible policy decisions.
3
Roadrunner5 - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

You and others keep playing this 'don't say they are racists card'

Trump may not be racists but he does have racists supporters and has even used and made racist statements.

But as said the democrats are more right wing than the Tories..
1
Offwidth - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to pneame:

The Guardian is one of the fastest growing e-news services in the US, top 20 at times for news and heading for top 10 maybe soon..
It's all enough to get Simon to open that third bottle of malt.

https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-us-press-office/2016/jul/15/guardian-us-experiences-another-rec...
1
pneame on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Good news for some - I'll confess that I thought of paying the modest monthly fee... but then I thought "Simon will never talk to me again"....
1
Offwidth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to pneame:

I still buy paper copies. It would be nice if Simon talked (as opposed to barging in, ranting and leaving) he is a much bigger cartoon character on this subject than the sterotypical Guardian readers (they do exist in a minority) he seemingly despises and often guilty of the very things he accuses them of (albeit from a different political perspective). The Guardian is the only trust owned major UK paper, a status that prevents owner influence (all too common in UK papers). Its no more up itself than most other broadsheets and way less that the red tops. Intelligent people shouldn't be making attacks on such a paper: deal with the content that offends.
1
MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> The Guardian is the only trust owned major UK paper, a status that prevents owner influence

It doesn't really, it just means it is the influence of one, now dead, owner - John Scott.
Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> It doesn't really, it just means it is the influence of one, now dead, owner - John Scott.

If he's copped it, how does he exert influence? Do the trust members turn the lights down and get round an ouija board at meetings?
1
MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> If he's copped it, how does he exert influence?

Through the rules and aims of the Scott Trust/company, that owns the Guardian. He put up the money with strings attached.

"To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner."

1
Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to IceKing:

I recently read an article that discussed the implications of Trump being overweight. The author came to the conclusion, in all seriousness, that this wouldn't harm him as it would resonate with American voters.
1
Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> Through the rules and aims of the Scott Trust/company, that owns the Guardian. He put up the money with strings attached.

> "To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner."

Seems OK to me.

1
MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> Seems OK to me.

I wasn't saying otherwise.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.