UKC

Just found this on FB:

Someone on Quora asked" “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:

"A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down. So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?’

If being a tw*t was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set." 😊

I'd be very interested in hearing the opinions of the 2 who gave this a dislike. Do they disagree with the above assessment of Donald Trumps character? In which case why? Or perhaps they agree with the above, but are themselves very similar to Trump in character and, as the saying goes, "The truth hurts".

If he was a Vogon he'd spoil their image too

That is both factually precise and quite brilliantly written  

There is a simple answer to this problem. Just turn the Like/dislike feature off. Its changed my perception of these forums and made them, for me, a more pleasant place to interact with.

Back to the OP subject, I initially perceived Trump to be an imbecile, a very rich imbecile at that. However I have come to the conclusion that he is very astute at making money at the expense of human life, including those that voted him into Office.

Oh it's not a problem. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why they gave dislikes.

I can fully understand that the dislikers may disagree with Nate Whites assessment of Trumps character. However, what evidence to the contrary do they have. I'm sure Nate White can provide examples of where Trump fits his characterisation. Can the dislikers provide evidence where Trump has been funny, witty, compassionate etc.

I didn't give a dislike, but if I were to give one it would on the basis that it paints Drumpf in a more favourable light than he deserves.

You missed out that he has no shame, which is a characteristic mentioned by more than one political commentator. And of course he doesn't worry about making a brazen lie or reversing it when necessary, and he is a master at denying responsibility and shifting the blame.

He does disregard normal diplomatic conventions but in doing so strikes a chord with many people who feel they are ignored by the establishment, and he has made a few points, eg Chinese misinformation, and avoidance of intellectual property rights, which many people agree with. To me his he is a classic bully: eg all the States must come out of lockdown when he says, then when they say he hasn't the power he backs down and claims he's insisting on it but letting them decide when is best . His staff often seem embarrassingly craven (somewhat similar to BJ and the UK cabinet).

Ultimately he appears to be entirely concerned about himself and his own image which has actually worked out pretty well for him up to now. Perhaps his supporters will change their views before the next presidential election.

He's awful and is such a dangerous character.

But the US is a scary place right now with right wing threats and violence accepted.

Imagine if a group of muslim men took to the streets to protest a law like the muslim countries travel ban, and all carried long rifles/AR type guns. 

The guys in Michigan and other states just did this and it was just their constitutional right to protest and carry a gun, yet these are the dominant terrorists of the US now, not muslims.

I know that both these rights are individually anchored in the Constitution, but are armed demonstrations/protest marches seriously legal? (Please pardon my ignorance!) 

i like you trump summary, except that it wastes data space on a server for a waste of space server.

tonan

Yes. until they point a gun at someone it's legal (obviously does depend on the state and city even).

Yep, and not always by the usual suspects:

youtube.com/watch?v=k5_8WjNf4GI&

Ironically there was one time that gun restrictions were embraced..

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-carry-was-legal-...

NRA supported too: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

That is the first time I have ever felt compelled to hit the 'like' button!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8230031/Trump-tells-Dem-governors-...

It just gets worse..

It was the image of gun toting right wingers, anti - vaxxers and tea party supporters together ...... scary and depressing.

Those images of protestors in Michigan is deeply depressing. 

I wonder what John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington Et al would think. 2nd amendment my ar*e.

Trump is Trump. And in a dangerous world, it’s no use being a Neville Chamberlain.
I’m not really certain what to make of him, but perhaps having an unpredictable maverick in charge such as Trump might actually temper the ambitions of his fellow insane world leaders. 
He didn’t assume power. He was elected. 

HAVE YOU SEEN TRUMP TONIGHT??? I was just gaping in utter disbelief. Suddenly, he was talking with extreme clarity, a complete master of the situation. All the facts at his fingertips, without having to look at any cue sheets. Giving an air of absolute authority. I was almost wondering if it were some kind of Trump look-alike, or that he's been given a brain transplant, or some huge injection up his bum that's utterly changed his personality. And, I'll have to say, the contrast with the nebulous, indefinite, self-contradictory, vacuous mealy-mouthed Matt Hancock could not have been more extreme. I never dreamt I would say this. Or see it. 

He's also tweeting that Protestors should 'liberate' states. 

Those irresponsible tweets were in the morning, weren't they? The weird thing is that there seemed to be a very distinct shift by the time he came to his press briefing. That, while he was continually trying to sound as sanguine as possible, actually the substance of what he was saying was a lot more circumspect than I recall seeing him before. He wasn't giving any orders, but leaving it to the state governors and the experts to make their own decisions. He talked about 'in the coming weeks and months' rather than anything more immediate. And said they would be doing it 'very safely. We’re putting safety first.' At least twice he got his Assistant? Secretary of Health (I think he is) to flesh out the details, and he spoke very cautiously indeed, implying it would take months before they were ready to move on to 'Phase 1' of 'opening up America again'. Right at the very end Trump also made what seemed to be a veiled criticism of our herd immunity policy. He didn't say what country he was referring to, because he 'didn't want to embarrass them', but he said it wasn't 'turning out very well.' I'm fairly sure he meant Britain, and he implied very strongly that he would not contemplate going down the same route.

So an interesting contrast between his very optimistic, perhaps over-optimistic manner, and the cautious content of what he was saying. (I think there's quite a big contrast between what he's saying during the day to keep his Republican redneck supporters happy, and what he's actually doing.)

I remember thinking that "doublethink" was such an unlikely concept for a ruler to use because people would see straight through it but here it is on display.

I suppose it's like the bible - you say something that everyone can relate to and they remember the bits they like, forget the rest and think it's good.

We may feel satisfaction that the american president is such a loud-mouthed clown and dangerous with it, but make no mistake all the leaders of the developed world follow in his wake. We can be proud they do it with grace and panache but the flavour of the decade remains neo-liberalism - prioritising commerce over human life.

youtube.com/watch?v=9gijhmipliY&

Don't forget they are all puppets - animated by the strings of short term corporate greed.

On a more positive note for the UK - perhaps there is a chance of epiphany for Boris Johnson - surely he should have a more compassionate outlook with the proletariat after his passage under hospital care and attention.

Nate seems very sure about the qualities "The British" value in their leaders. 

I'm sure you're right. But don't worry, any compassion will soon dissipate.

Yes, this inciting rednecks to violence backed up with guns, is terrifying. So at the end of the day he is a very dangerous and untrustworthy con-man, full of double-speak. I was being too kind to him last night.