UKC

Is 38% according to what I’ve just read. How is it possible that over a third of people approve of him? What is there to approve of?

A depressing indictment on humankind.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



It gets worse: Over 40% of UK citizens apparently are still in favour of the madness known as Brexit. Thankfully now a minority, but still a depressingly substantial one.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

This latest row about the phone call to the grieving widow is typical of him. Says something stupid and offensive. gets called out, denies it claims he has "proof", gets called out again with corroborative evidence, claims fake news, and diverts attention by ruining something else and claiming Obama was worse.

How this man has credibility with 1% let alone 38 is unbelievable.

The man should be under psychiatric evaluation for his behaviour, investigation for vote rigging/election fraud/colllusion with Russians, investigation for sexual assault, Investigation for inciting Racial hatred. Unfortunately I believe only one of these investigations is underway.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Shoot the f*cker.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>How is it possible that over a third of people approve of him?

He's a racist. Many people like that to the exclusion of anything else, and this is especially true of Americans just now.

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That implies 38% of Americans are Racist.

Given that 62% of the population of the US are White, and the presumption that the type of racism that trump projects is only popular among whites, that implies half of the white population are racist or at least prepared to support someone who is overtly racist - that's a very worrying thought

In reply to balmybaldwin:

>that's a very worrying thought

It's difficult to come up with an explanation for the election of a monster like Trump that *isn't* fairly worrying.

It's just Mussolini over again, isn't it? Forces beyond their control (globalisation, China, automation, etc) are making the future pretty bleak for non-skilled Americans. When that happens you need someone to blame. Same with the EU vote.

jcm

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Everyone needs at least one or two friends in high places and he's almost run out. I know we keep saying it but I'm not sure he's got much left to run. He's alienated almost everyone around him; barely anyone in the White House thinks he's fit to be President, never mind anyone outside it.

How on earth he managed to get any of those generals to publicly back him on his Iran deal takedown I've no idea but there's hardly been a single word of support on any actual policy matter for weeks. And as that continues so more and more of his opponents (basically everyone) is happy to call him out, question his mental health, undermine him etc. The longer he's around the more of a problem he now becomes for anyone in government, wherever they stand.

Each extra lashing out is a sign that he's losing it and I think even he probably knows it now. I realise that without impeachment there's no obvious mechanism but in the world of Trump anything can happen for a first time. Impossible to divine how it will end but it'll probably be messy.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

US politics is more partisan than ever before. Negative news about Trump just strengthens the resolve of his base, reinforcing their views on "fake news" / media bias. Everyone who is inclined to dislike Trump, already does anyway, so new revelations don't alter anything.

The scary thing is that due to Gerrymandering / demographic distribution / the nature of the electoral college, even though Trump is less popular than he was, he has enough voters where it counts that his re-election is a decent possibility.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Absolutely. And of course, most of those who voted for him keep his approval rating up now, in spite of everything, because cognitive dissonance keeps them there and they can't yet accept the idea that it was all a sick joke. And / or they're racist.

Remember most Americans, living away from the coasts, really don't know what's going on in the world at all. You have to go a very long way to find a national newspaper. So they don't understand the forces of globalisation and they don't trust the people that live in the big cities.

In reply to thebigfriendlymoose:

Unfortunately the whole world is becoming more partisan, the Paris accord will possibly be seen as the high watermark of co-operation in the world. For a few decades people were looking to share and co-operate, relations with the recently isolated regimes (Russia, China) were beginning to thaw but now countries are retreating behind their borders and within countries the division lines are more visible and more hate-fueled than they have been for 50 years. Even in our own country I'd say Brexit and Scottish nationalism are more divisive than the strikes of the 70's or the miners strikes before you throw in Islamic fundamentalism. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic (I follow a lot of political commentators here and in the US) but I don't see things getting better in my lifetime.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Rather telling that even when trying to refute the uncaring attitude implied by the story he still didn't use (or apparently know) the name of the serviceman killed in Niger or his mother, nor the name of the congresswoman who overheard the conversation and corroborated it.

In reply to Tyler:

Yes, to all that. And it's very sad to see these ignorant, hate-filled attitudes spilling over into UKC, judging by some shocking 'Dislikes' of many of the posts above. I've always believed that climbers are among the most modern, liberal, cosmopolitan, international types in the world, for whom race, colour, class, background, nation, etc count for absolutely nothing.

I share your gloom.

PS. I mean: it's absolutely mind-boggling, isn't it, that there actually seem to be quite a few Trump supporters active on UKC? Let that sink in.

In reply to Tyler:

Partisan is the word. People can't seem to see the grey any more it's all black and white

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Have you met American voters?

youtube.com/watch?v=LvtFaPslA_o&

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

When this horror show is over I can't wait to see the official white house photographer's photos - you know the intimate pictures of the president that get released shortly after he leaves office in deep thought at crucial points of his presidency e.g. his reaction when he heard about the Vegas shooting or the missile launch over Korea.

This sort of thing: https://goo.gl/images/Y6PNkM

he'll be in a toddler pen in the corner being distracted by an au pair

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Really? Can you name the one or even give your evidence for this assertion? I can't think of one.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't know balmybaldwin that well, but from his posting history I don't think he will.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I was talking about the dislike button, PMP. That was my evidence. It wasn't about names, it was about the fact that anonymous people on this website clearly like Trump's policies. Either that, or there are some true dimwits/mentally defective types who press those buttons more or less for the fun of it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

There are hardly any dislikes! Two for the OP, and there are always oddballs who will hit the dislike if somebody states the day of the week or for some bizarre reason that only they can fathom. I wouldn't read anything into it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Or they may be some who dislike sanctimonious snobs, and down vote no matter how much they may agree with the point made.

In reply to Postmanpat:

There are 10 actually. 'I wouldn't read anything into it.' So you mean ten people slipped up? I'm baffled that there are any dislikes. Just what can it possibly mean, except for some kind of sick love for extreme Trumpist attitudes?

In reply to Big Ger:


Interesting theory, that truth is seen as sanctimony. But it's a clever theory ... about people disagreeing about things they believe in ...

In reply to aln:

I think it would probably be a bad life decision for balmybaldwin, but I do think quite seriously that it's an option for the possible histories of his presidency. People get assassinated when they have a wide sphere of influence and their aims are at odds with big, important interests. Why can't the big, important interests be that of making a better world, rather than just the money and power of a handful of people, for a change? If we think it's OK to assassinate Jihadists or Nazis, why not Trump? I think out of everyone that one might consider assassinating, he's up there. It's not that he's as actually as evil as some IS dude who thinks it's great to decapitate a journalist and put their head on a spike on a Raqqa traffic island, but his sphere of influence is far, far greater.

There are certainly very good arguments against this approach - it may harden opinion in favour of the crass and hateful tribalism he brings to politics - but I think it would be worth weighing up the pros and cons properly before ruling it out.

I guess there are people employed in the CIA to detect this kind of post on social media (and then assassinate the author?!), but there must be so much of it on twitter and facebook that I'll buy'em a pint if they find me on UKC

In reply to aln:


I might if I thought I could get away with it. I reserve my righteous anger for special cases. I'd certainly pardon the uk kid that had a go

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


isn't it sanctimonious to believe we hold the truth?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


What has he actually done? Caused offense, yes. But other than that his actions amount to little more than potentially winding the clock back to where the US was prior to Obama (and Obama himself was a latecomer to the idea of gay marriage, as just one example).

I think you are also overlooking the level of antipathy towards the so-called "progressive" movement in the US. The progressive's own attitude to anyone not in their camp is one of the key drivers to support fro Trump; many of his supporters state they don't think much of him, but given the choice will take him over the alternatives.

Try looking at this from the other side of the fence. So much of the attacks on him look like utter political opportunism and that is only driving the wedge deeper. There is a complete failure in US and UK/European circles to understand the Trump phenomena - other than to label him, and his supporters, fascists. The poll ratings tell you all you need to know about how effective that is.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I wouldn’t be suprised if he goes on for a second term.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think some of trumps popularity was that he was seen as anti establishment, not the Washington career politician that Hilary was. Many people voted with the motive of what they didn't want, not what they did (With the exception of rednecks of course).

The USA has in part driven themselves to this point, with brain washed patriotism in schools, raising of the flag, anthems... trump tapped into that. He made people feel that only a true American would vote for him. If you've had controlled media and stars&stripes rammed down your throat for years, you know no better.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I think there is little chance, as people in shadowy places will be wondering if they can get him out by fair means or foul. If anyone is the next Kennedy or Nixon, it's the Donald.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

More than once I have hit the dislike / like button when scrolling on my phone. I'll normally correct it, but I guess not everyone does. Possibly if the buttons appeared more centrally on the screen it would happen less?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Ten? Maybe ten dislikes over a number of posts but one person could account for five of them! Are you including the dislkes for Jon's "shoot the f*cker"? Maybe people don't think that shooting him is such a brilliant idea? it doesn't mean they like him.

Trump got in to power using zombie 19th century industries and "no true Scotsman".

The first will leave them with their coaldust covered pants down as the Chinese march towards the 22nd century, and the latter can be deployed only so many times.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The posts aren't numbered so it's difficult to cross reference them, but here are the posts I disliked and why:

Post #2. Trump has nothing to do with Brexit.

Post #4. No need to say more.

Post #5. It much more complicated than that.

Post #11. I largely agree with this post, but as a supporter of Scottish Nationalism, I don't like being lumped in with Trump supporters, Putin supporters or the Chinese communist party. Or, striking miners (?) or Islamic fundamentalists!

Post #13 (this is your one): Unsubstantiated and presumptuous.

Post #17 (your one): Unsubstantiated and offensive nonsense. My reasons for disliking certain posts are not the reasons you presumed.

In reply to Pero:

That such an inordinate amount of time is spent on discussing Trump is an indication of (a) how potentially destabilising he is and (b) how his attitudes, beliefs and public persona grates with decent people.

In reply to David Martin:


See this is the classic tactic to invalidate opposition; used by the partisan press and politicians. There is no 'attitude' by progressives to people 'not in their camp', so-called progressives are many and varied but you can rubbish their arguments by claiming this sort of thing.

In reply to Greenbanks:
Or perhaps he's such an easy target that even people without much political acumen can safely scream a "Look what the idiot has said now! I'm better than he!".

He doesn't abide by the normal political language, says stuff that we rarely heard come from the on-message politicians. Stuff that a lot of people are thinking but never hear repeated by those they have the choice of voting for. That may or may not make him unsuitable for high office. He may even be incompetent in his management of those around him. But in terms of stated goals, he gives the impression of action.

You don't like govt healthcare, you don't like Iran's diplomacy, you think someone somewhere should throw North Korea's statements right back at it, you are fearful of Islam, you feel directly impacted by globalisation and free-trade, you are sick of being told everyone else are victims and you are a perpetrator, you believe your constitution is the founding text and starting point from which all political discourse should begin....and on a host of other issues, who else but Trump delivers for you? Just because WE don't see the world through those lenses doesn't necessarily invalidate them.

I find it a bit rich that people in the UK can criticise. From Brexit, to the Iraq war (and subsequent re-election of Tony Blair), to fawning admiration for a monarchy and unelected House of Lords, to (when given the choice) choosing to retain an undemocratic electoral model...the populace here could be accused of being just as narrow-minded. But lets point the finger and Donald and his supporters

In reply to David Martin:


It's possible to be critical of both Trump and UK policy and behaviour, you know. In fact viewing Trump and Brexit and so on as part of the same rise in populist phenomenon is probably wise because the solution will probably be similar.

In reply to MG:


I wish. Trump will be gone in a couple of years.

In reply to David Martin:


Another fine example of using a straw man to invalidate argument.

In reply to MG:

I agree. My point is that Trump seems to be the whipping boy. Slow news day? Let's fish out a quote from Trump.

What really seems to be missed is how, at least in my opinion, the vitriol against him coming from so many quarters makes him (and his supporters) look and feel like victims. It does nothing to entice people away from Trump and only reinforces their support. The corollary of this is that Trump's opponents are so numerous, and they themselves a motley crew with competing demands, that their own infighting strengthens Trump's appeal.

We can spew hatred for him and his supporters all we want. But when we all wrote him off as a certainty for the biggest election drubbing in history, he instead went on to win. What does that say about how little we knew and understood? And how many people have actually taken the opportunity to talk to Trump voters (rather than taking at face value the stereotypical bigots chosen to represent him on TV)? Or listened to a few articulate commentators talk about how they still, on-balance, support him despite him having made statements that you would expect to alienate all but the most rabid of supporters?

In reply to pasbury:

I'm not sure its exactly a straw-man. Just trying to illustrate that you can't overlook culture. There are things we take for granted in the UK that outsiders would look at as extreme absurdities. Likewise in the US; what seems insane to us has over there an internal logic. Poking holes in it can point more to our own ignorance than, in this case, the ignorance of 38% of the US population.

In reply to David Martin:
And how many people have actually taken the opportunity to talk to Trump voters (rather than taking at face value the stereotypical bigots chosen to represent him on TV)?

Well I have spoken to a few. One regarded him as "a man of God", so obviously a great guy. Another believed that the Clinton's have killed people to further their political careers, so he was obviously a better choice. Bigot is perhaps not quite the right word in either case, but narrow-minded and ignorant certainly applies.

In reply to David Martin:
I don't like this sort of relativism, yes you can attempt to explain political choices via the culture, physical environment and physical security of a place. But I believe we. as individuals, can still stand outside any culture and make statements about the moral and economic impacts of policies or politicians. It is encouraging that there are agreements (among many individuals) about principals like human rights, the rule of law and implementation of justice, protection of the environment.
A common feature of regimes that attract outrage is that they are dismissing some (or in the case of Trump all) of these principals.

In reply to MG:

I had some interesting experiences with colleagues when I was last working in the US.

1. Some US colleagues told me over dinner they had never really heard of the Paris accord and that climate change was not ever discussed and not an issue in the US. This is from educated, corporate Americans in New Jersey, only 25 minutes from NYC (these guys were not Trump supporters)

2. Some guy shouted abuse at me for 'disrespecting his flag' (he thought I was working for Nike who are supporting the kneeling football players). I was stunned that he'd gone out of his way to come and shout at me like that.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Definitely not - far too quick, and not enough pain involved.

Hanging, drawing and quartering would be much better.

In reply to fred99:



On what grounds?

In reply to David Martin:


The White House grounds would be good enough.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Even by your usual standards you are being quite extraordinarily unimaginative here.

"Like" and "Dislike" do not mean only "I agree with the statements here" and "I disagree with the statements here", respectively.

Let THAT sink in

In reply to David Martin:


You seem to be making an argument against criticising *anything*. Saudis acting like barbarians? It's just their culture, who are we to criticise? US elect a demented racist? It's just their culture.

I'm all for explanations for the lunacy, but why try to excuse it with moral relativism?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'd avoid posting anything like that, even as a joke. If Trump somehow dodges impeachment long enough to actually come here, you may find yourself with an awkward visit from the Secret Service.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's not moral relativism. Non-Americans seem to mistake the fact yanks speaking English for them being more culturally similar than they are. The political discourse, their starting points and drivers are quite different from here. Trump makes sense in their context.

I'm no more defending Trump beheading people in the street than I am the Saudi's....except that Trump isn't beheading people, he's not banning women from driving, he's no worse a partner in destroying Yemen than we are, and the overblown "he's a Satanic Nazi who must be shot!" fervor directed at him is possibly as ludicrous as he is.

As for excusing things, if he wants to enact a travel ban, if he doesn't want to change gun laws, if he wants to build a wall, threaten Nth Korea and ban trannies from the military, so what? Contrary to what the Guardian would have you believe, there are entirely justifiable reasons for doing so - you don't have to agree with them, and are free to pick out flaws in the policies, but that doesn't mean they are the decisions of insanity. Much of the other stuff (differential reactions to various crimes, language used when contacting a dead soldier, etc) is also so overblown it lessens the impact of the real flaws in his presidency.

Leaving your outrage-at-Trump-o'meter turned up to 11 all day doesn't leave much room for play when the sky really does start to fall.

In reply to David Martin:


If you read my post again you'll see that I don't draw a moral equivalence between him and the Saudis. I'm asking the question: if you can say "it makes sense in their context so your outrage is misplaced" about Trump, why can't you say the same thing about the Saudis?


So what? I find these policies objectionable because they reveal how Trump is both attempting to implement a political ideology that I despise (social conservatism, which encapsulates the racism/tribalism underpinning the wall and travel ban); and he doesn't possess the necessary pragmatism (which basically boils down to intelligence) to act in the interests of the American people and wider global community. I can't think of more awful qualities for a POTUS. I think that's a big deal.

Just to take a revealing example from your list, banning trans people from the military. This is an issue that is of no concern to the President. He was making a symbolic insult against a minority against whom there is a backlash to shore up his support amongst bigoted people. It was transparently a100% selfish manoeuvre which will have devastating impact on a few people whose lives are already difficult. It displays a degree of moral weakness that is completely unacceptable in a role of such vast responsibility.


I don't read the Guardian. The policies themselves aren't insane, they are incredibly destructive and dangerous. But it's lunacy to elect as President a person who does not have sufficient command of their mother tongue to speak coherently even with ample support and preparation. And it is lunacy to elect a person as President whose principle tactic in the face of unfavourable factual information is to do nothing but brazenly lie.


That's one way to see it, but I don't see what it means in any practical sense. My view is that if your reaction to Trump is "so what", how far does the world have to go down the path of madness and destruction before you start to say, "I'm not sure I like this" or even "stop the world, I want to get off". What would be the threshold on the David Martin scale that must be reached before outrage - or even concern - is justified?

In reply to fred99:



If it is done outside a Milan garage could the headline please be;

Cheeto Benito Finito

?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm not going to address the rest of your post as its just going to get in to a long-winded debate again (though happy to do if you really want specific points answered).

But to take your example above, which I think sums up the issue here.

Yes, you could take the view that the ban is nothing other than a victimisation of trans people. It is Trump blatantly screwing people over for populist purposes

Or, you could accept that the military is struggling with the trans issue. That as an institution, due to the very nature of its operations, it has broad catch-all regulations especially when it comes to health. It isn't like civilian life where every special case has allowances made for it - this is completely at odds with the military ethos. The slightest medical issue can bar you from service. Likewise it has necessarily robust requirements on mental health. I can tell you from personal experience, in a platoon patrol you are acutely aware when surrounded by 30+ bodies all with a round up the spout and 25 more in a mag, running on very little sleep, that everyone needs to be at the top of their game. There is zero space for mental health issues. Transgenders on their massive suicide rate alone should not be suitable in such an environment, which means even basic training is off-limits. Given such basics as food and water are often in short supply, you think you can guarantee a ready supply of hormone pills for the one in ten thousand to maintain an even keel?

You can criticise the implementation. You could point to nuances which aren't embraced by the catch-all ban.

But the hyperbole of "symbolic insults", attacks "against a minority", to "shore up his support amongst bigoted people", being a "transparently 100% selfish manoeuvre". Come'on. Yeah, it will have a "devastating impact" on some. Life in the military is "devastating" every day.

The level of grievance, victimhood, weeping and emotive appeals is tiresome.

In reply to David Martin:

Your post might have some merit if the military themselves were concerned. But they aren't.

In reply to David Martin:
Do you honestly believe that "the military is struggling with the trans issue"? Or even countenance the idea that this is possible?

How many trans people do you think there are in the whole of the US military? Do you think it's reasonably likely to be true that this issue has been raised from the level of platoon commanders (or whoever) and the issue has eventually been escalated to the desk of the President because the military tried to resolve it but it required his intervention? How many cases would it require to create an issue of that degree of importance? Can you honestly not see that this proposal that the military is "struggling with the trans issue" to the point where it required Presidential intervention is utterly preposterous?

You are a gullible fool if you believe it. It's an absurd suggestion and I find it rather amusing that you find it believable (especially after I watched that ridiculous Rubin interview in which that trans woman said precisely the same as you and Rubin just nodded in agreement and didn't think to ask the question "do you think this was an issue which required Presidential intervention, and did you spot anything else in the news that week that he might have been trying to distract from?").

I have no problem with the argument that are lots of reasons why trans people are likely to unsuitable for the military. But it's not a relevant argument. Why did Trump make the announcement. I think it's obvious, and I think it shows abysmal moral weakness which is completely unacceptable from a President.


Of course it will. Presumably a trans soldier really really wants to serve, against the odds, frankly. Life ruined.


And?


You give the impression that you just parrot this line in response to anything to do with the treatment of minorities. Is that the impression you intend to give?

In reply to MG:

That remains to be seen.

Gen. Mattis had already stalled the order from Obama the year before that allowed transexuals, so it seems the resistance came from the very top. Trump stated “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,”. He could be lying of course. But on face value, there is little to suggest this doesn't have the support of the military.

Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be nuance to the decision. I doubt I would have a problem with trans in the military generally. Though, like diabetics and asthmatics, I'm not sure blanket allowances in to front-line roles is fair when others are excluded for far less profound issues.

The issue is the song and dance in response to the ban. If fully enacted it simply takes us a back to where we were for 7 of the 8 years during Obama's presidency, and how the country was run for the previous few centuries.

In reply to David Martin:


No. The issue is the way Trump used the issue to distract from serious allegations about his own conduct.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Wouldn't repealing Obama's changes just give further fuel to those taking issue with Trump's conduct?

Can you not look past everything being a conspiracy,


No. A more accurate impression would be that I take issue with people choosing to identify as ever smaller minorities, while simultaneously lumping those they oppose in to an arbitrarily created majority, with the minority automatically having moral superiority over the majority and the majority being an oppressor. The apparent quest for minority, and therefore victim, status is my issue.


And...you were the one pleading on behalf of trans people that this would "devastate" them. I'm saying daily life in the military is pretty traumatic. People are punished or discharged for reasons you couldn't begin to imagine. It's not fair. Life in the military isn't fair. It is that way for a reason.


Surely that is the most relevant argument of all?

In reply to David Martin:

Do you honestly think Trump banned trans people for anything but narrow political reasons?

In reply to David Martin:


The trans ban was to appeal to his conservative supporters, not to appease his critics.


What I'm suggesting is not a "conspiracy", it's just describing the obvious causes of events. An announcement is made on a highly contraversial, media-grabbing policy that will appeal to his hardcore supporters but which has absolutely no real world impact, at a time when the press were discussing impeachment. And you think "yes, I think there are sensible grounds for that policy, and I understand why this is the top item in his in-tray. This issue really needed sorting out right away, jolly good chap". You can't hang on to this position, it's preposterous.


But what has this got to do with the trans ban? Trans activists didn't raise the issue you know, Trump played a political card. I don't believe that you can't see the reality here.


It obviously would, and I don't see how that could be disputed. You seem to be failing to grasp the moral issue: Trump was in trouble, and he played with the lives of people who have no power to serve his own entirely selfish ends. It doesn't matter at all that the people he did this to were trans people, this time. That whole area of debate about victimhood of minorities is your pet subject or whatever, but it's missing the point here. I'm accusing Trump of abysmal moral weakness in the way he used the soldiers, robbing them of their careers, as a patsies. Cynical doesn't even come close - it's despicable.


And I'm saying that's got nothing to do with my accusation that Trump showed abysmal moral weakness by using the careers of soldiers to try to protect himself from accusations of corruption and the illegitimacy of his election.


It's highly relevant if your job is to decide on recruitment practices of the military. It isn't relevant if you're trying to defend my accusation that Trump displayed appalling moral weakness and that this is one of many reasons he is wildly unsuitable for the role of POTUS.

In reply to MG:


I don't believe he really thinks that, he just wants to argue with me. And it hits somewhere near his argument g-spot of minorities and victimhood.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You say the ban was done to divert attention away from "serious allegations". But now you say it was to appeal to his supporters? But his supporters are a core who already supported him through much worse. Appealing to them doesn't matter a jot when it comes to issues of impeachment or sexual conduct.

The talk of repealing the ban arose from pretty much the point he was elected. Likewise, impeachment, Russia and sexual assault allegations have dogged him since before he was elected. Any decision or announcement he makes is likely to coincide with some allegation or outrage from that same week.

Like all decisions, there will have been political expediency for sure. But you are throwing the kitchen sink at him; political expediency, bigotry, 100% sellfish, outright obfuscation, willful attacks on minorities etc etc. Any semblance of balance, or an ability to look beyond the Trump bluster, seems too much to ask.


I'm referring to the ongoing victimhood narrative, the outrage. As you figured, I have an issue with it. It is the game to play in politics these days. The frothing and foaming at the mouth as people get themselves worked up over yet another Trump moment. Trump hates trannies. Trump hates blacks. Trump hates women. Trump hates immigrants. Trump supports neo-Nazis.

No, there's a middle ground - he might well be incompetent or weak. But you seem to have brought in to the frenzy, the same coverage that one day accuses him of being provocative to stay in the news, while the next day creating Trump news about the most minor of actions.

Anyway, I've spent too much time debating this sort of stuff with you over the last few weeks and have a lot on my plate. Our views clearly aren't changing. I'm not losing any sleep over Trump - despite his decisions having seriously curtailed my own income and of those I work with. Nor do I agree with him. I simply think you and others are getting caught up in an unnecessary moral outrage. And in your outrage you are blind to the reasons why he is popular.

In reply to Pero:


Trump has a great deal to do with Brexit:

Both are symptoms of a rise in populist politics.

Both are linked to the decline in fortunes of working class people in western countries (particularly white working class people) as a consequence of globalisation, and the failure of liberal politicians to address this.

Both provided a respectable outlet for racist and bigoted attitudes.

Both resulted from a lack of trust in "establishment" figures ("we've heard enough from experts")

Both demonstrate the power of fake news to drown out reasoned argument - particularly in this social media age.

There may be a few intellectually valid arguments for Brexit - I can't see any for Trump - but without the above common factors I don't believe either would have happened. It's a worrying wake-up call for democracy in general.

Martin