BS: Trump again

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 10:52 AM

Or, to use a bit of an analogy, if you compare a female Labrador Retriever with a male Labrador Retriever, you can chalk up most differences to gender. But if you compare a female Labrador Retriever with a male weasel, gender has very little do do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 08:17 AM

It's impossible to say how big a factor Mrs. Clinton's gender has been in this election cycle. To do that, one would have to compare her performance with that of a male candidate of similar political philosophy and credentials. Bernie Sanders, her only serious primary opponent, was an outsider who represented a very different philosophy. Her general election opponent is the worst candidate in the history of US politics. If a mainstream male Democrat like John Kerry or Joe Biden had run against her in the primaries, or if the Republican nominee were a human being, instead of Donald Trump, maybe the importance of her gender would be more apparent.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 06:50 AM

Hmm. Well, in order to just check that I haven't finally gone insane, let me make the following observations. This election is between Trump and Clinton. Some crazy people are going to be voting for Trump. A much bigger number of less crazy people are, in large part reluctantly I should think, going to be voting for Clinton. If I were in the US I would be voting for Clinton. In doing so, the very last thing on my mind would be the fact that she is a woman. It would be very good to have a first woman president and I endorse that sentiment. But in making up my mind which way to vote, her gender would comprise approximately 0.05% of my considerations. And it's a good bet that the majority of people who vote for her would be with me on that, though that percentage would vary. I suspect that few people are going to be voting for her "purely on gender." Of course, in so-called democracies you can't stop people doing that, any more than you can stop people voting for Trump because he has nice hair. But if akenaton thinks it's a major issue, well he'd better have some facts and figures to hand. The cautionary note for us Brits would be that we have had two women prime ministers, both of them terrible. But we've had far more men prime ministers who have been just as terrible. Having more women at the top in politics would be a good thing, but, top priority when you look at the kind of people we keep getting, we need more good people at the top in politics. Men or women.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:39 AM

No Acme, I have nothing against feminism, In fact I am a huge admirer of Camille Paglia, who is a clear thinker.

What I do think is that basing ones selection of president purely on gender is not a very sensible thing to do. Women can be at least as fallible as men regarding political issues and levelling charges of misogyny against any who disagree with your views, borders on the hysterical.

I have no thought of insulting you for holding feminist views and if you perceive that intension, I apologise. I love to hear and debate all manner of views and try my best to do so in an impersonal and civil manner. In fact I am happy to inform the membership that you have been a great help to my wife and myself during her on going illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:13 PM

Ake thinks he's being insulting to accuse me of being a feminist. He's being foolish. I am TOTALLY a feminist. Have been all of my life. It isn't a pejorative, though he would like to make it one.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 08:46 PM

You didn't say mainly feminist. You said purely feminist, and you intended it to be pejorative. You are back-pedalling. As a matter of fact, though please don't think I'm dignifying your stupidity by saying this, I think we could do with a bit more influence from feminism.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 08:41 PM

In the words of the slogan a few years back when France faced a similar choice, with le Pen senior versus Chirac "Vote for the Crook, not the Fascist."

Here again are the quotes I gave from a recent interview Bernie Sanders gave:

"I think from a practical point of view, I would hope that all those people who worked with me on this campaign, who supported me, understand that Donald Trump would be a real, real, real disaster for this country."

"On the other hand, the day after the election, we don't sit back and say, 'well Clinton is president'," he added. "What we do is mobilize our people to make certain that hopefully President Clinton and hopefully a Democratic Senate moves forward with an agenda that helps transform his country."

"We are going to be introducing legislation piece by piece on trade, on raising the minimum wage, on making public colleges and universities tuition free on a medicare for all, on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure"

"This is not trust, we're not here to trust," he explained. "It is the very opposite of what I am saying."

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 07:56 PM

And that very good reason is?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 07:36 PM

You obviously have not been concentrating Steve, try reading the threads before illustrating your ignorance.
I have a very good reason for stating that Acme views the coming election from a mainly feminist perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:35 PM

"Your stance seems to be purely feminist and that is not a good way to decide who is to be the next president of the US."

Well, dammit, Acme and meself have had our moments, but this is one of the most stupidly offensive and patronising comments I've seen here for months, which is saying something.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:27 PM

No, but she apparently has your respect for fact and reality, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:16 PM

On BBC Newsnight tonight, US feminist Camille Paglia states that Mrs Clinton "is certainly one of the most incompetent and corrupt politicians of our time, and almost solely responsible for the destabilisation of North Africa".
"The very little that she has achieved in her career has been on the coat tails of her husband"

Camille must have been reading my mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:48 PM

I wouldn't quarrel with quite a lot of what aken wrote there. But not with the suggestion populism is a defence against the fascism of the mass media. The mass media is the mother of fascism, and of the essentially fascist distortion of populism represented at this time byTrump, and before him by others who have played thesame game.

It's striking how similar Trump's story is to Berlusconi, and indeed to Mussolini before him. Both populists, but their populism was one which might have seemed to shake up society, but did so in suchaway that power disrrubution was undistured, and wealth inequalities were reinforced.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 09:47 AM

Recap of last debate, with smoke, wind machine, and autotune

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 05:58 AM

Trump gave us a good example of what unpresidential looks like at the Al Smith dinner last night but I thought the funniest moment was when HRC served up a couple of zingers to Giuliani who just sat there like an old sour puss while everyone else had a good laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 03:20 AM

I also suggest Mr McGrath, that the rise of populism all over Western society is in answer to decades of "liberalism" and political correctness, where people are being herded into an ideology where there is no right and wrong.....where there is an excuse for any kind of social behaviour, where venal politicians and muck raking journalists set the agenda.

Most people like to have basic rules in society.....the new ideology attacks everything which demands a degree of personal responsibility, traditions are trampled over.....rights are available, but only the rights which have been approved by the leaders of the new order(the Pigs).
Try defending your right to practice Christianity on internet forums, you will be painted as degenerate.
Try offering alternatives to the huge societal changes which are taking place......"populism" is in many cases a defence against the Fascism of the media and the political elite.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:48 PM

Apparently, Trump bombed epically at the Al Smith dinner. He got booed at an event where people don't get booed.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Charmion
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 09:08 PM

No, Keberoxu; the Mugwumps seem to be absent from this election cycle. Traditionally, they are the faction that refuse to make any decision, remaining perched on the fence with their mug on one side and their wump on the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: keberoxu
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 07:48 PM

Know Nothings, indeed. What about Mugwumps?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 04:09 PM

Failings of the economic and political sstem obviously generates anger and resentment, as an alternative to despair, or alongside it. Call that populism, but it can be channeled in very different ways.

There's a big difference between Spain's Podemos and France's Front National, or the nationalism of Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage.

Trump's populism is in the tradition of the rightwing populists in Europe in the 30s, or the American Know Nothing movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:35 PM

Sorry Ebbie, I did respond to your last post, but my response seems to have vanished......spooky.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:26 PM

Do not delude yourself that Trump's brand of populism is all that widespread. If Trump were running as an independent against Clinton and a more mainstream Republican (like Paul Ryan), he wouldn't get 20% of the vote. At least half of Republicans who will be voting for him will be doing so because they despise Clinton, not because they love Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:59 PM

Mr McGrath, the rise of populism in this particular case can certainly be blamed, not on Mr Trump, but on the paucity and corruption inherent in the US political system.

In Europe the same populist movements have appeared mainly due to the failings of the EC.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:50 PM

Do the rules of debate on Mudcat include the option of cursing at one another?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:24 PM

Absolutely, Kevin - the Ku Klux Klan, the Cultural Revolution, the Palmer Raids,the Tailgunner Joe McCarthy Show, and the Nazi Party were also "expressions of popularism".

However, Ake is impervious to all of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:11 PM

It isn't always an indication of support to use a first name. Tony, Maggie, Nigel. Even Adolf.... Though I suppose when people scream "Hang Hillary" it does in a sense indicate they would atually like to support her.
................
The antagonism against Trump and Trumpism stretches a lot wider than Democrats and Republicans. Once again I cite Noam Chomsky, as a reminder that there's a left tradition in America too - and it's members recognise Trump as a quasi-fascist in another American tradition. When we talk of populism we should remember that lynch mobs are a kind of populism. In which context, a slogan like "Hang Hillary" does indeed fit very easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:37 PM

there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there has been huge bias against Mr Trump, right from the beginning of the process from the Media, Democrats and Republicans.....Now that would make most thinking people believe that the US political establishment are closing ranks and attempting to subvert democracy....would it not?

Jesus wept.

No, you dumb bastard, it would not.

It would make most people with even a pretention towards intelligence that Trump was a piece of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 12:56 PM

I do tend to refer to Hillary and Trump but I wouldn't read too much into that in terms of bias. It is simply the common terminology arising from the fact that since Clinton could mean either Bill or Hillary it is easier to use the first name. I have also seen almost no instances of Donald except in the negative form of "The Donald". Yes, I have a preference but I think I made it clear in my post I had criticisms of Mrs Clinton if you prefer that terminology. I also refer to Boris rather than Mr Johnson but I am no supporter of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 12:52 PM

ake: "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there has been huge bias against Mr Trump, right from the beginning of the process from the Media, Democrats and Republicans....."

There is good reason for that bias, ake. MISTER Trump started out weird and loud and got only worse. Whyever in the world would there NOT be bias?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 11:54 AM

A very interesting Post DMcG.......but bias can be very subtle as I tried to explain earlier.
Now you are obviously a supporter of Mrs Clinton from your previous posts and I couldn't help but notice that you referred to Mr Trump as "Trump" and Mrs Clinton as "Hillary" throughout the post.
As UKer, that signifies bias to me though it may have been unintended, the media do it all the time a constant drip drip, be it against Mr Trump, "The Russians", President Assad, or Mr Corbyn, depending who is media "Monster of the Week"

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there has been huge bias against Mr Trump, right from the beginning of the process from the Media, Democrats and Republicans.....Now that would make most thinking people believe that the US political establishment are closing ranks and attempting to subvert democracy....would it not?

The US political system is based on a sham democracy and the election of Mrs Clinton will ensure that sham is continued. Mr McGrath says that "at least she admitted to being wrong over Iraq", but she then compounded the mistake a further two times.....including her chortling response to the vicious murder of the Libyan head of State.

Was that the action of someone who understands foreign affairs...I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 11:48 AM

many millions of Americans who will vote for Mr Trump and their views are as valid as yours

Bullshit. Their views are based on lies, buffoonery, ignorance, under-education, racism & misogyny. Their views have no validity at all.

Your stance seems to be purely feminist

On the contrary- its purely rationalist, whilst yours, Ake, is uninformed, bigoted nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 11:24 AM

I think you are wrong Acme, the thread has come to life given the contributions of DMG and Mr McGrath,
At least people are starting to question the political system and discuss the issues.....Is that not better than a whole list of obscene name calling like we had in the beginning.
You like to imagine that you live in a democracy, well start living up to the principle.....there are many millions of Americans who will vote for Mr Trump and their views are as valid as yours even if you disagree with them; you insult my political comprehension, but you fail to show any understanding of the wider issues which will become apparent after the election, or of foreign affairs in general.

Your stance seems to be purely feminist and that is not a good way to decide who is to be the next president of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:58 AM

If you keep answering Ake, you're letting him control this discussion. Since he doesn't understand US politics or, apparently, world politics, then it's best to NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:07 AM

I can see why some Americans feel unhappy at the choice. It's a bit like having to choose between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage. Not too easy.

Except Donald Trump is several degrees nastier and more frightening than even Nigel Farage. And at least Hillary Clinton admits Iraq was a mistake, which Tony still won't do.

In some way what really matters is what happens in the Congress elections, as Bernie Sanders indicated in that interview I quoted.

As for speculating as to what they might do in foreign affairs, there are no reasons whatsoever to believe President Trump would be less likely to land us in war than President Clinton II. His words? You must be joking. His words are completely irrelevant to predicting his actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 08:29 AM

As Ake seems to wholeheartedly believe every piece of nonsense (polite term) and "scandal"[sic] ever levelled against Clinton from Whitewater to Vince Foster on down to the present day, its only fair to award him the Trey Gowdy Lifetime Achievement Award for sheer, single-minded, dogged ignorance, in service above and beyond the call for believing the unbelievable and for relentless pursuit of shibboleths.

Congratulations, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 07:58 AM

Although I am from the UK, I happen to be in Florida on business at the moment. That meant it was the first time I was able to watch the Presidential debate live and in its entirety; you would have to be very dedicated to do that in the UK, so we only really see the edited highlights as a rule. So I thought some people might be interested in how it struck me.

For quite a while, I was impressed with Trump's responses. From the edited highlights in the UK, we are shown a guy who is out of control and says the first thing that came into his head whether it bears any relationship to anything he has previously on not. And that was not the Trump on display. While I didn't agree with a lot he was saying, I could see it as a valid alternative viewpoint. So for example on the question of whether the constitution is a living document or one that needs to be constantly reinterpreted with the times, I can see why people could take each stance.

But then he started to slip; his self control was initially effective but seemed to be too much to maintain. People can pick on lots of different points but one that struck me was how several times when the moderator was attempting to ask the question that they were supposed to be debating Trump interrupted him and would not receive the question. There was a lot of evasion of questions on both sides, but the one which struck me from Trump was the one about putting us troops into Syria if Isis is driven out. Hillary gave a clear No, Trump basically said "we shouldn't start from here". The post debate spinners said he was just continuing the "don't advertise your plans in advance" but he wasn't. That would have been perfectly reasonable answer to the question but he chose not to use it, preferring a long rambling avoiding of the question.

As I say, Hillary avoided a fair share of points as well, one of which Trump drew everyone's attention to by saying something like "great dodge" (I forget the exact words, but it was two words with that sentiment.). He could have built on her avoiding the answer very effectively, but having highlighted it then dropped the ball and pretty much let her get away with it.

And as time wore on, there were all the things we in the UK get presented with: momentarily talking over an answer just saying "wrong", then long sections of half a minute or more just talking over Clinton's answers, dismissing all his accusers of being liars who were attention seekers or paid stooges, asserting things Hillary claimed he had said were made up when there are news recordings shown just afterwards of him saying it and so on.

And then the question of whether he would accept the result if it went against him. There were valiant attempt by republican commentators afterwards to cast this as being about individual contested results, or replays of the great hanging chad investigation, but that doesn't wash. Trump questioning of the result includes individual results, but puts as much emphasis on things like "media bias" so it would be quite consistent (if things fell out that way) if results showed Hillary had a big numerical lead for him still to insist the result should be contested because it was rigged by a biased media.

And overall? If Trump had maintained the self control I think - as a debate - they were roughly tied. Depending on whether you agreed with their stance or not already changes that of course, but each had valid criticisms of the other that could individually be chalked up as a 'won point'. But Trump lost that self control, and that cost him the debate, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:19 PM

Ake, tell your story walking, and get over your ridiculous anti-Clinton delusions. One more time.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:04 PM

But she didn't REALLY change her position Bill, as she repeated the same blunder in Libya and Syria.

Three times makes a warmonger and that's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 10:05 AM

Ake.. I provided a clear explanation for MY opinions about Clinton and her policies. You just repeat yourself and make sweeping statement declaring her to be a lying warmonger.

I don't care how you 'marched' and with whom. Obviously, anyone who is dead set against the war tends to not 'believe' the reasons for being there. Mrs. Clinton was no fan of Bush, but she was not the only Democratic senator to "give him the benefit of the doubt". When any president says he has clear evidence gathered by the CIA about a 'clear & present danger', it has to be taken seriously. That is not something one would expect a president to lie about... even a president you don't care for.

It is too bad Bush & his cronies did lie and lead us into the war, but Bush was the the stupid one if he believed Cheney.

It is the mark of a sane person to admit she guessed wrong about Bush and to change her position. Bush & Cheney continue to lie about their motives and information.....I'm not sure what Blair now thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 09:48 AM

Ignore him, Steve. He's becomming more unhinged and irrational by the hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 09:12 AM

What "good cop-bad cop system?"

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 08:27 AM

I was talking about the hideously corrupt US political system. (naughty D ) :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:48 AM

No D, I do not think the election of Mr Trump would be beneficial to the underprivileged, it's more subtle than that; it's really about the overthrow of the "Good cop/Bad cop" two party system which has been so ineffectual in respect of societal change.

Ah, so this is getting interesting. So you prefer to have Trump elected because it is more likely to lead to the overthrow of the system?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:37 AM

I would add that it is vitally important that the West engages seriously with Russia and China......To oppose terrorism and encourage trade.   The days where America could dominate and at times terrorise the world have long gone.

A Clinton administration would ensure the erection of another political iron curtain between East and West which could only end in disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:29 AM

No D, I do not think the election of Mr Trump would be beneficial to the underprivileged, it's more subtle than that; it's really about the overthrow of the "Good cop/Bad cop" two party system which has been so ineffectual in respect of societal change.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

Mr McGrath, in my "subjective opinion" :0), Mrs Clinton will be in place to provide for her friends in Corporate America, not the underprivileged or preyed upon.

I can only assume from that that you think Trump is for the underprivileged and preyed upon, or at least that the U+PO will feel less preyed upon after 4 years. Can't see it myself.

But given your previous posts about how the whole thing is corrupt and needs an overthrow, I would say electing Hillary is more likely to do that, given Trump's refrain to his supporters that they are about to be cheated. It only needs a fraction of one percent of his supporters to decide they have been cheated and must take action. A well armed militia against over powerful government and all that. Things could be bad, but fortunately the likihood of it being more than a few isolated incidents is low.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:23 AM

Mr McGrath, in my "subjective opinion" :0), Mrs Clinton will be in place to provide for her friends in Corporate America, not the underprivileged or preyed upon.

Mr Sanders understands the workings of a rogue capitalist system as well as any...and has obviously accepted the maxim....."If you cant beat them, join them".
I would not be surprized to see Mr Sanders in a token job in a Clinton administration. Unfortunately Mr Sanders has not the wealth or connections to big business to implement a "Trojan Horse" strategy as the Clintons did to against President Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 08:15 PM

Bernie Sanders in an interview this week with NowThis "I think from a practical point of view, I would hope that all those people who worked with me on this campaign, who supported me, understand that Donald Trump would be a real, real, real disaster for this country."

"On the other hand, the day after the election, we don't sit back and say, 'well Clinton is president'," he added. "What we do is mobilize our people to make certain that hopefully President Clinton and hopefully a Democratic Senate moves forward with an agenda that helps transform his country."

"We are going to be introducing legislation piece by piece on trade, on raising the minimum wage, on making public colleges and universities tuition free on a medicare for all, on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure"

"This is not trust, we're not here to trust," he explained. "It is the very opposite of what I am saying."

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:48 PM

if Mrs Clinton really believed President Bush's given reasons for taking your people to war, then she is too stupid to be president.

You really are a goddamn ignorant fool, Ake. Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

Bill, if Mrs Clinton really believed President Bush's given reasons for taking your people to war, then she is too stupid to be president.
I marched on various demos against the war 100.000 people and not one of them believe what Bush or Blair were saying.
In all honesty, I don't think any of the politicians believed it either it was simply a bit of grandstanding by Blair and his cabinet... reflected glory...and for the minions the fear of being caught on the wrong side if the exercise had been any sort of success.

To do it once was bad enough but Mrs Clinton has done it three times the Libyan debacle being especially shameful.