Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[J Ed]

"Basic political terminology" aka "our bullshit definitions only used by the loony fringes of the far left".
liberal - definition of liberal in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Id have said Apartheid South Africa more resembled Marxism with its shutting down of political freedoms, control of the press and its murdering of political opponents. Large components of Urban 75s vision of a perfect future.

Certainly more realistic than Trump's America being like Smiths Rhodesia.

So was the British Empire not liberal then? Pre-Civil Rights USA? Post-colonial Latin America? Liberalism didn't start in the 1960s.

 

[DotCommunist]

yup, he's not got the usages that exist. You crack on feral.

 

[DotCommunist]

should be good this, the knows-better mans on a hiding to nothing. Back to the lab with you

 

[chilango]

We can honestly say that Urban is not liberal.

It hates everyone and everything that thinks slightly different to it.

"We"?

 

[NoXion]

"We"?

Royal we presumably

 

[SpookyFrank]

So, did he steal the election or not?

You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged

That all looks very circumstantial. The last UK general election was possibly a bigger upset relative to the polling beforehand, and again that wasn't a single poll either but many months' worth of data that went against the result.

There is far more convincing evidence that Hilda fixed the democratic primary so I doubt she'll be making any kind of a fuss about this stuff.

 

[Idris2002]

classic feral. Sneering niavety mixed in with unwarranted arrogance. Misunderstands basic political terminology and makes a prat of himself. Lets see if he comes back to his vomit this time, I doubt it tho.

I should have added that for the majority, Rhodesia was always rotten. But that, too, was consistent with classical liberalism.

 

[maomao]

That all looks very circumstantial. The last UK general election was possibly a bigger upset relative to the polling beforehand, and again that wasn't a single poll either but many months' worth of data that went against the result.

There is far more convincing evidence that Hilda fixed the democratic primary so I doubt she'll be making any kind of a fuss about this stuff.

And the answer is probably pretty much the same as in UK general elections. A significant minority of Trump voters don't want to tell busybody pollsters that they're voting for a right wing loon and a significant minority of potential democrat voters say they'll vote but on the day either can't be arsed or can't grip their noses quite firnmly enough to keep the rotten stench out.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that polling techniques skewed samples in favour of urban rather than rural respondents.

 

[Idris2002]

What makes me not buy the "it was Putin what won it" theory is the fact that he may be a bad lot, but he's not a fool, and the act of war that rigging the US presidential would represent would be a very foolish thing to do. Wouldn't it?

 

[ferrelhadley]

I should have added that for the majority, Rhodesia was always rotten. But that, too, was consistent with classical liberalism.

So you are claiming that Trump could turn America into something resembling Appartheid South Africa or 1970s Rhodesia, a claim to to some (most likely smelly liberals) looks ludicrous. Your defence of that statement is those two countries had private property, although the majority were excluded. A definition of "liberal" that seems could be applied to the modern Zimbabwe of ZANU PF or Hitlers regime. One that is completely meaningless in the context of US politics were liberal is commonly used to define those politically close to the Democratic Party by its political enemies.

You know you could have just backed up a bit on your original silliness? But no, your ego just had to keep digging.

Trump is a cunt. But ffs try to keep the criticism grounded in some kind of reality.

 

[Idris2002]

So you are claiming that Trump could turn America into something resembling Appartheid South Africa or 1970s Rhodesia, a claim to to some (most likely smelly liberals) looks ludicrous. Your defence of that statement is those two countries had private property, although the majority were excluded. A definition of "liberal" that seems could be applied to the modern Zimbabwe of ZANU PF or Hitlers regime. One that is completely meaningless in the context of US politics were liberal is the most commonly used definition of the politics around the Democratic Party by its political enemies.

You know you could have just backed up a bit on your original silliness? But no, your ego just had to keep digging.

Trump is a cunt. But ffs try to keep the criticism grounded in some kind of reality.

No dear, that's not what I'm claiming.

 

[Pickman's model]

Royal we presumably

Taking the wee

 

[Idris2002]

Taking the wee

Freely!

 

[ferrelhadley]

I'd say America under his rule will likely resemble the Six Counties under Stormont - that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is Rhodesia under the Smith regime, or South Africa

"What I actually meant was oooh look a squirrel."

 

[DotCommunist]

ferals done a google and now knows that there are other meanings to liberal. Watch him pretend to have known all along despite absolutely mugging himself earlier.

 

[Idris2002]

"What I actually meant was oooh look a squirrel."

Well done, that was actually funny. I'm on my phone now, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow before I rip you a new one.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well done, that was actually funny. I'm on my phone now, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow before I rip you a new one.

Tomorrow never comes

 

[Idris2002]

Tomorrow never comes

These ferals are crazy.

 

[Pickman's model]

These ferals are crazy.

I think I'll be waiting quite some time before you 'rip' anyone a new one

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well done, that was actually funny. I'm on my phone now, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow before I rip you a new one.

You have to admit, though,

Worst case scenario is Rhodesia under the Smith regime, or South Africa

is a tiny bit..... excessive?

I believe Trump to be a terrible choice for the presidency, capable of doing harm to the US nation - and who in all likelihood will cause harm to the US nation; but a lot of Constitution - and a lot of blood - would stand in the way of a recreation of apartheid in the 21st century United States.

 

[maomao]

You have to admit, though,



is a tiny bit..... excessive?

I believe Trump to be a terrible choice for the presidency, capable of doing harm to the US nation - and who in all likelihood will cause harm to the US nation; but a lot of Constitution - and a lot of blood - would stand in the way of a recreation of apartheid in the 21st century United States.

How do you feel about the Iraq war now Johnny?

 

[redsquirrel]

Or in Australia:

"The editorial outlines the various ways in which Bjelke-Petersen enriched himself by abusing his public office. It recounts the demand for $1 million from Alan Bond in settlement of a defamation action, corrupt gains from oil exploration permits, and stories of bags of cash arriving at the Premier’s office. Moreover, the paper rightly attributes Bjelke-Petersen’s “snake-oil economics and populist patriotism” as paving the way for Pauline Hanson."

Bjelke-Petersen: Corrupt, Venal, Vindictive, Hypocritical, Dangerous | AustralianPolitics.com

I was thinking about comparisons to current Australia last night and what are the thing that might happen over the next four years in the US.

Immigration: lets say that the wall is built (not a certain giving it's cost and dislike of many Republicans for public spending, but possible) and lets say that he manages to get deportations up to 6 million. Well obviously this is would be really horrible for many people but lets keep in mind that Obama and Clinton wanted a fence and Obama has deported 3 million people. Now compare that to Australia, which has set up concentration camps for refugees (including children) in developing countries (a policy that is not only terrible for the refugees but also causes huge problems in these developing countries) and has a turnback the boats policy (supported by both major political parties). I'm not sure the the actually existing Australian immigration policy isn't worse than the one Trump would like to introduce.

Sexuality/Transgeneder rights: It's not outrageous to suggest that Trump might go after gay marriage (though I don't think it will be one of his first targets), but even if he does he has to get the supreme court to change it's decision. On transgender rights there's clearly form there that a Trump administration would go after them. Again horrible shit, but the Australia government has (in practical terms) ruled out gay marriage for at least the next three years, and recently launched a very nasty attack on the "Safe Schools" programme for LBGTIQ kids.

Climate change: Different issue this, as with the weird Deep Green stuff I could easily see a fascist government that was strong on climate change, but worth comparison anyway. The Trump administration is very scary on this, he's just put a denier in the EPA and will roll back any advances made by Obama. But lets not kid ourselves that Obama (or just about any government for that matter) really did all that much, moreover, many of the advances made have been driven by public pressure (companies to divest from fossil fuels etc) as much as by government. Now while Australia doesn't officially deny that climate change occurs (though there are plenty that believe that in the LNP and some in the government) it's policy is effectively to do absolutely fuck all about it while cutting jobs for those measuring the impact of climate change.

Abortion: This is the only one of these four where I see a really significant mismatch between the US and Aus. There clearly will be another round of attacks on abortion rights, exactly how successful they'll be is still open (and lets not lose sight of the fact that in practice millions of American women don't have any access to abortion at the moment) but I think things could very well worse in 2020 than in 2016. There's not really such a movement here, though a few of the shittier end of the LNP make occasional noises as do Family First.

So of those four areas the only one I see with being really worse under a Trump administration than under the current Australian government is the last. Of course that's not to say that people shouldn't fight these things, that they are not appalling, but there can still be progress. Indeed these attack can be motivators for progress, the Australian governments refusal to back gay marriage hasn't resulted in people opposing it but rather the opposite, if anything the utter hypocrisy and it's use as a political football has it's strengthened support right across society.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the moon - and beyond FFS


I'm getting it now, he's found out off the internet that you can play golf on the moon. Global warming - thats just a natural hazard that you have to play round.

The $2billion NASA spends on Earth science will get no one to the Moon. But some of it covers part of the US efforts on the climate, NOAA and NCAR are also valuable in terms of climate research. A lot of key climate instruments the the AMSU units (they measure microwave emissions from oxygen to measure temperature in the atmosphere) are re-purposed meteorological instruments and others like the Aqua satellite feed into meteorological data. Trumps planned cuts will be damaging but its not the hardest thing to design an instrument that can be used for both climate and meteorology thus be justified under redesigned rules on where budget is to be spent. NCAR and NOAA do good modelling work so while the NASA based GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) team is a world leader, losing them would not be the end of America's contribution let alone the worlds.

It would be pretty shitty to lose NASA but not the end of the world (yet).

 

[DotCommunist]

millions of American women don't have any access to abortion at the moment)

really worth looking at is that one. Some of the strictures in place make it essentially financially impossible to get an abortion for some. I know you know this RS. But I was quite startled to read how many hurdles exist in some states early this year. and that includes just not having anywhere that will do the procedure* for fear of firebombing, death threats and all that shit

*and we know there are people who would happily murder people who do the procedure then when the policies lead to young and poor women having to carry an wanted pregnancy to term the same crowd turn around to call 'welfare queen!' on people. While also being keen on taking acces to contraceptives out of easy access and decrying competent sex ed in schools.

 

[Tankus]

You have to admit, though,
is a tiny bit..... excessive?

I believe Trump to be a terrible choice for the presidency, capable of doing harm to the US nation - and who in all likelihood will cause harm to the US nation; but a lot of Constitution - and a lot of blood - would stand in the way of a recreation of apartheid in the 21st century United States.

It's still there
Look at a race distribution map of a lot of major US cities....
I doubt segregation could be done as well as if it was a legal requirement.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's still there
Look at a race distribution map of a lot of major US cities....
I doubt segregation could be done as well as if it was a legal requirement.

If you're suggesting that present-day US is the equivalent of Ian Smith's Rhodesia, I don't agree. Race relations are in a bad state in the US; but it's not quite Rhodesia in the Sixties.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Around 4:30 p.m. today, Jorge de Cárdenas was getting some work done in a Starbucks on South Dixie Highway near the University of Miami. A group of people stood waiting in line at the counter for their coffee and snacks.

But one disgruntled white customer got so upset at how long his order was taking that he began screaming "Trump!" at a black employee. The man then claimed "anti-white discrimination" was to blame for his delayed coffee, called another employee "garbage," and threatened to punch somebody.

"He said it was 'anti-white discrimination,'" Cárdenas says, "so he started disparaging the staff. One patron called him an asshole, so he said, 'Fuck you, bitch.' That's when I started filming."

Cárdenas whipped out his phone to take a video just as the man called the black employee "trash," demanded his money back, and started shouting, "I voted for Trump! Trump! You lost, now give me my money back," at the staff:

Video: Miami Man Screams "Trump!" at Black Starbucks Employee, Claims "White Discrimination"


Deplorable.

 

[Raheem]

What makes me not buy the "it was Putin what won it" theory is the fact that he may be a bad lot, but he's not a fool, and the act of war that rigging the US presidential would represent would be a very foolish thing to do. Wouldn't it?

But you'd have thought that about the whole Ukraine business. Compared to that, the chances of suffering any new consequences are pretty low, because there is unlikely to ever be any hard evidence. But the potential rewards are massive, if Trump cancels sanctions for an hors d'oeuvre and changes policy on Syria for an aperitif. I'm not saying it happened, just that if it didn't, that's probably not the reason.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The new Attorney General talks about marijuana:

At a Senate drug hearing in April, Sessions said that “we need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it’s in fact a very real danger.” He voiced concern over statistics showing more drivers were testing positive for THC, the active component in marijuana, in certain states.


Sessions further argued that a lack of leadership from President Obama had been one of the drivers of the trend toward marijuana legalization in recent years. “I think one of [Obama's] great failures, it's obvious to me, is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana,” Sessions said at the hearing. “It reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started ‘Just Say No.’ ”

He added that lawmakers and leaders in government needed to foster “knowledge that this drug is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about . . . and to send that message with clarity that good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

Opponents of legalization say the Sessions nomination could be a game-changer in legalization debates around the country. Sessions “is by far the single most outspoken opponent of marijuana legalization in the U.S. Senate,” Kevin Sabet, of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in an email. “If I were betting on the prospects for marijuana legalization, I’d be shorting.”

Sessions’s anti-pot positions have been consistent throughout his career. As far back as 1986, he joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot,” according to the New York Times.

Trump’s pick for attorney general: ‘Good people don’t smoke marijuana’