President Trump

Re: President Trump

Postby ericbee123 on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 10:21 am

Start really worrying if Trump starts talking about revoking or amending the 22nd Amendment.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: President Trump

Postby Tommy on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 12:40 pm

MiG_Eater wrote:The thing is - I really really disagree with the 'go back home' thing. But that doesn't mean it is impossible (or wrong) for me to agree with Trump's administration on some other things.


I’m afraid, to me, and me only, it very much is impossible.

Let’s just put to one side the awful pettyness, instability, 3.00am Tweets, old money, selfish, sexual predator parts of the man and *just* focus on the racism.

He is a racist.

It doesn’t matter what sense he might speak of other things. He is a racist. A racist. That alone should be enough on its own to say that he is a disgusting human being who has no place running a kiosk, let alone a country. Pile on all the rest of the horrid stuff, and yes, I’m sorry, but I consider any support for him to be erroneous and not worth my respect.

I can’t. I genuinely can’t.

Because whatever sense he might say, that racism, sexism, perverse douchebaggery hangs over him like a giant black cape.

(Sorry to invoke Godwin’s law but Trump makes it impossible) Hitler might have come out with “sense” on things. But the man was so evil, so twisted and corrupted, such a bellend that regardless of what sense he was talking is outweighed by the sickening things he did or said.

The same applies here. Hitler didn’t start with the gas chambers. And Trunp and his whole twister cabal of turds are oozing that way. One raeg-Tweet at a time.

So yes, to me it’s impossible to reconcile my own respect of others with anyone who even remotely supports something Trump says in any way.
User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff

Re: President Trump

Postby MiG_Eater on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:00 pm

This is an old argument, but an important one.

I mean - what about Churchill? Certainly a racist - yet a great leader who arguably saved Europe from Nazism.

Michael Jackson? Tchaikovsky? Both likely paedophiles and yet their music is wonderful.

John Lennon beat his wife - and he was a great songwriter.

The point is - these are extreme examples, but in a much less amplified sense we are all partly good and partly bad. When we are at our best we have good to offer the world, and when we're at our worst - we don't. I am not arguing in favour of Trump being a decent human being - i'm making a wider point that if we are going to live in a world that isn't divided we need to discuss things with each other in an open way and deciding what we believe on a point by point basis. The idea of deciding someone is beyond redemption and invalidated based on one or two views only allows them and their supporters to entrench themselves further in the 'Us & Them' situation we find ourselves in.

Trump has said some horrible things. But in comparison to recent leaders sending the Middle East back to the stone age he has been utterly docile. And let's not forget Obama who with his charm managed to somehow get away with openly assassinating US citizens in foreign countries. They're all rotten really, Trump just doesn't cover it up so well.
MiG_Eater

Re: President Trump

Postby rockfordstone on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:17 pm

MiG_Eater wrote:This is an old argument, but an important one.

I mean - what about Churchill? Certainly a racist - yet a great leader who arguably saved Europe from Nazism.

The idea of deciding someone is beyond redemption and invalidated based on one or two views only allows them and their supporters to entrench themselves further in the 'Us & Them' situation we find ourselves in.

churchill was a good war time leader, he had an ability to bring the country together in a time of it's time of need. it doesn't make him a good and he wouldn't have been PM if not for war. In fact if you judged him by today's standards he was a terrible person (obviously standards were different then).

trump doesn't have the ability to fall on the "it was a different time back then" card. he is nasty based on all modern standards. the them and us culture isn't something that just happened, it was a specific targeted attempt to split the unity because that's how the power hungry get in. break it up, create a vacuum, fill vacuum. in america it was the "the democrats are letting in millions of people, they are taking your country away", with brexit it was 50 years of constant "the EU want to ban people wearing sunglasses!!" style journalism.

them and us is not a natural flow of events, people aren't wired that. its man made conditioning by those who seek to divide and conquer allowing them slip into power whilst everyone is arguing. its as true now as it was when hitler turned germany against the jews.
User avatar
rockfordstone

Re: President Trump

Postby MiG_Eater on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:26 pm

I think you missed my point.

My point is that by saying Trump and his supporters are beyond the pale you are further entrenching the 'Them and Us' divide.
MiG_Eater

Re: President Trump

Postby AlexC on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:33 pm

rockfordstone wrote:Churchill was a good war time leader, he had an ability to bring the country together in a time of it's time of need. it doesn't make him a good and he wouldn't have been PM if not for war. In fact if you judged him by today's standards he was a terrible person (obviously standards were different then).


As you rightly say, standards were different then. Growing up I never heard anyone describe him as a 'terrible person', quite the opposite in fact, he was only ever described as the saviour of the country in it's darkest hour. A good example of revisionism.
Pte. Aubrey Gerald Harmer, R. Suss. R. (att. to the Sherwood Foresters) KIA 26/9/1917 Polygon Wood, aged 19, NKG. RIP
User avatar
AlexC

Re: President Trump

Postby rockfordstone on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:47 pm

AlexC wrote:
rockfordstone wrote:Churchill was a good war time leader, he had an ability to bring the country together in a time of it's time of need. it doesn't make him a good and he wouldn't have been PM if not for war. In fact if you judged him by today's standards he was a terrible person (obviously standards were different then).


As you rightly say, standards were different then. Growing up I never heard anyone describe him as a 'terrible person', quite the opposite in fact, he was only ever described as the saviour of the country in it's darkest hour. A good example of revisionism.

exactly.
if you judge anyone in history by current standards, largely they will end up being worse than they were (this is why i don't agree with it).
if you judge someone in the current world by current standards and they are still a nasty piece of work, then that's what they are.
User avatar
rockfordstone

Re: President Trump

Postby rockfordstone on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:50 pm

MiG_Eater wrote:I think you missed my point.

My point is that by saying Trump and his supporters are beyond the pale you are further entrenching the 'Them and Us' divide.

as opposed to just ignoring it, pretend it isn't happening and indulge them? that's how bad things happen under your watch.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
User avatar
rockfordstone

Re: President Trump

Postby MiG_Eater on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:55 pm

I agree with you Rockford - but I am not suggesting ignoring anything. Obviously i'm not able to take Trump to task with his tweet, but I would gladly engage and debate with his supporters. Equally, i'd gladly have a drink with them afterwards.

It is important to separate the opinion from the person. There are wonderful people that (perhaps thoughtlessly) hold some abhorrent views - and vice versa.
MiG_Eater

Re: President Trump

Postby Tommy on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 4:46 pm

MiG_Eater wrote:My point is that by saying Trump and his supporters are beyond the pale you are further entrenching the 'Them and Us' divide.


You’re correct, but the blame for entrenching that divide lies with the people being racist knobs, not those who call that out. What, we’re just supposed to accept with a heavy heart racism in order that we can all get along? Bugger that. How about the racists accept not being prejudicial arseholes instead.

I don’t want “them” to be “us” if they are racist sex-pests.

Racism isn’t a point of view to be debated. It’s bellendery to be abhorred in all its guises. There’s no meet-me-halfway. You’re either not a racist, or a "dwad".
User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff

Re: President Trump

Postby pbeardmore on Tue 16 Jul 2019, 5:30 pm

I struggle with the idea of seperating the opinion from the person. It is surely our opinions, values and views on the World that makes us the person that we are? Without that, we are just calcium, carbon etc. How can someone be wonderful but have abhorrent views? What is it that makes them wonderful?

I think everyone deserves some slack up to a point and then there is a line that, once you cross, it's "game over". Trump crossed that line way before he was elected IMHO but, to others, there seems to be no line at all.

PS the combination of stupidlity and delusion is so strong within Trump that his claims that he is not a racist may be 100% genuine in terms of his interpretation of reality. In "Trump World", he can do no wrong.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”
User avatar
pbeardmore

Re: President Trump

Postby Craig on Mon 22 Jul 2019, 9:43 am

AlexC wrote:
rockfordstone wrote:Churchill was a good war time leader, he had an ability to bring the country together in a time of it's time of need. it doesn't make him a good and he wouldn't have been PM if not for war. In fact if you judged him by today's standards he was a terrible person (obviously standards were different then).


As you rightly say, standards were different then. Growing up I never heard anyone describe him as a 'terrible person', quite the opposite in fact, he was only ever described as the saviour of the country in it's darkest hour. A good example of revisionism.

Why can't you be both? It's interesting that Churchill has become almost a caricature. Describing him as a "terrible person" is undoubtedly too strong (a lot of his views were very much of his day) but Churchill himself was very aware of his failings, politically he had many. He was an ordinary, flawed human being who came good in the most remarkable way at just the right time and saved his reputation spectacularly. To me this makes him all the more remarkable, almost an over achiever who accomplished what nothing in his past would suggest possible.

The difference between Churchill and Trump is their circle. Churchill headed up a wartime coalition where people were there to disagree with him and moderate his more outlandish ideas. There were checks and balances and his best was harnessed while his flaws were filtered out. Trump's ego does not allow such a system and his lack of self awareness means he falls short of seeing it as necessary. His advisors are yes men who inflate his flaws rather than papering over them. This is why I think Trump is so dangerous.
User avatar
Craig
UKAR Staff

Re: President Trump

Postby vandal on Mon 22 Jul 2019, 11:36 am

Just wondering, If President Trump is firing out Racist tweets, can't Twitter just shut down his account? :grin:
vandal

Re: President Trump

Postby pbeardmore on Fri 09 Aug 2019, 6:49 pm

Not defending him but he is so clueless, he thinks this is OK...........

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -thumbs-up
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”
User avatar
pbeardmore

Re: President Trump

Postby Spiny Norman on Wed 21 Aug 2019, 6:31 am

User avatar
Spiny Norman

Re: President Trump

Postby Brevet Cable on Wed 21 Aug 2019, 7:06 am

He's not the first POTUS to want to buy Greenland, though....
The idea of purchasing Greenland was first mooted during the 1860s under the presidency of Andrew Johnson.
In 1867, a report by the US State Department suggested that Greenland's strategic location, along with its abundance of resources, made it an ideal acquisition.

But no official move was made until 1946, when Harry Truman offered Denmark $100m for the territory. He had earlier toyed with the idea of swapping land in Alaska for strategic parts of Greenland
Unofficial forum brauer und winzer
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: President Trump

Postby Spiny Norman on Wed 21 Aug 2019, 4:11 pm

Brevet Cable wrote:He's not the first POTUS to want to buy Greenland, though....
The idea of purchasing Greenland was first mooted during the 1860s under the presidency of Andrew Johnson.
In 1867, a report by the US State Department suggested that Greenland's strategic location, along with its abundance of resources, made it an ideal acquisition.

But no official move was made until 1946, when Harry Truman offered Denmark $100m for the territory. He had earlier toyed with the idea of swapping land in Alaska for strategic parts of Greenland


What is it with America and buying countries up to get at their assets? Suppose it beats planning coups...
User avatar
Spiny Norman

Re: President Trump

Postby Pen Pusher on Mon 26 Aug 2019, 9:58 am

#ThatsHowTheApocalyseStarted :hide:

Using nuclear weapons to destroy hurricanes is not a good idea, a US scientific agency has said, following reports that President Donald Trump wanted to explore the option.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the results would be "devastating".

The NOAA says that using nuclear weapons on a hurricane "might not even alter the storm" and the "radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49471093

Brian
The Future Of Photography Is Mirrorless

DUXFORDfotoGALLERY
DfG on Facebook
User avatar
Pen Pusher

Re: President Trump

Postby rockfordstone on Mon 26 Aug 2019, 10:24 am

Pen Pusher wrote:#ThatsHowTheApocalyseStarted :hide:

Using nuclear weapons to destroy hurricanes is not a good idea, a US scientific agency has said, following reports that President Donald Trump wanted to explore the option.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the results would be "devastating".

The NOAA says that using nuclear weapons on a hurricane "might not even alter the storm" and the "radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49471093

Brian

he has said it's fake news and he didn't say it. which definitely means he said it
User avatar
rockfordstone

Re: President Trump

Postby toom317 on Mon 26 Aug 2019, 7:58 pm

When I was younger, I used to wonder why they didn't explode a bomb in a hurricane to destroy it. I came to the conclusion that I can't have been the only one who had thought of it, and there was some good reason not to. My theory is, that to explode a bomb in the centre of a hurricane would only lower the atmospheric pressure even further, thus feeding the hurricane. Just my train of thought, I'm sure there must be a more scientific answer.
"Nice pics mate" comments only! No criticism please.

Equipment: Camera, Lens, Goretex Y fronts.
User avatar
toom317
UKAR Supporter

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: helired3, mosquito and 12 guests