Donald Trump

[casstony]

Originally Posted by blindman

The Washington D.C. political “Establishment” really hates Donald Trump. The question is why? The answer is simple. He is a powerful outsider who intends to “Clean House” of establishment corruption on Day One of his presidency.

Trump is still one of the elite even if he's disliked in some circles. If we see a thousand bankers go to prison for fraud and US drug prices dramatically reduced we'll know Trump isn't an insider - not looking likely at this stage.

[clive milne]

Tony... I think you are correct. (but arguably, understating the cancer in modern society)

I trust you get my point?

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Trump is still one of the elite even if he's disliked in some circles. If we see a thousand bankers go to prison for fraud and US drug prices dramatically reduced we'll know Trump isn't an insider - not looking likely at this stage.

QFT! (Quoted For Truth if you have not seen that one and cant be bothered googling it)

I reckon you are right Tony. I reckon the chances of Trump doing something to unpset the status quo billycart in any meaningful way is about nil. He might do his best to upset the political "Establishment" but that I reckon will be about it.

Time will tell.

[csb (Craig)]

Originally Posted by blindman

He is a powerful outsider who intends to “Clean House” of establishment corruption on Day One of his presidency.

Trump does not come across as having such altruistic motives. So we shall dee what happens.

[casstony]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Tony... I think you are correct. (but arguably, understating the cancer in modern society)

I trust you get my point?

I think I get your point Clive. When I say what I really think people start to think I'm crazy because they can't comprehend the extent of the corruption and perilous state of our financial system, even though it's plain to see if one pays attention.
I must say I'm amazed at the willingness of the corporate parasites to destroy that from which they derive their profits.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by casstony

I think I get your point Clive. When I say what I really think people start to think I'm crazy because they can't comprehend the extent of the corruption and perilous state of our financial system, even though it's plain to see if one pays attention.
I must say I'm amazed at the willingness of the corporate parasites to destroy that from which they derive their profits.

Yes.. we are on the same page.

Or should I say, I understand and accept your post as a fair, factual and reasonable statement.

It disappoints me, however, that this is ground floor level of the rabbit hole, and there is much more which cannot be discussed in a forum such as this.

The glass is almost half full, so there is that I suppose.

[sjastro]

Its about time p.c. got a kick in the groin.

Funny how the term PC has evolved over the years from the dilemma faced by American politicians in the 1980s on whether they should vote according to their conscience or along party lines, to the modern usage in the context of the quote as a defence or justification for bad behaviour particularly in the discussion of free speech.
It seems these days the right to being offensive is more important than the offence itself.

Trump clearly exploited this attitude during the election campaign by his attacks on minority groups, mocking disabled people, his attitude towards women regarding their looks etc.

The sad aspect is that there seems to be a sizeable percentage of individuals who think that disrespect to others is a positive attribute.

[Octane (Humayun)]

And, for blindman, re: draining the swamp.

He's drained the swamp and filled it with primordial sludge, instead.

If you want to know what I mean, have a look at who he has put in key positions in his cabinet:

Secretary of State: ExxonMobil CEO (no government or military experience);
Secretary of Treasury: Goldman Sachs CIO;
Secretary of Commerce: billionaire investor and founder of the investment firm W.L. Ross and Co;
Secretary of Energy: appointed someone who wanted to eliminate the said ministry, but, didn't even know what it was called;
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: first secretary in the history of the agency to have never served in the military;
Administrator of Small Business Administration: position granted to one of Trump's top donors through his campaign; and,
Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency: position granted to someone who is critical of the agency's aims and claims agency pursues an agenda based on dubious science.

That gives you an idea as to what the swamp was filled with after it had been drained.

H

[Orionskies (Julian)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Funny how the term PC has evolved over the years from the dilemma faced by American politicians in the 1980s on whether they should vote according to their conscience or along party lines, to the modern usage as a defence or justification for bad behaviour particularly in the discussion of free speech.
It seems these days the right to being offensive is more important than the offence itself.

Trump clearly exploited this attitude during the election campaign by his attacks on minority groups, mocking disabled people, his attitude towards women regarding their looks etc.

The sad aspect is that there seems to be a sizeable percentage of individuals who think that disrespect to others is a positive attribute.

Well put. I think the internet/facebook has fuelled this attitude.

[clive milne]

And for some context...

Compare Trump's indiscretions with those of another head of state (forgive the pun, if you will)... And think about why this is not mainstream news - even though it is a daily consequence of political dissent?

(video link redacted by moderators)

As Octane alluded to... Trump is a master class theatrical performer.

You've been had, so to speak.

STOP LISTENING TO RUPERT MURDOCH.. ffs


please, just watch the video, and contemplate how this fits in to your perception of the world, then try and reconcile that with the concept of that same regime being elected as the head of the UN human rights commission.

Does no-one else see a problem here?

Seriously... watch the frick'n tape recording and look me in the eye and say that our chums in the middle east are a bunch of swell guys.... if you can.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Hrm, you might want to remove that link, Clive. That'll get the thread shut down. I stopped it as soon as it loaded. Not something I want to see.

H

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Octane

Hrm, you might want to remove that link, Clive. That'll get the thread shut down. I stopped it as soon as it loaded. Not something I want to see.

H

Yes... the question then reduces to:

When that level of depravity, injustice and cruelty is systemic in a government and elicits no criticism, yet, in a pejorative tense, the hair style of an elected head of state (of a different country) becomes global front page news... is it not rational to conclude that the conduit (of that information) is not shaping public opinion in a manner that benefits the greater wellbeing of human society?

Then... (for fits and giggles)

Consider who shapes the public narrative.

For the lazy, just Google: who owns the main stream media.

It's a very small but interesting demographic.

[h0ughy (David)]

ok you are all on notice - next breach gets thread closed or deleted

[xelasnave]

Some folk got ticked off with political correctness, what ever it means, because they thought it went too far.
I can remember a heated discussion at a he pub when the proposition was put forward by someone that the plant all had called "black boys" should not be called that but "grass trees".
What made this seem ridiculous was the fact that the aboriginals present resented the name change.
The locals felt they were being told what to do by city folk who had no idea that the term " black boys" was not offensive to those who could rightfully take offence.
Clearly the person calling for the name change meant well but that did not alter the negative reaction.
I recall on another forum an Australian chap saying his union objected when they were told that "man hole covers" must in the future be called "person covers".
Again the person suggesting these changes presumably meant well however most regarded the change as silly.
I doubt if the folk who objected to the name changes in either case were not unaware of the effort to improve the situation as to racial or sexist problems in the society but I suspect they felt name changes just silly.
I think Trump was able to appeal to those who had had enough of what they saw as nonsence.
And just as the political correctness probably went to far so has the reaction against it.
I find no difficulty in understanding how Trump was able to capitalise on the against reaction.
The lot of aborigines won't improve just because we change the name of a plant no will domestic violence stop because we call safety covers person covers.
We tolerate and demand our entertainment show all these things we reject in the real world, think about the " Fast and Furious" franchise and so many more that promote bad behaviour as masculine and ask why should young males be anything other than objectionable and self centered.
Ask Hollywood how you treat someone who does not fit your world.
And you have movies and series like "Mission Impossible" that glorifies deceit and treachery against anyone who is not on your side, the right side...where is presentation of the principle..."I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".
Trump is probably all his opponents suggest but consider how those supporters have been programmed to hate and act badly via the trash Hollywood offers as entertainment.
Trump didn't create the country he is now finds himself the president. He did not make the gun laws, invent monster trucks or tell folk they need two oven in a huge kitchen to be successful (or happy..is there a difference).
He did not establish LasVagas and the sheer nonsence of founding a city on gambling consuming unbelievable amounts of coal to light up pretty buildings etc.
He is no more than a symptom of the disease.
Just as changing the name of a plant won't change anything getting rid of Trump will not change the fundamentals for a country who believes its way is the only way and that it is everyone's right to own as many guns as you can afford, and that you need 600 HP for your car, or any of the other over the top demands of a selfish self centred society.
Alex
Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by h0ughy

ok you are all on notice - next breach gets thread closed or deleted

Sorry David I did not see your post until I posted.
I think everyone will settle down.

I think this thread is doing a lot of good because folk are fearful of the future and in expressing their views here probably helps let off steam.

Members should be respectful and avoid stuff we all know is best avoided.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Yes... the question then reduces to:

When that level of depravity, injustice and cruelty is systemic in a government and elicits no criticism, yet, in a pejorative tense, the hair style of an elected head of state (of a different country) becomes global front page news... is it not rational to conclude that the conduit (of that information) is not shaping public opinion in a manner that benefits the greater wellbeing of human society?

Then... (for fits and giggles)

Consider who shapes the public narrative.

For the lazy, just Google: who owns the main stream media.

It's a very small but interesting demographic.

Clive you really have to let it go for your sake.
Alex

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Clive you really have to let it go for your sake.
Alex

Alex, I'll respond to you in a private message...
By all means respond here if you think what I say in that message is in anyway unfair or not factual.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Alex, I'll respond to you in a private message...
By all means respond here if you think what I say in that message is in anyway unfair or not factual.

I look forward to a private message.
I did not say you were not fair or factual but that does not mean you will not be considered at best a conspiracy theorist and at worst a .....

You have glimpses of how things may work that does not mean you will be applauded in fact probably the other way round.

I also study these matters but I suspect most of what you suggest will fall on deaf ears.

Things just are.
Alex

[clive milne]

Alex... Cassandra was no stranger to the feeling of bitterness.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Alex... Cassandra was no stranger to the feeling of bitterness.

Well that has got me thinking Clive.
Unfortunately many become bitter.
She could have taken the advances of a God as positive but no.
All I can do is this.. You make a list of the problems in the world and I promise I will fix them when I assend to heaven and regain the power that has always rightfully been mine.
Alex