Donald Trump

[Nath2099]

Another hyypocrite. What was it Abbott said for the entire Gillard Rudd Government? Oh that's right, it was "No", to anything and everything. No for no's sake. And now the right are getting their own back and they start crying like little babies.

It's a democracy. We have the right to protest. Hopefully your god Trump will keep it that way, but I won't be putting money on it.

I'll also point out that you are massively generalising. It isn't most on the left who are doing the things you say. But don't let real facts get in the way of your alternative ones.

[Nath2099]

The Dems are frighteningly far left? You have no clue. You seem the type to think anything left of Bolt is radical left.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Where is this "muslim ban" that you speak of?
All that Trump has done is place a 90 day moratorium on 6 countries. Those countries combined are less than 10% of the world's muslim population.
Is there another law that the hysterical mob know about that the rest of us don't?
To top it off, Obama did exactly the same thing on arrivals from Iraq, which is one of the countries on the list. So why was it ok then, but not now?

[Nath2099]

Everyone knows who he's targeting mate. Dress it up any way you like. Even Guilllani said Trump came to him asking how to ban Muslims, Guillani replying that he can't, it'll have to be the country. From Guillani's own mouth.

"Obama did exactly the same thing on arrivals from Iraq"

Horse ****.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/1...fugee-ban-2011

Just to make this crystal clear, let’s place Obama’s policy and Trump’s policy side by side:

Obama: imposes new security checks on Iraqi refugees in response to a specific flaw in the security screening for people from that country, which slows down the admission rate of Iraqi refugees for six months but does not eliminate it.
Trump: Bans all refugees, from every country on Earth, for four months, with no evidence of a specific flaw in the refugee screening process, at a time when there are at least 60 percent more refugees worldwide than there were in 2011.

Bu, as you most likely will anyway, you go on believing your alternative facts.

[casstony]

Gotta be really careful when suggesting assassination as a solution. Killing might be understandable in certain situations (eg. distressed battered wife kills husband) but is rarely justifiable. State sponsored killings are even less desirable since states/nations should set high moral standards for citizens to live up to.

In the case of Hitler, that would be a particularly dangerous historical thread to unravel; some of his crazier decisions probably lost the war for the Nazis.

Moral complexities should keep assassination in the realm of debate late into the night rather than the taking of lives.

[Orionskies (Julian)]

I'm not one to advocate assassination as a solution far from it that's how wars can start (WW1). I think unfortunately for the U.S it has a gun culture and this type of reaction is embedded in their thinking.

I think the parallels to Hitler and Trump are justified as people are nervous about the future and don't wish to see that happen again. Lets Hope Trump proves everyone wrong.

I think the BIG question really is how we ended up with such a poor and unsuited President as Donald Trump. I think it is the politician's too busy arguing about their opposed ideologies and ignoring the real people's needs and an ignorant, selfish and fearful electorate looking for easy answers.

Julian

[Nath2099]

It wouldn't fix anything anyway. Once Trump's out of the way you get Pence. Just as awful as Trump but with a crazy religious 'end of days' bent.

[JA]

Originally Posted by Orionskies

.... I think it is the politician's too busy arguing about their opposed ideologies

Yes

Originally Posted by Orionskies

and ignoring the real people's needs

Yes

Originally Posted by Orionskies

and an ignorant, selfish and fearful electorate looking for easy answers.

Julian

I can't agree entirely-

Yes we do look for easy answers and are fearful (at times). A fear played on by the media, with an incessant number of bad news stories under the control of corporations that also run the government. We have a chance (Laugh) to have a say in politics at election time every few years. We have a choice of one or two or so of candidates (puppets) both OWNED by / beholding to the corporations.

It was the politicians (those left behind in the case of the 2017 US Election) who were/are ignorant of the people's views and desires for the future in this case. They did not listen to or effectively address the voice of the people and instead sought their own way, driven by their multinational corporate interests in the selfish frenzy that is modern politics. BTW I'm not saying those that made it in to power aren't so driven or similarly compromised. They just communicated a vision which the people preferred.

In general & for the future:
A first step, for me would be that .....
THERE SHOULD BE NO POLITICAL DONATIONS.
All funds for a campaign, advertising, etc... given some qualifying conditions, should be provided (proportioned somehow), by we the people only from state funds. Any other sources should be illegal (including one's own funds, facebook donations, etc...) and immediate grounds for dismissal (along with any misappropriations of funds/travel/helicopters.....).

In a democracy all votes are not equal.
In a democracy only money is equal.
Get the right people with money and you can get a good democracy, a fair country you are happy to live in.
Get the wrong people with the right (wrong) multinationals and our democracy starts to resemble fascism.


We need to get money out of power and people in to power. Now that's something you usually get assassinated for !


Best
JA

[AndrewJ]

All funds for a campaign, advertising, etc... given some qualifying conditions, should be provided (proportioned somehow), by we the people.

Just another bottomless trough for them.
I remember being told that if i want a better job, i have to pay Hecs etc to fund my own education, ( and application costs ) so that i can get that job.
If they need money to "apply for the job", take out a personal Hecs debt like everyone else and when you get the job, start paying it back.
Cant see that happening.
Just listening to the ABC midday news re who donated to the parties before the last election. Quite illuminating.

Andrew

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Just another bottomless trough for them.
I remember being told that if i want a better job, i have to pay Hecs etc to fund my own education, ( and application costs ) so that i can get that job.
If they need money to "apply for the job", take out a personal Hecs debt like everyone else and when you get the job, start paying it back.
Cant see that happening.
Just listening to the ABC midday news re who donated to the parties before the last election. Quite illuminating.

Andrew

Yep. Political donations should be banned. Developers give millions to both parties, and in unrelated news, we get disasters like throwing out the plans for Fishermen's Bend and approving just about every block of flats that developers put forward.
Money like that wields such power that it undermines democracy.

[xelasnave]

Lets not forget Trump won and we know if the rules were different he would not have won... but he won within the rules.
He beat the professionals at their own game no one likes that who has lost to a outside chance.
He presented as if he was actually listening to the concerns of people, without judgement upon them being too stupid to understand that it is efficient that their jobs go overseas.
He recogniced the concern many have for border security.
He worked to deal with frightened folks concern which although critics write off as deluded perceptions are nevertheless real for folk who hold the various fears and concerns Trump sort to address.
Clearly many liked that he seemed to understand.
They must have, as coming in as a rank outsider he beat both parties.. his first then the Dems.
I see no reason to hate the man for his "huge" achievement.
My concern is that his opposition firstly will not accept the game was played and he won but moreover their opposition is hate driven... sure this may be wrong or that may be wrong but can these issues not be dealt with without such hate.
It is a mistake to let emotion guide your views.

He won that should be the end of the story.
In four years time the game is played again and one can only wonder how an opposition who wont accept the outcome and the implications that such an outcome hints they were doing something very wrong to have lost, just how they can focus on winning the next game.
Has anyone in opposition asked how it came to pass that a political nobody beat both paries. Or are they just going to blame their loss upon the stupidy of the rules, the electorate or some foreign power hacking whatever.
I visit another site, supposedly a science site but you can post on politics and religion.. So many Trump threads it is tiresome and the inability to move on way past unfortunate.
But to those consumed with hate.... hate is a quality enjoyed by a loser that does no good whatsoever and rarely helps when dealing with problems.
Alex

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by Nath2099

Everyone knows who he's targeting mate. Dress it up any way you like. Even Guilllani said Trump came to him asking how to ban Muslims, Guillani replying that he can't, it'll have to be the country. From Guillani's own mouth.

"Obama did exactly the same thing on arrivals from Iraq"

Horse ****.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/1...fugee-ban-2011




Bu, as you most likely will anyway, you go on believing your alternative facts.

Then given that he named 6 countries, none of which are the largest ones, Trump did not take that advice.

The ban is still just an extended version of Obama's one. He wanted a review, with no permanent ban in place. That is what happened.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

But to those consumed with hate.... hate is a quality enjoyed by a loser that does no good whatsoever and rarely helps when dealing with problems.
Alex

That's probably the best line here.
Trump is used to people being rude to him. He ignores them.

If people genuinely wanted to influence him, then wishing harm and burning cars is not the way to go about it.

There will be people who are unhappy with every election result, always.
But the best results for all are generally achieved when people who do not like each other find a way to work together.

If hate filled, vitriolic, violent people have lost out and have to wait another 4 years for the next election then there won't be too many tears shed for them in the mean time.

[Nath2099]

Then given that he named 6 countries, none of which are the largest ones, Trump did not take that advice.

What? Do you think people are stupid? They would be the largest ones from which Muslim's are entering the US, especially as refugees.

The ban is still just an extended version of Obama's one.

Obama had a reason. Trump's only reason is to continue stoking the unjustified fear. I'm assuming this is actually coming from the racist pissant Bannon, so Trump's not entirely to blame.


Keep layering on the lipstick, it's still a pig.

[Nath2099]

How about you hate the man because he is a vile self-confessed sexual predator, how about that? Or how about because he has never paid a cent of tax in his life, in fact, aside from his "small" million dollar (equivalent of prob 20M now) loan from his father, he got rich off the back of tax payers, those he says he is now helping, all the while screwing them over. Is that worth hating him for? Or the fact that he has no respect for actual facts, and will blatantly lie directly to your face? There's a myriad of reasons to hate Trump. All of them justified.

[Nath2099]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

That's probably the best line here.
Trump is used to people being rude to him. He ignores them.

If people genuinely wanted to influence him, then wishing harm and burning cars is not the way to go about it.

There will be people who are unhappy with every election result, always.
But the best results for all are generally achieved when people who do not like each other find a way to work together.

If hate filled, vitriolic, violent people have lost out and have to wait another 4 years for the next election then there won't be too many tears shed for them in the mean time.

Funny that it's not the left that walk into mosques with AK47's, isn't it? Or visit islands teeming with politically interested teenagers only to slaughter them. Funny that.

*Or get arrested with hordes of guns with the intent of shooting up a shopping center. Or get arrested threatening to bomb left wing organisations.

[xelasnave]

One could ask where did this fear arise that has Trump making such a call.
Who do we thank for many folk being unreasonably fearful of certain folk.
Was it something he said?
My money would be on the media presenting news for many years prior to Trumps entry.
Who turned managable concerns into fear such that we arrive to where we are today.
Alex

[AndrewJ]

Funny that it's not the left that walk into mosques with AK47's, isn't it? Or visit islands teeming with politically interested teenagers only to slaughter them. Funny that.

*Or get arrested with hordes of guns with the intent of shooting up a shopping center. Or get arrested threatening to bomb left wing organisations.

So the right use weapons/violence, and the left use pens and quiet corruption.
The end result is still a lot of very badly hurt people somewhere.

Andrew

[traveller (Bo)]

C'mon guys, lighten up.
It's not the end of the world (yet). I am not a Trump fan but also have some faith in the "liberal conservative" Republicans in the Congress and Senate to curtail Trump's erratic behaviour.

In case you missed it, this will give you some laughs.
https://youtu.be/gneBUA39mnI

Bo

[Nath2099]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

So the right use weapons/violence, and the left use pens and quiet corruption.
The end result is still a lot of very badly hurt people somewhere.

Andrew

Are you serious?