Trump Consciousness

David Bailey said:
Well I disagree - I think Trump has had to battle hawks on one side and a Democratic party that would grab at any excuse to attack him. If we get President Trump unleashed for another four years, I expect great things - but OK, he isn't a Pagan!

In recent years I have also come to see Israel in a slightly different light. Europe let in a large number of mainly Muslim refugees as a result of the Syrian war and other reasons. Some of them have used that opportunity to attack us. For example, about 20 teenage kids at a pop concert were slaughtered in Manchester UK by a suicide gunman with a bomb in a rucksack.

This has lead me to realise that Israel literally cannot form peace with Hamas, because Hamas simply wants to fight for total victory - rather like ISIS (though I think they belong to the other branch of Islam, but I am not sure. The best Israel can do right now is to stop the wall being breached, because the aim of Hamas is to infiltrate Israel in order to perform further bomb attacks.

Saudi Arabia is another matter, and I am not privy to Trumps real views on that state, but one thing is certain - making the US independent in oil and gas, will give them the option to turn the screws on that horrid regime - but not, please not, another regime change war!

I think we both want an end to war, do let's not fight about this!

David
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow's book, Blowout, offers an interesting insight into the oil business, including how much Trump is motivated to overturn the current sanctions against Russia so it can restore access to western tech, without which it cannot preserve its fading capacity to tap its oil and gas reserves. It is interesting that Rex Tillerson, current Sec of State, was doing deals with Putin before Trump became POTUS as head of Exxon Mobil. This just adds a worrying dimension to the Trump/Russia nexus

The US capacity to be independent in oil and gas is subject to a bunch of issues, and should it succeed that does not give any assurance it will turn on the Saudis. The last thing the US wants is for the Saudis to cosy up to the Russians, but Trump may deliver that.

You might find 'America's war for the Greater Middle East' by Andrew Bacevich instructive. A useful insight is that the US, and the west in general has failed to factor cultural and religious elements into its assessment. Of course Hamas won't compromise with Israel. Why would they? You write as if Hamas represents an illegitimate agency, seeming to forget that Israel is a gift of other people's land made to the Jews made by Europeans. The presumption that the Jews have a legitimate claim the land is one based entirely on a narrative invented by European Christians. It is sentimental and has no sound logic to it outside a disputable theology. Given that most of the Jews were living in Europe it would have been fairer to have carved off a piece of Germany and neighbouring nations.

But no, while the Europeans felt bad about how the Jews were treated in Europe they also wanted them to piss off. The land that became Israel was not for the Europeans to give. This is not a pro/anti Jewish matter. You don't take other people's property and give it to somebody you feel sorry for.

I don't like Hamas, but I get their anger. The Europeans didn't offer the Palestinians any serious compensation for being displaced - and that makes it worse. I used to be a fan of the plucky Israelis, because that was the propaganda that was spun. Then I discovered that even though 'God' had 'given' them their land they managed to screw it up twice, and then the third time round? Seriously?
 
Laird said:
Odd. It seems we both think that way of each other. I think the worse situation by far is one in which women who bravely bring up the sexual harassment and assaults to which powerful men have subjected them are routinely disbelieved just because there was nobody else present.
Click to expand...
When it started, the Me Too movement was an excellent thing. The problem is, it can rapidly degenerate into blackmail and political stunts of all sorts. Now that the internet is pervasive, it might be a good idea if people could lodge in secret specific allegations shortly after the incident took place. Then, if they wanted to raise them later, there would be at least some evidence from the time.

You didn't really answer my question. How would you feel if someone with a grudge against you, made an unfounded allegation against you that damaged your life. Would you rejoice that women could do that, even as you cleared your desk to leave your job?

Should Hilary Clinton have stood aside at the last election while the allegation that she pressurised Juanita Broaddrick not to report the fact that Bill Clinton raped her?

David
Michael Patterson said:
Rachel Maddow's book, Blowout, offers an interesting insight into the oil business, including how much Trump is motivated to overturn the current sanctions against Russia so it can restore access to western tech, without which it cannot preserve its fading capacity to tap its oil and gas reserves. It is interesting that Rex Tillerson, current Sec of State, was doing deals with Putin before Trump became POTUS as head of Exxon Mobil. This just adds a worrying dimension to the Trump/Russia nexus
Click to expand...
But do you have no memory? Don't you remember the bogus way we got into this whole sanctions against Russia thing?

I mean the Left - that used to be so peace loving - now want to keep going a spat which died at the end of the cold war.

David
 
David Bailey said:
The problem is, it can rapidly degenerate into blackmail and political stunts of all sorts. Now that the internet is pervasive, it might be a good idea if people could lodge in secret specific allegations shortly after the incident took place. Then, if they wanted to raise them later, there would be at least some evidence from the time.
Click to expand...
You are showing an alarming lack of understand on the topic. Its a blind spot for most of us who have not experienced sexual abuse and especially for men in this cohort.

I am, by no means, well informed here either, but it seems to be pretty common knowledge as to the litany of reasons of which victims do not report events immediately; if at all. Surely though... you knew this?

You further suggest "people" could lodge allegations to serve as a basis for evidence at some later date. What, exactly, would the evidence be beyond said allegation? What would this trustworthy entity be to whom such allegations would be submitted? This seems naive; troublingly naive to be sure.

We have a system in place to deal with this; that while far from ideal is about the best thing going: our legal and judicial system. What you've suggested does not seem like an alternative for any open and free society (quite the contrary actually).

Any noble pursuit can be perverted by bad actors (e.g., our legal/judiciary system). This can, and likely does, cut both ways with abusers manipulating our systems to protect their wrongdoing and false accusers manipulating our systems for personal benefit or gain. As in all things, you can't let a few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.

The irony here is how open minded this community has been to sexual abuse research and associated conspiracies, and yet when politics gets mixed in things seem to resort to a much more anti-Skeptiko closed-mindedness. Well, many of us were warned by our parents regarding topics not to be discussed in mixed company....
 
David Bailey said:
That is greatly misunderstood. The point is that open borders attract criminals, because they can more easily escape justice in a foreign country, and the US looks like a candy store for all sorts of criminals.

It was actually a ban on Muslims from specific countries - because many terrorists come from those places. Not too far from where I live, a Muslim chose a pop concert that he probably knew was attended by teenage girls and their mothers - and blew himself up killing 23 of them and injuring 139 others.

Those were obviously unfortunate remarks, but remember that in the past, people used to joke about such issues - I know it is hard to believe, but they did. That is why the Black and White Minstrel Show was very popular.

I suspect some of those countries are s-holes - he spoke the truth in a typical Trump fashion.

Well I am white and live in Britain, where we also have a substantial non-white population. I fear that excessive political correctness, and efforts to push black people into posts they would not otherwise have been considered for, will worsen racial tensions.

Only the Democrats such as Kamala Harris, are so obsessed by race that they get their DNA tested. She actually used her supposed non-white ancestry to help her career. Giving non-white people an unfair advantage, is a sure way to inflame racial tensions.


At the moment, I am afraid, 'racism' is used by the new Left, as a tool to gain power.

Hitler was mad.

David
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from David.
But now I need a 'gob-smacked' emogee, that is - shocked and appalled.
You will only look as far as it 'fits' your view, ignore or make excuses for what doesn't, and not deeply into reasons why.

People with such unbalanced and prejudiced views should not be in positions of power.
 
Michael Patterson said:
Rachel Maddow's book, Blowout, offers an interesting insight into the oil business, including how much Trump is motivated to overturn the current sanctions against Russia so it can restore access to western tech, without which it cannot preserve its fading capacity to tap its oil and gas reserves. It is interesting that Rex Tillerson, current Sec of State, was doing deals with Putin before Trump became POTUS as head of Exxon Mobil. This just adds a worrying dimension to the Trump/Russia nexus

The US capacity to be independent in oil and gas is subject to a bunch of issues, and should it succeed that does not give any assurance it will turn on the Saudis. The last thing the US wants is for the Saudis to cosy up to the Russians, but Trump may deliver that.

You might find 'America's war for the Greater Middle East' by Andrew Bacevich instructive. A useful insight is that the US, and the west in general has failed to factor cultural and religious elements into its assessment. Of course Hamas won't compromise with Israel. Why would they? You write as if Hamas represents an illegitimate agency, seeming to forget that Israel is a gift of other people's land made to the Jews made by Europeans. The presumption that the Jews have a legitimate claim the land is one based entirely on a narrative invented by European Christians. It is sentimental and has no sound logic to it outside a disputable theology. Given that most of the Jews were living in Europe it would have been fairer to have carved off a piece of Germany and neighbouring nations.

But no, while the Europeans felt bad about how the Jews were treated in Europe they also wanted them to piss off. The land that became Israel was not for the Europeans to give. This is not a pro/anti Jewish matter. You don't take other people's property and give it to somebody you feel sorry for.

I don't like Hamas, but I get their anger. The Europeans didn't offer the Palestinians any serious compensation for being displaced - and that makes it worse. I used to be a fan of the plucky Israelis, because that was the propaganda that was spun. Then I discovered that even though 'God' had 'given' them their land they managed to screw it up twice, and then the third time round? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Anyone unable to afford the time or money to read Rachel’s book could start with her chat on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast last week. Eye-opening stuff.
 
Sanliurfa, Turkey — Most of the troops President Trump boasted about bringing home from the "endless war" in Syria are actually just crossing the border into Iraq, where they will be positioned to keep helping in the fight against ISIS if needed. And it turns out some may not leave Syria at all, at least not anytime soon. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has laid out plans to move the roughly 1,000 U.S. troops from northern Syria into Iraq.
Click to expand...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-tro...-remain-with-sdf-protect-oil-isis-2019-10-21/
 
David Bailey said:
Now that the internet is pervasive, it might be a good idea if people could lodge in secret specific allegations shortly after the incident took place.
Click to expand...

I don't think placing such an expectation on women (or men) is a good idea - it would only lead to greater prejudice against those who had not fulfilled the expectation. "Why were you wearing such a short dress?" would become "Why didn't you lodge a secret allegation?"

David Bailey said:
You didn't really answer my question.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise it was non-rhetorical, and I thought that my previous post implied my view: of course it's unjust for men to be falsely accused, but the far worse outcome is that women who have been violated are denied justice (or, as you seem to be advocating, even a voice).

Do you acknowledge that this is what you are advocating for? Can you please confirm that your position is: "I would rather a policy which entails that women who have been sexually assaulted, especially by powerful men, be denied access to justice, or even the right to speak out about their experiences, so that men - especially powerful men - cannot be unjustly accused of sexual assault"? [ETA: This is not a rhetorical question. I am looking for a direct answer.]

If there is a policy which avoids both injustices, then let's have it.

David Bailey said:
Should Hilary Clinton have stood aside at the last election while the allegation that she pressurised Juanita Broaddrick not to report the fact that Bill Clinton raped her?
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on the US presidential election process, but I suspect that that's not how it works - that is, that candidates "stand aside" when accused of wrongdoing. I suspect that, instead, the wrongdoing is (ought to be) investigated in parallel with the campaign - because, if they are found to be innocent, then they will have been denied precious campaigning time. I don't know what the exact protocol is for investigating accusations of potential US presidents, and if you are arguing that it ought to be more stringent, then you perhaps have a case - I am not really sure.
 
Last edited:
malf said:
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588067/

Have at it.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, malf. Everybody was racist back then - and it was one big joke. "Hey, how about we deny black people apartments in our buildings? And we could put a C for "coloured" on their applications so we know which ones they are. Wouldn't that be a classic?" Hahahaha! "Oh, and hey, let's set up a fake grass-roots organisation and put out ads in its name which portray Native Americans as drug-using criminals. That would be such a blast!" Hahahaha!

Gosh, we were jokers back then. So funny.
 
Laird said:
Oh, come on, malf. Everybody was racist back then - and it was one big joke. "Hey, how about we deny black people apartments in our buildings? And we could put a C for "coloured" on their applications so we know which ones they are. Wouldn't that be a classic?" Hahahaha! "Oh, and hey, let's set up a fake grass-roots organisation and put out ads in its name which portray Native Americans as drug-using criminals. That would be such a blast!" Hahahaha!

Gosh, we were jokers back then. So funny.
Click to expand...
Justifying this man has become an industry all of its own. Unfortunately, your satire would be funnier if it didn’t sound so close to an opinion piece by Sean Hannity while he tries to keep a straight face.
 
malf said:
Justifying this man has become an industry all of its own. Unfortunately, your satire would be funnier if it didn’t sound so close to an opinion piece by Sean Hannity while he tries to keep a straight face.
Click to expand...

Satire? I don't know, malf - I try to bring you truth and you misrepresent my motives. You don't yet seem to have worked out that Fox is the only channel that broadcasts the truth, and that by extension Sean Hannity is an honest, unbiased media pundit. Others from this forum have worked it out. Please, please bring yourself up to speed. We don't want you spreading untruths here. The last thing we want for this forum, after all, is for it to become a medium for propaganda!
 
David Bailey said:
But do you have no memory? Don't you remember the bogus way we got into this whole sanctions against Russia thing?
Click to expand...

David, it ain't bogus anywhere other than in Foxworld. Just check out today's The Guardian reporting that Facebook has reported a whole bunch of Russian FB accounts all set to wreck the 2020 election - https://www.theguardian.com/technol...us-2020-elections-foreign-interference-russia

And do please remember that a bipartisan Senate report also confirmed Russian interference in 2016. Trump desperately wants the not to be true so he can have the sanctions lifted and the Russians can get Shell and ExxonMobil into drill for their oil/gas. The whole Ukraine thing hinges on this same desperate attempt to lift Russian sanctions.

Yes, the Russians were sanctioned for invading country not belonging to them. What was bogus about that?
 
5313719456_cbdf084539_c.jpg

(For anyone who wants to know, the Black and White Minstrel Show had white men wearing wigs and blacked faces dancing with scantily-clad women who in any other circumstance would clearly be "asking for it" and aired on the British Broadcasting Company every Saturday night from 1958 to 1978)
David Bailey said:
Those were obviously unfortunate remarks, but remember that in the past, people used to joke about such issues - I know it is hard to believe, but they did. That is why the Black and White Minstrel Show was very popular.
Click to expand...
The popularity of the B&W Minstrel Show maybe because:
1) many British are racist
2) it had prime viewing time and there were only 2 channels available back then
3) it spread racist propaganda when campaigns against racial discrimination began to object and which the BBC ignored for a decade, during race riots in London UK, civil disorder in Alabama US and the devastating assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968

People joke about that which they wish to ridicule and on a deeper level, that of which they are afraid and feel threatened by.
This does not make it "Ok" back then or ever.
 
I started this thread is for serious discussion of President Trump. If you want to discuss other subjects or joke around please do it elsewhere.

Moderator please take note.

Thanks
 
I side with Jim on this divisive issue. I think that if we are to discuss President Trump, we should do so seriously. We should remember that racism was funny back in the day, and that it is perfectly appropriate to make as much money as one can, even if one does so at other people's expense, and to then run for president as a man of the people. Thank you, Jim, for reminding us of proper decorum.
 
Aliceinunderland said:
5313719456_cbdf084539_c.jpg

(For anyone who wants to know, the Black and White Minstrel Show had white men wearing wigs and blacked faces dancing with scantily-clad women who in any other circumstance would clearly be "asking for it" and aired on the British Broadcasting Company every Saturday night from 1958 to 1978)

The popularity of the B&W Minstrel Show maybe because:
1) many British are racist
2) it had prime viewing time and there were only 2 channels available back then
3) it spread racist propaganda when campaigns against racial discrimination began to object and which the BBC ignored for a decade, during race riots in London UK, civil disorder in Alabama US and the devastating assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968

People joke about that which they wish to ridicule and on a deeper level, that of which they are afraid and feel threatened by.
This does not make it "Ok" back then or ever.
Click to expand...

And just as bad is white face

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...q_lAhWJ6XMBHddRACMQMwhSKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top