The Donald Trump Thread

I think excessive immigration is very undesirable. It leads to a fragmented country with no common values. How can a child who is taught that homosexuality is a sin, and that women should not show their face in public, grow up to feel part of Britain?

We need to do a hell of a lot of work to integrate those people that are already here, if we ever want to stop forced marriages, FGM, etc etc. The Left like to use name calling to shut people up, but name calling doesn't actually deal with the real problems building up in Britain.
You do like to focus on the negatives, don't you? What about the cultural diversity and enrichment that generations of immigrants have brought - not only to the UK but more significantly to the USA. And Brexit was supposedly about European immigrants (despite Farage and his odious poster)- how many Polish people subject their daughters to FGM? Is it really the extreme and vile practices (which are largely against the law anyway) or is it the fact that "they" are different? That "they" threaten your image of an Englishman and his ways?

I know English people who think that homosexuality is disgusting and that gay men should be castrated. I have honestly sat through conversations like that, biting my lip until it bled. I know they bring up their kids to think the same way. We are both old enough to remember when being gay was a crime under English law. That, of course, was in that golden era of the 50's that UKIP seem to want to resurrect.
 
I think it is the extreme and vile practices that occur, regardless of British law, that people dislike. And terrorism.
So is your answer to keep us all separate and categorised into neat little groups? They tried that in South Africa - I lived there long enough to witness apartheid fail and be consigned to history. And back in the UK, when my half-English, half-Pakistani nephew - who attends a mostly white rural school - is taunted and called a terrorist, not by other kids but by their parents, then this is not the time to crow about our English values.
 
So is your answer to keep us all separate and categorised into neat little groups?
No, that is not my answer at all - nowhere did I say that. Neat little groups, or not so neat in the no-go enclaves found in Sweden, France and soon the UK are exactly what should be avoided. Integration and equal and effective application of the law would be the most appropriate approach to this problem. This, however, still doesn't address the incidences of radicalization of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants which is well documented.

They tried that in South Africa - I lived there long enough to witness apartheid fail and be consigned to history. And back in the UK, when my half-English, half-Pakistani nephew - who attends a mostly white rural school - is taunted and called a terrorist, not by other kids but by their parents, then this is not the time to crow about our English values.
I am very sorry that your nephew is experiencing discrimination by other children's parents. An odd situation. Nice to hear that the children are more accepting.

What I would like is to be able to have a conversation about immigration and Islamic extremism without it immediately becoming emotionally charged and accusatory. Clearly there are social, economic and security problems associated with allowing millions of undocumented migrants into Europe, not all of whom have good intentions. I am quite tired of battling entrenched ideologies and never actually getting as far as discussing the facts and the future challenges.
 
You do like to focus on the negatives, don't you? What about the cultural diversity and enrichment that generations of immigrants have brought - not only to the UK but more significantly to the USA.
Well cultural diversity is desirable, but you have to be very careful that ghettos don't form, and that you have populations that don't know each other at all. Think of some of the terrible things that happened in some Indonesian islands a few years back, if you want to see what can happen if things go really wrong.
And Brexit was supposedly about European immigrants (despite Farage and his odious poster)- how many Polish people subject their daughters to FGM?
That brings us on to another valid reason why high levels of immigration are undesirable. It is impossible to plan vital services - like health - if you don't have a clue how many people may come to the country over the coming years. Also, a high flux ofpeople entering the country (even if they eventually leave again) pushes down wages.
Is it really the extreme and vile practices (which are largely against the law anyway) or is it the fact that "they" are different? That "they" threaten your image of an Englishman and his ways?
It is the extreme and vile practices - and one such extreme practice is terrorism!
I know English people who think that homosexuality is disgusting and that gay men should be castrated. I have honestly sat through conversations like that, biting my lip until it bled. I know they bring up their kids to think the same way. We are both old enough to remember when being gay was a crime under English law. That, of course, was in that golden era of the 50's that UKIP seem to want to resurrect.
Honestly that shows you don't understand UKIP. I have done UKIP leafleting with an openly gay man and a black guy. Such people are probably under-represented in UKIP because of all the prejudicial stuff coming from the media, but nevertheless some people come regardless because they see the sense of our policies.

Let's be clear, it is possible to be happy that homosexuals have their freedom, but still object to the modern obsession with introducing such subjects earlier and earlier in school. One of the issues that is getting people's backs up (and maybe helped to bring Trump to victory) is that the campaigners never know when to stop. PC stifles all sorts of debates that should be had openly.

David
 
Not wanting to derail this thread, but just wanted to say in response to recent posts that I think it's possible to make a principled, non-racist argument for nationalistic anti-immigration, just as it's possible to make a racist one.

The principled, non-racist argument can go something like this:

It is a good thing to have individuated cultures in the world from which the citizens of each culture draw their strength: this diversity enriches not just the members of each culture but the world as a whole. Unchecked immigration tends to dilute the individuation of cultures, tending the world towards a generic universal "culture", which deprives us of the richness of individuated cultures. Worse still, the generic "culture" to which the world tends given unchecked immigration is that promoted by multinational companies: in other words, the McDonald-isation of the world.

The racist argument often goes something like this:

Other cultures are made up of dirty, thieving criminals, and are not welcome in our pure nation.

I was pleasantly surprised to find a principled, non-racist argument in the book, Fighting for the Essence, by Pierre Krebs. A friend encouraged me to read it earlier in this (rapidly passing!) year, and I was expecting to find in it something which could be described by a term that Robbie has used: odious. My expectations were happily exceeded.

This is not to say that I accept the argument - I think a counter-argument for multiculturalism can also be mounted - just that it is not, as some, including, initially, me, would expect, a hateful or prejudiced one. And a disclaimer: all I know of Pierre is what I have read in that book; for all I know, elsewhere he has showed different colours (but I don't expect so).

To bring this all back to the topic of the thread, I think it is clear which sort of anti-immigration argument Donald Trump mounts; that argument is explicitly racist.
 
You might have thought that my experience of growing up in South Africa during the apartheid 1970s would have left me with some bias one way or the other, but in my opinion it has left me more open than I might otherwise have been. I often heard people from the uk say "I was never racist until I came here to live". As a child I wasn't too bothered about what adults said, as I was too preoccupied playing outside. Earlier, in (independent) Zambia where we lived for two years, my best friend was Andrew, the son of our housekeeper, who lived in the small house at the bottom of our yard. We played and fought and laughed like any two young boys would, I can't remember feeling very different or superior to him, but then again, it was a long time ago. We never had a housekeeper in SA (11years), my mum tells me that the only reason we hired one in Zambia was because we soon realised that there would be a never ending stream of enquiries until we did.

In my opinion many/most people are racist. It's easy to say that you're not racist when you've never even seen a person of colour, or at least had to interact with them more than superficially, as those that made the comments I used to hear as a kid. I think I have my parents to thank for my views, I can't see my Dad being racist, it just wasn't in him, but no doubt I'm sure there are examples when circumstances left him making choices that didn't sit well. Some might say that the very fact that he was prepared to move to South Africa might prove otherwise. He worked every day as a telephone technician with one or two local men. Once they saved my dads life by dragging him out when a trench collapsed on him, I'm sure they wouldn't have bothered with one or two others! As my mum moves steadily into her eighties, I see the fear laden news taking its toll and I can only smile and shake my head at some of her views. Despite this flaw (as I and possibly she herself sees it) she has and is showing herself to be a remarkable person. I would say that of course. :)

I include all the above to show how our lives and parents must surely affect the way we act and think, so should we be so hard on those that were influenced by very different thinking to our own? It is very complicated to disentangle how we came to be the way we are, none of us (?) start off as racists or are born with sexist or homophobic or other questionable ideas.

So, as I see it, we have to learn to forgive the flaws, even the evils, of the past and move forward. Until we become more tolerant of others, more thankful for what we have and much less fearful of what will probably not be the cause of our demise, more humility is required, more compassion for others and much more. Until our politicians really start addressing our problems, the inequality they appear oblivious to or quite happy to sustain. Different education, less predictable and prescribed.

I could go on and on, but I have to learn to be content with how things are. To get frustrated with how things ought to be is pointless, and who's to say that I'd be right?

So, in my opinion we are a long way from ideal, but maybe learning to accept things as they are is the ideal.
 
Nigel has been given an absolutely horrible time by the press. He says - and I believe him - that he has had death threats for years. Almost every time he is interviewed, the reporter will try to inject some kind of venom into the conversation, which he handles in an amazingly calm way.

What has this man done to deserve this?

1) He expresses what many felt, that our democracy is being seriously eroded by membership of the common market.

2) He expresses concern at the scale of immigration. We used to have an immigration policy (i.e. we controlled who came (and in what numbers) to this country), and he advocates exactly this - something that our parents' generation took for granted (were they all racists back then?).

3) He expresses concern about the drift towards confrontation with Russia, that is an existential threat to us all.

4) He and UKIP are very suspicious of economic policies that seem to make the majority worse off.

5) He is aware that the UK is likely to run out of electricity fairly soon because of a totally misconceived 'green' energy policy.

6) He realises that PC speech has been an effective way of muzzling people. By stopping people asking pointed questions, daft policies can continue unchecked.

7) He supports President-elect Trump because he seems to have similar views.

For those views, he has been hounded and vilified - a trend you obviously think should be continued.

UKIP members all experience this vilification in miniature. There are people I know who recoiled in horror when I said I had joined UKIP. They didn't try to discuss UKIP policies with me (or even explain what exactly they disliked about UKIP), they just reacted in a herd way (cynically programmed in by propaganda) - as I suppose many Germans did when they encountered Jews. The BBC has described UKIP as a party of old, uneducated white men - a remarkably offensive, age-ist , racist, and sexist description!

When most of the media vilify those holding different opinions on important subjects, we are in in danger of becoming a one-party state.

As regards the charge of lying, I suppose you have ignored the regular messages of doom that came from the other side in the Brexit debate - the emergency punishment budget, and the threat that Brexit might trigger a nuclear war, etc, etc. The 'remain' side lied so much they became a joke!

David
David, you're conviniently avoiding discussing the two things he's said himself that are basically unacceptably. I wonder why that is? Nobody made him call Brendan Cox a supporter of extremism, nobody told him to say the referendum was won 'without any shots being fired'. When it comes to your politics you're far too partisan and you're basically by credible for me at this point.

1) That's an opinion yes.

2) We control immigration from outside the EU. Having free movement from inside the EU is still a policy.

3) Yes fine.

4) UKIP policies are economically very similar to mainstream right wing economics. Do you even know your own parties policies? Why do you think your only MP defected from the Tories?

5) Wrong.

6) This PC thing is getting boring.

7) Yep which is pretty damning as Trump has some pretty shocking views.

I can't believe you're comparing UKIP and how Germans felt about Jews in Germany. What an absolutely joke.

Nope, unlike you I am able to criticise people from 'my side' - the remain campaign was shit and I didn't like it.

See how easy that was? Try it sometime.
 
Fair enough - I'm not going to stop challenging you guys though. This is a psi blog, it's turning into a right wing political/conspiracy forum.

If that's gonna happen you guys would benefit from a different POV.
It is an odd feeling to agree with people wholeheartedly on some subject but be in direct opposition on others. I too am disturbed at the turn the forum seems to be taking towards right-wing politics and conspiracy theories. I find I'm asking myself whether I can trust anything I read from that person but I have to remind myself that amounts to an ad hominem approach in itself. Like people who say that Rupert Sheldrake can't be taken seriously about science because he's a Christian. I might not share Sheldrake's religious convictions but I respect what he says on the other subjects we discuss here.

As with everything else, ultimately we have to judge the evidence for ourselves and make our own conclusions. For me, the evidence for psi is strong and the number of anomalies inadequately explained by materialism continue to stack up against materialism. The evidence of my own eyes when watching Trump or Farage tells me that these are devious, narcissistic and dangerous men who should not be trusted. Their stated policies back up that impression.
 
To bring this all back to the topic of the thread, I think it is clear which sort of anti-immigration argument Donald Trump mounts; that argument is explicitly racist.
I think people (not just here) are starting to use the word 'racist' almost like a 4-letter word - i.e. almost without any real meaning.

The GOOGLE definition for the word used as an adjective is:

"having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another."

I might have defined it as "disliking or hating someone purely because of their skin colour or ethnic background".

Do either of these definitions apply to Trump's decision to restrict Muslims coming to the USA? I would argue that they do not, because what he dislikes, is the fact that some of those who would come would be intent on killing as many men, women, or children as possible! Others would be converted to terrorism after arrival!

Kamarling, I would say that talk of "right-wing politics" is way too vague. I think the term made some sense 30 or 40 years ago, but it makes almost no sense now. The Left wing back then stood for quite different principles. Donald Trump does not seem to conform to the conventional image of a US right wing politician. Keeping your population safe from terrorists isn't a bad policy, but the Nobel Prizewinning Obama, and his administration does seem to be responsible for the Syrian war, and the incredible suffering it has caused.

I don't consider myself right wing because I totally oppose the US/UK involvement in the Middle East - wrecking country after country, and arming terrorist gangs to do much of the work.

David
 
Last edited:
Fair enough - I'm not going to stop challenging you guys though. This is a psi blog, it's turning into a right wing political/conspiracy forum.

If that's gonna happen you guys would benefit from a different POV.
You're not particularly challenging Roberta, and you would definitely benefit from different POV's.

This forum has always explored some conspiracy theories from JFK, 911 to One World Government (which I used to think was a crock, but now I'm not so sure). It is not right wing in the least, but not all lefties are satisfied with the authoritarian methods, and censorship that seem to pervade the politics of the "self-righteous" such as yourself.
 
Rupert Sheldrake can't be taken seriously about science because he's a Christian. I might not share Sheldrake's religious convictions but I respect what he says on the other subjects we discuss here.
Fine - I feel the same way!

Surely this is the point. It should be possible for people to agree about one topic and disagree with another. Donald Trump got almost half the popular vote. Likewise Brexit got 52% of the vote in Britain - does that mean that approximately half the population in both countries are so wrong headed - Hillary would call us deplorables - that their views are only to be condemned? Don't you realise that there is a genuine and decent reason why people voted that way?

David
 
It is an odd feeling to agree with people wholeheartedly on some subject but be in direct opposition on others.
I have felt that way about the forum for years. It is hard to come to terms with, but being unable to write those people off (Hurm comes to mind) helped me to understand that other people have valid opinions based on their experience and knowledge that are different from mine. And I don't have to agree with them, I just have to understand.
 
Suppose Ted is a Tory who thinks all Whigs are stupid or evil and Walter is a Whig who thinks all Tories are stupid or evil. You try to tell Ted that Walter is not stupid or evil and Ted replies, "he must be, because he thinks all Torys are stupid or evil".

How do you get people to see through the illusion created by many journalists, politicians, and educators that the other side is full of people who are stupid or evil? If you say, "Forgive them, they are brainwashed by journalists and politicians", you have just defeated your argument that they are not stupid.

Globalists think it is unfair that national borders keep people from fleeing war zones and prevent them from living where there is economic opportunity. Nationalists think national borders are needed to keep terrorists out and to prevent lower wage workers from displacing them in the work force. Each side has a point. Each side is capable of understanding the merits of the other side. But the debate is never about the merits, it is about the stupidity or evil.

We have an elite but we lack leaders. We lack leaders in politics, journalism, education, religion, entertainment, that will try to help people see through this illusion. There is a lot of money to be made selling hate and not very much to be made helping people to go sane.
 
Last edited:
There is a lot of money to be made selling hate and not very much to be made helping people to go sane.
Reminds me of when I first read a Seth book and something which should have been obvious was made clear for the first time for me: the opposite of love is not hate, it is fear. I think both sides are spreading fear. I think much of politics is about fear. So is a lot of organised religion. Newspapers sell with headlines that make us fear something or other. I was in the USA recently and was horrified by the sheer volume of health care advertising (astonishing to someone coming from the UK with the NHS). An hour of watching American TV and I would be a hypochondriac without a doubt.
 
You're not particularly challenging Roberta, and you would definitely benefit from different POV's.

This forum has always explored some conspiracy from JFK, 911 to One World Government (which I used to think was a crock, but now I'm not so sure). It is not right wing in the least, but not all lefties are satisfied with the authoritarian methods, and censorship that seem to pervade the politics of the "self-righteous" such as yourself.

'You're not particularly challenging Roberta'

Never said I was.

'You would definitely benefit from different POV's'

What do you think I'm doing debating people on this forum...

'This forum has always explored some conspiracy'

Go look at the old podcasts, then the most recent ones, and get back to me. The change is astounding.

'This forum is not right wing in the least'

Yes it is.

'not all lefties are satisfied with the authoritarian methods, and censorship that seem to pervade the politics of the "self-righteous" such as yourself'

It's like alt-right bingo!
 
Last edited:
Top