A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I can mildly understand some people being seduced by Trump's anti-establishment "drain the swamp" rhetoric during the campaign, but then he delivered the mother of all middle fingers to those people with his cabinet appointments.

An absolute orgy of patronage to oligarchs, campaign donors, special interests etc.
 
CarterS said:
Worst he said from what I recall was calling them a "so called judge". Was that it or was there some other abuse that I missed?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...1667b4-1518-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html

Obama got fairly stuck in himself. Nothing Trump has said seems worse than anything in there to me.
Click to expand...

From that article:

In a few instances, those pointed opinions have sounded a lot like outright criticism.
Click to expand...

You'd have to agree that Obama, Bush, Bush II, Clinton (and I'm sure none of Romney or the other Republican alternatives) would never question a judge's position or integrity in such a direct manner. It's a dangerous place to go to when separation of powers is supposedly such a big deal in the US setup.

It reeks of a (very insecure) dictatorship, which is consistent with pretty much everything else he's doing - EOs on constitutionally contentious (one of them on race/religious discrimination) issues, banning certain media outlets and suggesting that a heap of major news outlets are presenting fake news and that they are lying about a myriad of issues if/when they report in a negative fashion about his ironically negative message.
 
pulpdriver said:
I think the dismantling of Obamacare looms as a massive positive however it does depend on what he names as an alternative. Could easily be worse but considering it has been a long standing point of attack for his party if his alternative is dismal then he'll be in severe trouble come 2020 if he doesn't propose a healthcare plan that doesn't benefit the masses without being needlessly penalising for those wishing to opt out like Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Why do you think dismantling Obamacare is a positive?
 
Trump isn't offering anything new, though, he's offering solutions that have been tried in the past and discarded for not working. He's just repackaging them as being different this time because he will implement them and "no one can do it like him." So far he's shown his point of difference is that he is rushed, arrogant, petulant and from the outside he doesn't seem to give a s**t about Americans, just advancing his own personal wealth.
 
Gibbo_88 said:
Why do you think dismantling Obamacare is a positive?
Click to expand...

I can only assume pulpdriver is speaking about the perspective of the GOP voters who voted him in. They want it gone, even if they may not totally understand what it's doing and for whom. It's a win for him if he can remove it as it will make his constituents happy.

Any GOP candidate voted in would've done that anyway as they've pumped it up to be the Viet Kong.
 
James North said:
I can only assume pulpdriver is speaking about the perspective of the GOP voters who voted him in. They want it gone, even if they may not totally understand what it's doing and for whom. It's a win for him if he can remove it as it will make his constituents happy.

Any GOP candidate voted in would've done that anyway as they've pumped it up to be the Viet Kong.
Click to expand...

It's such a shame that they want to get rid of it and just not try and make small changes. The problems that come from having your lowest socio economic status group cut off from the health care they need is ridiculous.

Has anyone watched the documentary "the white helmets"? If you haven't, it's a 40 min documentary on a group that try and save people or retrieve bodies from buildings that are bombed in Syria, it's on Netflix.

After you've watched it, do a bit of googling on the organisation. Makes me really question what I can believe more so than ever.
 
TheBrownDog said:
I can mildly understand some people being seduced by Trump's anti-establishment "drain the swamp" rhetoric during the campaign, but then he delivered the mother of all middle fingers to those people with his cabinet appointments.

An absolute orgy of patronage to oligarchs, campaign donors, special interests etc.
Click to expand...

There's a few goblins in there, that's for sure. But all of that is negated by Steve Bannon being there. He is the brains behind the operation :thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

trying to put one self above another due to political ideologies is a major reason why Trump won the USA election. People just got sick of it and people voted out of spite in some cases. I can see some similarities here in Australia if the above post is anything to go by. I don't disagree but I will never talk down on anyone if I disagree with them.
 
SizeMatters said:
trying to put one self above another due to political ideologies is a major reason why Trump won the USA election. People just got sick of it and people voted out of spite in some cases. I can see some similarities here in Australia if the above post is anything to go by. I don't disagree but I will never talk down on anyone if I disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Certain beliefs aren't socially acceptable from a moral viewpoint and that's even before you bring in science, etc.

So if people support the KKK you can't talk down to them?
 
I don't think Trump supporters being talked down to actually was an issue. It fed into Trump being an underdog and his 'draining the swamp' narrative but that was complete BS as stated above. Trump supporters would have believed just about anything.
 
jackess said:
Certain beliefs aren't socially acceptable from a moral viewpoint and that's even before you bring in science, etc.

So if people support the KKK you can't talk down to them?
Click to expand...
I have found that you can disagree with the ideologies but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth to attack the person. It doesn't help in any circumstance and it actually pushes the people further away. Hard to win someone over when they have been run out of town. I understand what you are saying though and can see your point of view. I honestly don't have an answer for the last point, but then again I'm not a social scientist. Personally I would want to engage them instead of standing over them.
 
jackess said:
Certain beliefs aren't socially acceptable from a moral viewpoint and that's even before you bring in science, etc.
Click to expand...

If what is socially acceptable becomes morally viable then morality is a fluid and effectively just a label for whatever is the current social fad.

If morality is something fixed (that there are absolute rights and wrongs) then you can make a moral stand that is socially unacceptable or a socially acceptable stand that is immoral.

Science has little to say about issues of morality ... and these days a scientific discovery that went against what is socially acceptable goes down just as well as it did with Galileo and friends back in the day.

It is very easy to expand what we ourselves prefer and try to make it into a general rule for everybody eg democracy and capitalism are the only way to go, or Sharia and Islam are the only option, or the feminists who fought for women to have choice and condemned those who chose to marry and have children as traitors etc.

Mark Steyn speaking at Manning made an interesting comment re the recent introduction of Motion M-103 in the Canadian Parliament, potential legislation that “is not benign and harmless; it will lead to more violence because it says you cannot discuss these issues in public. In countries where there is no free speech, shooting, killing and violence are the only ways to make your opinions known,” he said.

jackess said:
So if people support the KKK you can't talk down to them?
Click to expand...

If things were treated equally then no you wouldn't be able to because talking down to anyone would be an issue. However since the KKK are not now (nor should be) a designated minority or protected group then you can beat them up with impunity.
 
Viceregal said:
If what is socially acceptable becomes morally viable then morality is a fluid and effectively just a label for whatever is the current social fad.

If morality is something fixed (that there are absolute rights and wrongs) then you can make a moral stand that is socially unacceptable or a socially acceptable stand that is immoral.

Science has little to say about issues of morality ... and these days a scientific discovery that went against what is socially acceptable goes down just as well as it did with Galileo and friends back in the day.

It is very easy to expand what we ourselves prefer and try to make it into a general rule for everybody eg democracy and capitalism are the only way to go, or Sharia and Islam are the only option, or the feminists who fought for women to have choice and condemned those who chose to marry and have children as traitors etc.

Mark Steyn speaking at Manning made an interesting comment re the recent introduction of Motion M-103 in the Canadian Parliament, potential legislation that “is not benign and harmless; it will lead to more violence because it says you cannot discuss these issues in public. In countries where there is no free speech, shooting, killing and violence are the only ways to make your opinions known,” he said.



If things were treated equally then no you wouldn't be able to because talking down to anyone would be an issue. However since the KKK are not now (nor should be) a designated minority or protected group then you can beat them up with impunity.
Click to expand...

I meant science generally as in; Banning muslims is wrong morally as they are normal people and banning them to reduce terrorism doesn't work based on research. So not only is it morally wrong but it isn't backed up by any sort of scientific study.
 
There is a fundamental need for politics and politicians to embrace evidence based policy making.
To consider the evidence for and against a position, to make a decision based on the evidence and then show leadership by selling that decision (together with the evidence) to the electorate. I suspect that is at least part of what jackess is getting at when he talks of science.

On HTC 2PS6200 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
jackess said:
I meant science generally as in; Banning muslims is wrong morally as they are normal people
Click to expand...

Might I ask who are the 'not normal' people? A muslim is a normal person who follows the way of Islam. How is a member of the KKK not a normal person as well just with a different ideology and belief structure?

jackess said:
banning them to reduce terrorism doesn't work based on research
Click to expand...

As compared to the wonderful job inviting them in has done in Germany, Sweden, France, Belgium etc etc? If banning them doesn't stop terrorism and inviting them in doesn't stop terrorism then maybe the issue is more to do with the group rather than how they are being treated?

jackess said:
So not only is it morally wrong but it isn't backed up by any sort of scientific study.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that history (1400 years of watching the beliefs play out), sociology (how muslims have worked in modern societies legally, demographically, re tolerance etc depending on the Islamic proportions in the society), theology (studying their beliefs and religious motivations), psychology, cultural anthropology etc would all be relevant 'scientifically'.
 
Viceregal said:
Might I ask who are the 'not normal' people? A muslim is a normal person who follows the way of Islam. How is a member of the KKK not a normal person as well just with a different ideology and belief structure?



As compared to the wonderful job inviting them in has done in Germany, Sweden, France, Belgium etc etc? If banning them doesn't stop terrorism and inviting them in doesn't stop terrorism then maybe the issue is more to do with the group rather than how they are being treated?



I would have thought that history (1400 years of watching the beliefs play out), sociology (how muslims have worked in modern societies legally, demographically, re tolerance etc depending on the Islamic proportions in the society), theology (studying their beliefs and religious motivations), psychology, cultural anthropology etc would all be relevant 'scientifically'.
Click to expand...

I'm not having a go at muslim. I'm having a go at the anti-islam politics.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
 
It's been a long time since I've seen any genuine morality out of anyone that identifies as a conservative or a christian but they want to lecture the rest of the world from a pseudo-moral position all the time based on imaginary past values and imaginary friends.
 
jackess said:
I'm not having a go at muslim. I'm having a go at the anti-islam politics.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

You said ...
jackess said:
Banning muslims is wrong morally as they are normal people
Click to expand...

The first bit was that I am suggesting that Muslims, KKK, One Nation supporters, Trumpians, BLM, Lions supporters, Collingwood supporters are all 'normal people' who have different outlooks and beliefs and offered you the option of letting me know where the line was if you were drawing one (ie Muslims are normal people but KKK are not because xxx).

then you said ...
jackess said:
banning them to reduce terrorism doesn't work based on research
Click to expand...

I will reframe the second bit to a less emotive group - The Saxons in England were under a lot of pressure from the Danes - if they paid them to go away they would but would just come back (old saying when you pay Danegeld (gold to the Dane - these days we call it extortion) you never get rid of the Dane), if you let them settle they would take the land you gave them, not look after it and continue to encroach into the next bit of land. In that phase the only solution to the problem of the Danes was to fight them or to submit to them.

You suggested that banning them doesn't help - I pointed out that letting them in works out worse for those who are not happy to submit.

Then you said
jackess said:
So not only is it morally wrong but it isn't backed up by any sort of scientific study.
Click to expand...

Here I ignored the assumption re morality and pointed out a range of scientific areas where traditional Islamic beliefs and practices can be seen to be incompatible with both traditional and modern Western civilisation.

People have no trouble being against many things and beliefs but somehow anyone being anti-Islam seems to be an exception ... which is strange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
990
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top