2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Amerika

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How many electors do those areas have though?

Don’t know off hand. But take California. Those little areas in the state dictate how their 55 electoral votes go.

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

Islam will not be banned in the US.

I guess you find Europe fascist given the deal the EU made with Turkey.

The EU allowed in many terrorists in 2015 with uncontrolled immigration from countries with phenomenal terrorist problems.

We have to see what Trump actually does. There are many good reasons for severe restrictions on immigration from countries with such a huge terrorist problem.
Strangely the countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who fund so much of the terrorism have not been leading in taking in immigrants.

You never addressed a company telling it's employees to resign if they voted for Trump.

Trump wants to ban muslims from entering the US.
What a boss says to his employees is of little concern in the bigger picture.

Christy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No religion is banned from the US, but a CEO is firing people for their political beliefs in the name of "tolerance"

That's f**ked up.

Indeed it is. Thankfully it did not happen. At no point did he fire them.

I don't agree with what he said and he is a douche. He is not that much of a douche and this is pure hyperbole.

Amerika

TheOven wrote: »

You mean the areas with the largest population and pay the most in taxes get less of a say and the rural areas can harm the nation as spite towards the urban areas.

Or as we say in my state (who live outside of Philadelphia), the place that get the lion’s share of the taxes we pay so they can live a better life, less costly, and have better programs and services then the rest of us.

26000 Elephants

RobertKK wrote: »

These problems are in the backyard of the Saudis in the middle east, too busy funding the Clintons perhaps pay for play foundation, rather than help people close to them.

Who voted to put the Saudis on the UN human rights council?

Maybe you could ask Trump - The Saudi UN delegate lives in the 45th floor of trump tower - they are his neighbors. He didnt seem to have too much of a conflict of conscience in accepting their $4.5m for the pad. Or the $5m they have paid him since.

Help people close to them indeed.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Those little areas in the state dictate how their 55 electoral votes go.

More accurately, the voters in those little areas dictate how the electoral votes go. I'm not sure why this is a problem.

Jawgap

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No religion is banned from the US, but a CEO is firing people for their political beliefs in the name of "tolerance"

That's f**ked up.

oh right......we should take his anti-Trump words literally, but we should interpret Trump's words figuratively......?

......glad that's been sorted out.

20Cent

Jawgap wrote: »

oh right......we should take his anti-Trump words literally, but we should interpret Trump's words figuratively......?

......glad that's been sorted out.

He's the boss, can do what he wants.

Expect less employee protection, less union power, less regulation that protects you. Fire people for their sexuality etc etc
Kiss your healthcare goodbye if you got it on Obamacare.

Thought thats what right wingers want?

Enjoy trumpland.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Islam will not be banned in the US.

I guess you find Europe fascist given the deal the EU made with Turkey.

The EU allowed in many terrorists in 2015 with uncontrolled immigration from countries with phenomenal terrorist problems.

We have to see what Trump actually does. There are many good reasons for severe restrictions on immigration from countries with such a huge terrorist problem.
Strangely the countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who fund so much of the terrorism have not been leading in taking in immigrants.

You never addressed a company telling it's employees to resign if they voted for Trump.

What terrorists are you talking about entering Europe in 2015? Because EUROPOL, who presumably have their finger on this issue said this in July:

there is no concrete evidence to date that terrorist travellers systematically use the flow of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed.

Where is the evidence of 'phenomenal terrorist problems' on the back of the refugees that entered europe?

The immigrant population of Saudi amounts to a third of the population.
The immigrant population of Qatar amounts to 90% of the population.

CMOTDibbler

I do like this one

RobertKK

20Cent wrote: »

Trump wants to ban muslims from entering the US.
What a boss says to his employees is of little concern in the bigger picture.

The Grubhub CEO had to backtrack after a backlash for the email saying his original email was misconstrued, but he had associated voting for Trump as hate politics.
He only backtracked as #BoycottGrubhub was trending on twitter.

B0jangles

Terrible to see free speech being silenced by mob rule, isn't it Robert?

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The CEO of Grubhub sent an email to employees saying that basically said people who voted for Trump voted for hateful politics, and anyone who works for Grubhub and voted for hateful politics should send in their resignation.
The Grubhub CEO said he stood for tolerance :pac:

...

The question is, who are the fascists here?
One company criticising it's employees who voted for Trump and saying they should resign.

I've read the letter to employees. He says nothing about Trump voters. He says nothing about employees who voted for Trump. I'd have to say that you're either making stuff up, or took the word of someone else's misinterpretation of the letter. Either way - you're making a straw man argument.

rob316

The amount of people I have heard discussing Trump who can't understand the difference between Nationalism and Fascism is frightening.

alastair

rob316 wrote: »

The amount of people I have heard discussing Trump who can't understand the difference between Nationalism and Fascism is frightening.

Trump is neither a Nationalist or a Fascist.
He's a windbag without any consistency or substance.

Thankfully that's now a redeeming feature of his.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

More accurately, the voters in those little areas dictate how the electoral votes go. I'm not sure why this is a problem.

It isn't. However that state decides to assign their electoral votes is their prerogative.

aloyisious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But its the deflection.

The response to the protests is "oh it would have been worse IF Trump lost."

Trump didn't lose so its a moot point.

IMO, it's not a deflection to point out that there was an armed group of Trump supporters threatening to take to the streets with their legally-owned weapons should they hear he lost the election. To me that threat is a clear and present danger to the public in general, to law enforcement officers and specifically as close to a threat of armed insurrection against the US body politic. It's possible they heard what Don said months ago now about the 2nd amendment and people with legally held fire-arms while he was addressing one of his rallies telling them that Hillary had plans to harm their rights under that amendment by changing it. All pure poppycock as it takes an amendment referendum or USSC judgement TTE the 2nd was contrary to the constitution, something NOT likely to happen in their lifetime but it's very pertinent (using a quote from an Irish politician) to remember that they haven't gone away you know.

I don't recall seeing or hearing anything from Don supporters or any other source that there was a group of Hillary supporters making similar threats against the public good, Don or his supporters.

aloyisious

rob316 wrote: »

The amount of people I have heard discussing Trump who can't understand the difference between Nationalism and Fascism is frightening.

OK; I'll bite. Are you referring to him and his supporters, or his opponents, or both? Or are you being gently sarcastic

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

The Grubhub CEO had to backtrack after a backlash for the email saying his original email was misconstrued, but he had associated voting for Trump as hate politics.
He only backtracked as #BoycottGrubhub was trending on twitter.

Got a link to the email?

20Cent

Newt Gingrich calling for a house un American committee like McCarthy had.

Trumpland 2016 freedom.

Billy86

20Cent wrote: »

Got a link to the email?

Here you go, strange how Robert forgot certain parts - particularly the last sentence... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101632817&postcount=8264

TheOven

Billy86 wrote: »

Here you go, strange how Robert forgot certain parts - particularly the last sentence.

And people try to claim Trump was taken out of context...

Akrasia

alastair wrote: »

Trump is neither a Nationalist or a Fascist.
He's a windbag without any consistency or substance.

Thankfully that's now a redeeming feature of his.

He's more than a windbag, he's a narcissist, a sociopath. His loyalties are to himself only. He values people only based on what they can do for him.

Trump is very gracious in victory. But it's very easy to be gracious in victory. What is he like in defeat? He said it himself, he would not have accepted the results, he would have declared himself the winner in a rigged system and then went on feathering his next from the campaign he ran to become president.

Trump was defeated numerous times during the primaries. Here's what he said after he lost in Wisconsin to Ted Cruz

Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet -- he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.

He refuses to accept defeat, and instead attacks his opponents. Imagine the consequences when he gets into a diplomatic war, escalating into a trade war, with sanctions and finally military engagement... it could be against anyone, mexico, cuba, china, russia, france, the eu, Ireland... anyone who doesn't bow down to him and treat him with the respect he thinks he deserves.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Got a link to the email?

Here you go...

http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Inclusion-and-Tolerance-in-the-Workplace/default.aspx?platform=hootsuite

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

It isn't. However that state decides to assign their electoral votes is their prerogative.

Amerika , might I ask do you accept Climate Change ? just curious

FatherTed

Billy86 wrote: »

As one of the more active Trump supporters (or in your case, anti-Clinton advocates I guess is more accurate! ), thanks for giving a fairly detailed and direct answer. I waited for the reply to see if any other Trump fans knew what they wanted from him as president, I'll post that again in a few hours in case some missed it as unless I missed any, you were the only one to do so.



My issue with the illegal immigrants idea is less to do with the humanitarian aspect which will always be divisive, but more of a pragmatic one - a lot of these people work in skilled roles, and so like-for-like replacement is not going to be a realistic option quite regularly. Furthermore, while I understand the issue regarding how illegal immigrants impact wages, getting rid of them all ASAP rather than over a longer period of time present a big problem, as companies then have to pay their staff substantially more or so bust, which can have a knock of effect. Take construction for example, known to have a larger level of illegals than both - if a company is in the process of doing a renovation job/extension/etc let's say to a restaurant, but all of a sudden lose a chunk of their workforce (illegals), they either go bust or have to pay new (legal) staff significantly more. Now 'fair enough, tough on them' you might say - but the issue then becomes what happens in either scenario?

In the first where they go bust, their legal workforce are also left out of a job which means where you had let's say 15 members of staff plus the owner, 11 of whom were legal and 4 illegal, you lose anywhere from 12-16 sources of income tax (many illegals do pay taxes) and replace it with 12 people on welfare, which is clearly a large net loss when multiplied out across the country.

In the second instance where they replace their illegal staff with legal staff, they then either go bust anyway or have to significantly increase the cost of their services in order to stay afloat. Before getting into the issue of how affordable (or unaffordable) this becomes for those needing construction jobs done, it also creates the issue... what about the cafe/restaurant? They're left with a half complete job that they cannot afford to have finished, which is a major problem for a business that could threaten the jobs of all the people working their also if they cannot afford to pay the increased amount. On top of that, service industries like that also have a high number of illegals, so if they had a few they would also need to replace them all with legal staff, thus making it harder again for them to keep afloat before even factoring that in. Either the construction company or the restaurant going bust is very likely to cause the other to do so as well, doubling the impact of creating a dangerous domino effect. Either way, they are very likely going to need to pass this increased cost on to the customer which leads to a lot of complaints about the cost of living compared to wages and so on.

I don't necessarily mind someone saying to get rid of 10.9mn illegal immigrants (8.3mn in work from what I have read), so much as I think looking to do so in the space of four years or less is a very dangerous proposition in my opinion, economically speaking. The quite likely end result of this is getting rid of around 8.3mn illegals, and putting many more millions of jobs (on top of those 8.3mn) in very serious jeopardy in order to do so. A net loss of jobs like that in such a short time would be incredibly economically crippling.

Here is an interesting piece on how an Alabama law forced farms not to use illegals. The American replacements weren't up to the job:
http://www.vice.com/video/watch-our-hbo-episode-about-alabamas-harsh-anti-immigration-laws

Obama deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants so is Trump just going to continue this policy at the same or slightly increased rate or is he going to deport all 11 million illegals with his deportation force as he promised?

The other part to this is Trump said he would deport illegals and then allow the "good ones" back in legally. He never provided specifics on how this would work. But Obama's executive order to grant amnesty for millions of illegals was blocked by the states and the Supreme Court so how much better is Trump's method? Obama's would have allowed the same "good ones" to be granted amnesty with much less disruption and likely less cost.

aloyisious

Either there are two different people using Don;s twitter account, or he's changing course as needed upon mature reflection, or some-one is telling porkies to the media. RTE Drive-time news reported that after Don's twitter account had him unhappy with the protesters on the streets last night, there's another tweet on his account praising the protesters (for upholding their rights). It's possible a message or twp got muddled in translation will be the response if the difference between the tweets is asked of the Don camp.

oscarBravo

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika , might I ask do you accept Climate Change ? just curious

He's answered that before. In short: the climate may be changing, but there's nothing we can do about it, and why should we do anything anyway because the Chinese might not, so let's just do nothing because that makes the most sense.

aloyisious

FatherTed wrote: »

Here is an interesting piece on how an Alabama law forced farms not to use illegals. The American replacements weren't up to the job:
http://www.vice.com/video/watch-our-hbo-episode-about-alabamas-harsh-anti-immigration-laws

Obama deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants so is Trump just going to continue this policy at the same or slightly increased rate or is he going to deport all 11 million illegals with his deportation force as he promised?

The other part to this is Trump said he would deport illegals and then allow the "good ones" back in legally. He never provided specifics on how this would work. But Obama's executive order to grant amnesty for millions of illegals was blocked by the states and the Supreme Court so how much better is Trump's method? Obama's would have allowed the same "good ones" to be granted amnesty with much less disruption and likely less cost.

Not forgetting how he said that for a repeat offence of illegally crossing the border, he would give the offender a year in jail and deport, For another offence, two years and deport, for another offence after that, five years in prison and deport. I'm still bemused at how he thinks this is good value for money, providing free board and lodging for extended periods after closing down the asylum camps in some cities to save money and expel the illegals.

Manic Moran

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that some questions are legitimate, and that other questions are to be placed in a special category and deemed illegitimate? Because, if you are, that, I'm afraid, is a thought process which, if taken to its logical conclusion, ends in fascism.

Not legitimate as in 'has no moral value', but as in 'the question is based on a questionably inappropriate perspective.' Asking the question "how democratic is it" implies to me that the standard is supposed to be a democracy to begin with. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's a democracy or intended to be one. No historian or political scientist has ever defined it as a democracy, but is a federated representative republic. If the founders of the country wanted a single-body democracy, they'd have made one. The question is really attacking the nature of the country itself, not the electoral process.

Hank Scorpio

20Cent wrote: »

Thought thats what right wingers want?

I plead the fifth.

On a serious note, I'd imagine most are fed up of the corruption.

Trump may or may not be corrupt when he gets swore in, but people know exactly what they are getting with, with one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika , might I ask do you accept Climate Change ? just curious

Of course!. The climate has been in a state of constant change for millions of years.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Of course!. The climate has been in a state of constant change for millions of years.

Yes, it has.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

He's answered that before. In short: the climate may be changing, but there's nothing we can do about it, and why should we do anything anyway because the Chinese might not, so let's just do nothing because that makes the most sense.

Not quite right, but basically.... yeah. But I am for protecting things like rain forests, and for clean air and water. But no, I do not believe in bankrupting nations and forcing people to live lesser qualities of life for something that will do basically nothing to reduce climate change, and the international scam of forced transfer of wealth from one nation to another.

Overheal

I expect that now that he's won, some degree of Stockholm Syndrome will kick in. With Trump's ambiguous stance on everything, and his bat**** crazy rhetoric and penchant for throwing tantrums 140 characters at a time, people who disagree with him will really not have much choice but to hope their captor has some degree of benevolence and won't just jump in and start ripping out Jenga blocks at random.

Given he's already quickly dispelled the illusion that he would 'drain the swamp', one can only anticipate what other campaign rhetoric he will now backtrack on.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-transition-drain-the-swamp/index.html

Washington (CNN)To shape his administration, President-elect Donald Trump is drawing squarely from the "swamp" he has pledged to drain.

Trump's transition team is staffed with long-time Washington experts and lobbyists from K Street, think tanks and political offices.
It's a far cry from Trump's campaign, which ended only Tuesday night, and message that he would "drain the swamp" in Washington. He has advocated congressional term limits and proposed a "five-point plan for ethics reform" that included strengthening restrictions on lobbying, including five-year bans for members and staff of the executive branch and Congress from lobbying, and expanding the definition of lobbyist to prevent more revolving door activity.
But he has so far fully embraced lobbyists within his transition, and all signs point to a heavy influence from longtime Washington Republican circles on his transition. And with Trump mostly skipping detailed policy proposals during his campaign, they can have a powerful impact on his agenda.

Hank Scorpio

Isn't Kellyanne Conway offered a place in the cabinet?

I don't see it mentioned in that CNN article.

https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/796757702995308548

Overheal

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Isn't Kellyanne Conway offered a place in the cabinet?

I don't see it mentioned in that CNN article.

https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/796757702995308548

Press Secretary perhaps? Ultimately we have to see who is announced but I'm not against holding his feet to the fire on this. He is not the first person to claim to want to "Drain the Swamp" and come up miserably short.

20Cent

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I plead the fifth.

On a serious note, I'd imagine most are fed up of the corruption.

Trump may or may not be corrupt when he gets swore in, but people know exactly what they are getting with, with one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

By hIs cabinet and staff pick as reported l look ready to turn the USA into their own personal ATM machine. He railed against lobbyists while campaigning yet will fill his gov with them. Lube up well.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, it has.

Years ago I bought into all the expert warnings about how the oceans would rise to unprecedented levels... and bought my house on the mountain because of the promise that I’d have beachfront property by now. Still waiting.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Press Secretary perhaps? Ultimately we have to see who is announced but I'm not against holding his feet to the fire on this. He is not the first person to claim to want to "Drain the Swamp" and come up miserably short.

I think the job of Press Secretary should go to Ann Coulter.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I think the job of Press Secretary should go to Ann Coulter.

I think I just vomited in my mouth a little. That closet Nazi is the last person.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Of course!. The climate has been in a state of constant change for millions of years.

You are a fan of Asimov and you give an answer like that ? I take it from your posts you are like myself a ' certain age ' so our race is effectively run , but how anyone with kids and grandkids can think like that is really beyond me .

I can only hope President -elect Trump looks at his young son and gets a glimpse of his future .

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

But no, I do not believe in bankrupting nations and forcing people to live lesser qualities of life for something that will do basically nothing to reduce climate change...

Oh, there's nothing that can be done? Fair enough, let's carry on destroying the world, so.

Out of curiosity: when the vast, vast majority of people whose job it is to study climate change for a living agree that we can, in fact, do something about it - on what basis do you decide that they are wrong?

Sofa Spud

26000 Elephants wrote: »

If Trump is the cure, I think the disease is starting to look very attractive.

I applaud your well written piece, you do get in to the why's and wherefores of his election. But do you not think that many countries have been here before? The 'disease' that is identified and needs curing? The demagogue who arrives claiming to have that cure? But the cure ends up causing more suffering for those who were convinced they were afflicted.

Trumps election was built upon a tissue of lies, false rumours, invective and an unrelenting campaign to paint the opponent as a criminal. And as for the Hoover-esque intervention of Comey - I can guarantee that will be the subject of a congressional committee in the future. All the while several questions about his own history went unanswered. A multi billionaire who resonated with the working classes. The anti establishment hero who then proceeds to stock his cabinet with establishment die-hards from the world of finance.

And a look like a rabbit caught in the headlights when he enters the White House.

I think Johnnie Rotten said it best

Yeah, I think that's possibly taking the disease metaphor a bit too far. Totally get your historical reference to 'disease' - that wasn't really what I meant.

My point was that we have tended to see Trump simply in terms of a lunatic narcissist that was driven by the alt:right media and followed by idiots incapable of critical thought. That view was driven by a liberal media that fed that perception - completely, or almost completely, ignoring the fact that he spoke directly to a large proportion of the population that really needed to feel that they finally have someone that takes them seriously and is willing to fight for them.

The liberal media has created a degree of self-righteousness where they can ignore a large proportion of the population as they are contemptuous of their views and they literally (watch any late night show, Daily Show, Saturday Night Live) laugh at them. A lot of them get their news from facebook, which is driven by algorithms that push news from sources they've looked at or liked before, and articles that their friends have read and liked, so their bubble is no different to the Alex Jones/O'Reilly/Breitbart or Drudge Report brigade. It's that level of separation that drove a lot of passion on the Trump side - it's not the only factor by far, but it's a sizeable factor in driving his supporters to want to shout a big 'F&@k You' to the rest...

So by saying Trump was maybe the 'cure', I meant that his elevation could, possibly, shake the liberals out of their complacency and possibly help them to realise that their view of the world may not be as righteous or better than they would like to believe. They need to return to a point where being liberal - and this is my strong conviction - is about being open to all sides and then formulating beliefs, having considered all points of view and not just having beliefs handed to them via their 'bubble' media or social media.

More importantly, they need to realise that the bubble they created played a significant role - maybe not as much as the crazies on the alt:right media - but they none the less played a role in giving his campaign the oxygen it needed to get him to the White House.

That's what I meant by the cure.
No nasty historical reference - just thinking that the absolutely insane thought of President Trump is now a reality that was driven by both sides of the media and political divide. Liberals have to face the fact that they are part of the political discourse, and just because they feel that they are right, because they think about it a lot and discuss it and read about it and watch cool documentaries and subscribe to worthy causes doesn't make them sole possessors of truth and the right way.

But they are just a guilty of living in a self-delusional bubble as the right....

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

So, because we've had ice ages and warm periods in the past, it's OK to wilfully bugger up the climate now?

Years ago I bought into all the expert warnings about how the oceans would rise to unprecedented levels... and bought my house on the mountain because of the promise that I’d have beachfront property by now. Still waiting.

You've said that before. I asked you then who predicted beachfront property in the mountains, and you didn't answer. Maybe you will this time?

Overheal wrote: »

I think I just vomited in my mouth a little. That closet Nazi is the last person.

...closet...?

KingBrian2

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Yeah, I think that's possibly taking the disease metaphor a bit too far. Totally get your historical reference to 'disease' - that wasn't really what I meant.

My point was simply that we have tended to see Trump simply in terms of a lunatic narcissist that was driven by the alt:right media and followed by idiots incapable of critical thought. That view was driven by a liberal media that fed that perception - completely, or almost completely, ignoring the fact that he spoke directly to a large proportion of the population that really needed to feel that they finally have someone that takes them seriously and is willing to fight for them.

The liberal media has created a degree of self-righteousness where they can ignore a large proportion of the population as they are contemptuous of their views and they literally (watch any late night show, Daily Show, Saturday Night Live) laugh at them. A lot of them get their news from facebook, which is driven by algorithms that push news from sources they've looked at or liked before, and articles that their friends have read and liked, so their bubble is no different to the Alex Jones/O'Reilly/Breitbart or Drudge Report brigade. It's that level of separation that drove a lot of passion on the Trump side - it's not the only factor by far, but it's a sizeable factor in driving his supporters to want to shout a big 'F&@k You' to the rest...

So by saying Trump was maybe the 'cure', I meant that his elevation could, possibly, shake the liberals out of their complacency and possibly help them to realise that their view of the world may not be as righteous or better than they would like to believe. They need to return to a point where being liberal - and this is my strong conviction - is about being open to all sides and then formulating beliefs, having considered all points of view and not just having beliefs handed to them via their 'bubble' media or social media.

More importantly, they need to realise that the bubble they created played a significant role - maybe not as much as the crazies on the alt:right media - but they none the less played a role in giving his campaign the oxygen it needed to get him to the White House.

That's what I meant by the cure.
No nasty historical reference - just thinking that the absolutely insane thought of President Trump is now a reality that was driven by both sides of the media and political divide. Liberals have to face the fact that they are part of the political discourse, and just because they feel that they are right, because they think about it a lot and discuss it and read about it and watch cool documentaries and subscribe to worthy causes doesn't make them sole possessors of truth and the right way.

But they are just a guilty of living in a self-delusional bubble as the right....

Trump has just burst that bubble and the Markets did not go into freefall. We see volatility picking us yes the likely sufferers in the long term will be the media industry that for years were playing to a certain crowd.

oscarBravo

Sofa Spud wrote: »

So by saying Trump was maybe the 'cure', I meant that his elevation could, possibly, shake the liberals out of their complacency and possibly help them to realise that their view of the world may not be as righteous or better than they would like to believe. They need to return to a point where being liberal - and this is my strong conviction - is about being open to all sides and then formulating beliefs, having considered all points of view and not just having beliefs handed to them via their 'bubble' media or social media.

Here's the thing: being liberal, for me, means not denying people their rights because of their skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation.

If someone believes that it's OK to be a prick to someone because they're black, or female, or gay, then that person is wrong. I don't need to be shaken out of that complacent worldview; I don't feel the need to be open to the idea that someone is inherently more worthy because they are a straight white male.

I also don't need a social media bubble to tell me to treat people like human beings.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

You are a fan of Asimov and you give an answer like that ? I take it from your posts you are like myself a ' certain age ' so our race is effectively run , but how anyone with kids and grandkids can think like that is really beyond me .

I can only hope President -elect Trump looks at his young son and gets a glimpse of his future .

I am thinking of future generations.

I guess it’s a good thing for me Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected president, or soon I might be arrested and fined for my views.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

I can only hope President -elect Trump looks at his young son and gets a glimpse of his future.

The only thing such a glimpse would do would be to get Barron a ticket to Elysium.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've said that before. I asked you then who predicted beachfront property in the mountains, and you didn't answer. Maybe you will this time?

I thought I answered that before... I take it you've seen Al Gore's ‘An Inconvenient Truth?’

http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/