The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
JPRouve said:
People struggle with the idea that an election is only a moment in the political time. They don't seem to grasp the idea that the political time is infinite, all the people against Trump should make their voices and opinions heard while all the people who are for Trump should pay attention to what he does and make sure that he delivers his promises.
Click to expand...

Of course they should. But sadly, thats never been a strong suit of the right. Sure, they've made gains in the "free speech" stakes of late, but it's been mainly opportunistic (seizing their chance to hate on Islam and everything PC in the wake of liberal fannying) and they clearly haven't embraced it enough for it to apply to anyone they disagree with. I've already seen way more gloating, valedictory editorials/posts/tweets about a long coming liberal comeuppance (because, you know, that was way more important an issue than the plight of the poor, minorites or climate change) than I have sensible, magnanimous ones about their opponent's grudging right to protest.

Which again, brings me back to Obama and Trump's differing treatment of protesters. Which pretty much define their respective views on tollerance.

In fact, Obama's Presidency was one frequently waylaid by his naive willingness to compromise with a GOP zealously determined to undermine him. So with the tables turned, no liberal should feel any obligation to bow to the newly pious, cynical, false call for "unity" currently being proposed by the right.

feck them, and the candy floss rocking horse they rode in on.
 
Raoul said:
I think Trump is still fundamentally the old Trump he's always been in terms of policy. You don't live into your late 60s and go from moderate/liberal Republican NE views on most issues to being a right wing fringe lunatic. He only adopted those positions to get elected and he's said as much to journos off the record. He has what he wants and will now begin to gradually mean revert back to his actual political views.
Click to expand...

He's a narcissistic sociopath who will do whatever he can to boost his own inflated ego. Policies such as the wall, and his general immigration rhetoric, can be put down to winning votes but stuff like using the Bill Clinton accusers to try and bring down his opponent, and his general incompetence during the debates wasn't tactical or measured - it was the rambling decisions of a delusional but weirdly charismatic (to those who like him, at least) man who will do anything he can to secure more power. Believing he's actually alright also involves ignoring all those sexual assault allegations, and his general comments about women which kind of show his attitudes to those he feels he has more power than.

Maybe he will revert back to older views, and maybe Bill/Obama are already putting words in his ear to try and suggest that...but to think he said all the despicable shit he did during the election for the sake of gaining more votes alone involve ignoring the assessment many people around him have made...that he's a self-obsessed egomaniac who struggles to focus on anything for a long period of time.

I have no doubt he'll calm down on some stuff, purely because he'll be out on his arse if he doesn't, but I struggle to believe he's going to go from perhaps the most horrible Presidential candidate of all-time to being a liberal Republican. If that was even remotely his plan then Mike Pence wouldn't be his VP.
 
Raoul said:
Wouldn't surprise me given that staffers at the very beginning were told to help "Mr. Trump" finish a respectable 2nd in the Republican primaries. I don't think he anticipated doing better, but once he figured out he could, he went all in. I'd be surprised if he wants to go through another campaign as a 74 year old.
Click to expand...

No one voluntarily stops getting the daily brief and riding in AF1. They'd have to drag me off the plane kicking if I lost my reelection race.

I'll take what I perceive to be the safe side of the bet, and will commend you on your clairvoyance if you're right in 4 years.
 
Cheesy said:
It's the ultimate paradox of Trump supporting types. When they see that they believe their views have been marginalised by political correctness and that their voices aren't being heard and oppressed, what they really mean is that they don't like opposing opinions, and will do anything they can to achieve power and then shut out those same opinions in the exact same way they complain about people doing to them.

I mean...for all their complaints about safe spaces and liberal types not accepting or listening to opposing opinions (some of which may be true in a much, much more moderate sense than they suggest), things like Trump rallies, or Trump supporting forums/groups online are pretty much exactly the same thing: a place where they can go to bask in the comfort of their own views, unchallenged by anything they might disagree with.
Click to expand...

"For those accustomed to privilige, equality will always feel like oppression" pretty much sums a lot of it up. Much like Brexit, there was a palpable release of valedictory bitterness from those who felt the creeping liberal PC consensus was an invisible totalitarian regime of sorts, intent on stifling their ability to tell racist jokes to strangers in the pub without getting funny looks, or call Ched Evans a "legend" on Twitter without being called a prick by a "fat lesbo". And lo; they truly understood what oppression was. And the "biased liberal media" (of which the BBC was the only example they could name) would rue the day it kinda implied it was dickish to call someone "half-caste" or "******" or "chink"
 
How would the muslim ban work anyway? Do you get asked at the airport if you're a muslim or not? What about those who defected from Islam but they have islamic names and stuff?
 
syrian_scholes said:
How would the muslim ban work anyway? Do you get asked at the airport if you're a muslim or not? What about those who defected from Islam but they have islamic names and stuff?
Click to expand...

They've ditched the Muslim ban and are not planning on "extreme vetting".
 
Mockney said:
"For those accustomed to privilige, equality will always feel like oppression" pretty much sums a lot of it up. Much like Brexit, there was a palpable release of valedictory bitterness from those who felt the creeping liberal PC consensus was an invisible totalitarian regime of sorts, intent on stifling their ability to tell racist jokes to strangers in the pub without getting funny looks, or call Ched Evans a "legend" on Twitter without being called a prick by a "fat lesbo". And lo; they truly understood what oppression was. And the "biased liberal media" (of which the BBC was the only example they could name) would rue the day it kinda implied it was dickish to call someone "half-caste" or "******" or "chink"
Click to expand...

That is so offensive and you don't even realise.

There's a name for lumping a whole group of people together and deriding them.
 
Mockney said:
"For those accustomed to privilige, equality will always feel like oppression" pretty much sums a lot of it up. Much like Brexit, there was a palpable release of valedictory bitterness from those who felt the creeping liberal PC consensus was an invisible totalitarian regime of sorts, intent on stifling their ability to tell racist jokes to strangers in the pub without getting funny looks, or call Ched Evans a "legend" on Twitter without being called a prick by a "fat lesbo". And lo; they truly understood what oppression was. And the "biased liberal media" (of which the BBC was the only example they could name) would rue the day it kinda implied it was dickish to call someone "half-caste" or "******" or "chink"
Click to expand...
True words mockney.
 
syrian_scholes said:
How would the muslim ban work anyway? Do you get asked at the airport if you're a muslim or not? What about those who defected from Islam but they have islamic names and stuff?
Click to expand...

All of that Muslim ban talk is just populist bullshit which he spouted to get the votes he needed. In reality what it means IMO is much stricter requirements or a complete ban on refugees from conflict zones.
 
Giggs86 said:
All of that Muslim ban talk is just populist bullshit which he spouted to get the votes he needed. In reality what it means IMO is much stricter requirements or a complete ban on refugees from conflict zones.
Click to expand...
If he said a ban on refugees I would honestly understand, but you have muslims from all over the world, and there are atheist who had a muslim family/background ie which makes the whole thing stupid and the people who believed it even more stupid.
 
syrian_scholes said:
If he said a ban on refugees I would honestly understand, but you have muslims from all over the world, and there are atheist who had a muslim family/background ie which makes the whole thing stupid and the people who believed it even more stupid.
Click to expand...

He is apparently just doing enhanced or extreme vetting. Basically, people from high threat countries will either not be allowed in or allowed in after a few extra layers of vetting.
 
I'm more than willing to give Trump a chance, I'm just concerned about the carte blanche 'privilege' his more unsavoury supporters think they now have.

I much prefer the white supremacist weirdos stay in their homes playing dress up instead of directing abuse at minorities and homosexuals. It's not just them either, even the shy bigots will now think it's open season.
 
Raoul said:
He is apparently just doing enhanced or extreme vetting. Basically, people from high threat countries will either not be allowed in or allowed in after a few extra layers of vetting.
Click to expand...
Honest question, in the last couple of years I've been to Iraq and Iran for either work or family matters. I also have a Muslim sounding surname.

But I'm just a lowly software engineer with a British passport who would want to visit family in Michigan. How much of a red flag case would I be in the vetting process?
 
Kaos said:
I'm more than willing to give Trump a chance, I'm just concerned about the carte blanche 'privilege' his more unsavoury supporters think they now have.

I much prefer the white supremacist weirdos stay in their homes playing dress up instead of directing abuse at minorities and homosexuals. It's not just them either, even the shy bigots will now think it's open season.
Click to expand...

Most violence reported since the election has been directed at Trump voters not the other way around.
 
DFreshKing said:
That is so offensive and you don't even realise.
Click to expand...

Oh I do, I just also realize that the people it's supposedly 'offensive' towards, aren't actually a group with any justification to claim offense, let alone one with any idea what the term means in practice. Being called a dick, for being a dick, isn't prejudice. It's just being called a dick.

In much the same way that calling me a "righteous, pussy faced, sandal-wearing liberal snowflake" would engender absolutely no emotions (other than perhaps humour) in me whatsoever, my slings and arrows wouldn't actually offend anyone, unless they were deliberately trying to be offended in order to make a point. Partly because there's no historical prejudicial context whatsoever, but also since I'm merely insulting what they believe, and not what they are, and as such, it's really no more "offensive" than me calling your opinion on the current form of Jesse Lingard, the ramblings of a slack jawed dribbling shit haired imbecile. Which, however harsh, will never be something you can take to the hate crimes commission.

Then there's the obviously implicit catch 22 of claiming offense at someone being offensive towards a group whose entire agenda is their right to be more offensive. So you're either being incredibly dim, or you think you're being subversively clever, but in either case THAT'S THE POINT!


There's a name for lumping a whole group of people together and deriding them.
Click to expand...

A Pokemon master?
 
Last edited:
Kaos said:
Honest question, in the last couple of years I've been to Iraq and Iran for either work or family matters. I also have a Muslim sounding surname.

But I'm just a lowly software engineer with a British passport who would want to visit family in Michigan. How much of a red flag case would I be in the vetting process?
Click to expand...

Where are you on the scale?

family-guy-okay-not-okay-590x332.jpg
 
Kaos said:
Honest question, in the last couple of years I've been to Iraq and Iran for either work or family matters. I also have a Muslim sounding surname.

But I'm just a lowly software engineer with a British passport who would want to visit family in Michigan. How much of a red flag case would I be in the vetting process?
Click to expand...

:nervous:

You wouldn't have any problems. You may get a few more questions at passport control but just answer them honestly and you will be fine. Not dressing like Anjem Choudary will also expedite things a bit.
 
Mockney said:
Oh I do, I just also realize that the people it's supposedly 'offensive' towards, aren't actually a group with any justification to claim offense, let alone one with any idea what the term means in practice. Being called a dick, for being a dick, isn't the basis for revolution.

In much the same way that calling me a "righteous, pussy faced, sandal-wearing liberal snowflake" would engender absolutely no emotions (other than perhaps humour) in me whatsoever, my slings and arrows wouldn't actually offend anyone, unless they were deliberately trying to be offended in order to make a point. Partly because there's no historical prejudicial context whatsoever, but also since I'm merely insulting what they believe, and not what they are, and as such, it's really no more "offensive" than me calling your opinion on the current form of Jesse Lingard, the ramblings of a slack jawed dribbling shit haired imbecile. Which, however harsh, will never be something you can take to the hate crimes commission.

Then there's the obviously implicit catch 22 of claiming offense at someone being offensive towards a group whose entire agenda is their right to be more offensive. So you're either being incredibly dim, or you think you're being subversively clever, but in either case THAT'S THE POINT!




A Pokemon master?
Click to expand...


What a load of crap. You have no idea what their views are and there is no justification for insulting anyone, whatever you think.

Self loathing doesn't give you the right to loathe others either. :-)

Crying foul about abusive people while hurling abuse yourself just shows complete hypocrisy, my main bugbear.
 
Raoul said:
:nervous:

You wouldn't have any problems. You may get a few more questions at passport control but just answer them honestly and you will be fine. Not dressing like Anjem Choudary will also expedite things a bit.
Click to expand...
Excellent, thanks.

Not sure about answering honestly though :nervous:
 
Mockney said:
Oh I do, I just also realize that the people it's supposedly 'offensive' towards, aren't actually a group with any justification to claim offense, let alone one with any idea what the term means in practice. Being called a dick, for being a dick, isn't prejudice. It's just being called a dick.

In much the same way that calling me a "righteous, pussy faced, sandal-wearing liberal snowflake" would engender absolutely no emotions (other than perhaps humour) in me whatsoever, my slings and arrows wouldn't actually offend anyone, unless they were deliberately trying to be offended in order to make a point. Partly because there's no historical prejudicial context whatsoever, but also since I'm merely insulting what they believe, and not what they are, and as such, it's really no more "offensive" than me calling your opinion on the current form of Jesse Lingard, the ramblings of a slack jawed dribbling shit haired imbecile. Which, however harsh, will never be something you can take to the hate crimes commission.

Then there's the obviously implicit catch 22 of claiming offense at someone being offensive towards a group whose entire agenda is their right to be more offensive. So you're either being incredibly dim, or you think you're being subversively clever, but in either case THAT'S THE POINT!




A Pokemon master?
Click to expand...


What in the feck of feck
 
Kaos said:
:lol:

3rd on the 'Okay' spectrum, so I'm good to go?
Click to expand...

A-ok.

Seriously though, American border control is already a bitch anyway (have you been before?) and I imagine those stamps alone would cause a bit of a headache as it stands. A Muslim friend of mine was reduced to tears in a two hour long interview on trying to gain entry and about 2 seconds of a chat with him that he's about as dangerous as a paper bag.

DFreshKing said:
What a load of crap. You have no idea what their views are and there is no justification for insulting anyone, whatever you think.

Self loathing doesn't give you the right to loathe others either. :-)

Crying foul about abusive people while hurling abuse yourself just shows complete hypocrisy, my main bugbear.
Click to expand...

You're spectacularly missing his point whilst competently proving his btw.
 
NinjaFletch said:
A-ok.

Seriously though, American border control is already a bitch anyway (have you been before?) and I imagine those stamps alone would cause a bit of a headache as it stands. A Muslim friend of mine was reduced to tears in a two hour long interview on trying to gain entry and about 2 seconds of a chat with him that he's about as dangerous as a paper bag.



You're spectacularly missing his point whilst competently proving his btw.
Click to expand...

Care to explain?
 
DFreshKing said:
That is so offensive and you don't even realise.

There's a name for lumping a whole group of people together and deriding them.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure who you think he is lumping together. How he defines the group and what he's deriding them for seems to be the same: people who have had the privilege to never be discriminated against feeling threatened by people trying to curb their ability to discriminate.

There is no special name for that as far as I know. It's pretty standard policy, for example you wouldn't say it's racist to dislike racists for being racist nor is it an unfair generalisation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.