Jump to content

Its gonna be President Trump ..!!! ??

Mick Mac

By Mick Mac
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

DaveR

DaveR

Posted
Posted
Talk of 'fault' presupposes that a wrong has been done, when what has actually happened is an unexpected result from a democratic process, but of a type that people on the other side of it cannot accept it as rational, and therefore legitimate. And I understand that, because tbh that was my instinctive reaction to both the Brexit vote and Trump's win. But talking about fault is pointless, because it doesn't offer any way forward, or even any useful analysis of the past. The time for catharsis is past (about Brexit at least), and Trump is such an inconsistent, contrary and improbable character to be US president that there's no predicting what might happen, and therefore what we may be seeking to blame people for. The wider Republican party are already beginning to outline a fairly conventional program that might be disagreed with but is not batshit crazy, and also includes some public spending policies that look suspiciously like 'anti-austerity'. And the chances of President Trump putting some of his more extreme promises into action already look like zero, or close to.
DulwichFox

DulwichFox

Posted
Posted

Trump seems to be expressing an Autocratic view on Abortion.. stating he is Pro Life.


Well I'm not sure that is for him to decide. It is something that will always create debate.

..and I'm sure it will.


As for ME. It's a Womans right to choose.


DulwichFox

Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rants have ripples, Rahrah. And yours have sunk

> me.


POUS - you're right off course - tribalism isn't helpful. I wouldn't usually talk about 'the left' or 'the right' as though either is anything more than hugely reductionist and simplistic. But when people start couching their arguments in those terms (and whilst I'm still hugely pissed off) it's hard to not to say 'feck it let's play that game then'. It is childish, it is just ranting and no, it doesn't move us forward. But anger is part of he grieving process, so let me get it out of my system. I promise I'll move on to acceptance in time and start being a bit more rational. ;-)

Jules-and-Boo

Jules-and-Boo

Posted
Posted

Divide and Conquer - springs to mind.


If we let this become separationalism within or of society, we're letting the politicians win - and we know better than that.


I would suggest teaching tolerance at home to your children, seeing if you can influence the community positively. Breathe in hate - breathe out tolerance.


Otherwise, we all lose.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> If you are on the right of centre, claim your ground back.


I'm not - I'm a centrist. If you want to push it further, economically centre-right and socially centre-left.


> The only way we're going to get out of this is if we starting listening to each other.


Yep. Exactly what I've been saying.

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

I disagree with most of this (too many thesauruses and philosophy textbooks, no doubt).


Mainly because I do not see ameliorism as a credible strategy here. There was no point aiming for this in, say, the early 1930s. Of course, the MAJORITY of people then did feel this was what might save us (and they were wrong). It is absolutely the right response in normal times (those times when people are willing to adjust to good argument). But now (as then), the issue is whether or not this is a phase change (like water switching from liquid to boiling). I believe we now have boiling. So only discursive (I cannot countenance any other) attack seems appropriate. Of course this may be self-fulfilling: the human ship may well sink.

uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted
As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out- it is the poor that suffer most under uncontrolled immigration (since they do not own their own homes for a start)- so 'the left' have actually disadvantaged their own historical supporters. It is easy to be idealistic and altruistic when you are sitting pretty.....and you have all the vocabulary to dictate to the dispossessed how they should think and act.
miga

miga

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out- it is

> the poor that suffer most under uncontrolled

> immigration (since they do not own their own homes

> for a start)- so 'the left' have actually

> disadvantaged their own historical supporters. It

> is easy to be idealistic and altruistic when you

> are sitting pretty.....and you have all the

> vocabulary to dictate to the dispossessed how they

> should think and act.


I agree with this, in a way. There's a crossover between what Trump/Farage have offered and a traditional Labour or left position. Protecting working class jobs, putting some barriers up on trade, pulling out of silly wars, "draining the swamp" etc.; these are all things that have been forgotten about by the working class parties. They're extremely unlikely to get any of these things back under Trump, but he's taken up that space very successfully.


I think it also shows that the battles around identity politics are totally irrelevant to most people. Think of the reams and reams of paper printed up with stories about transgender rights, Greer's no-platforming, everyday sexism etc. as if those were the burning issues of the day. If I was some unemployed Texan in a former steel mill town, or a resident of Sunderland, I'd gaze upon this as if it was news from another planet.

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted
Well here is another one from my sociology textbook (I just can't help it). Whilst I'm sure the Archbishop (if he said it) would not fall into the trap, as with the Victorians the category 'the poor' may be recruited in ways that make people who are disadvantaged in many different dimensions seem a single entity. This may then be used to justify the status-quo - after all, if they exist as-such then they can be tarred with some single explanation of why they are poor; and the multiple circumstances of disadvantage (many to do with past government policies and future ones like grammar schools) can then be safely ignored.
uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted

This is the Guardian version of Justin Welby's comments

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/justin-welby-immigration-unwanted-friends-archbishop-canterbury


Theresa May has said similar

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-some-company-bosses-believe-i-am-anti-business-a7417241.html

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

I got flamed for being a cosmopolitan-liberal Guardian reader earlier so I think I might steer clear of engaging with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Don't think I can compete somehow. Except that it is a thoughtful article, highlighting the perils of being misread :-).


My post was only about the dangers of the category 'poor' that you used, not about immigration. And the word itself is perfectly useful; just not good as a classification. I get a lot of flack for using esoteric language; but sometimes it seems to me to be the most familiar words that are the most problematic. (yes of course DaveR can then say this sentence literally makes no sense - because the familiar words are the ones that are self-evident).


As for May, her view is that a 'citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere' - here I strongly suspect, however unintentionally, she has managed to align herself with Trump.

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out- it is

> the poor that suffer most under uncontrolled

> immigration


Though, as the article you kindly shared makes quite clear, in the same speech he said that the solution for this was for the government to target help to affected communities, not to take fewer refugees - in fact he called for the UK to take more asylum seekers.

Jenny1

Jenny1

Posted
Posted

I'm sure many of you will have already seen this video of Irish Senator (and former Equality Minister) Aodhan O'Riordain. According to The Times this morning it has now been viewed 3.5 million times in the US after being posted on Facebook. Carried here by the Irish Independent.


http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/must-watch-aodhn-oriordins-passionate-speech-regarding-the-governments-reaction-to-trumps-victory-35207187.html

uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted
I remember when 9/11 happened. there were not a few people who expressed the view that the Americans deserved it for all the funds that they gave to NorAid! I wonder if the 3.5 million who viewed Aodhan O'Riordain's speech were those who donated.
????

????

Posted
Posted

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is not one person's 'virtue signalling', another

> person's 'telling the truth'?



What is happening in the UK is appalling.....truth? Is Donald Trump a fascist? - all pretty right on, easy opinions to hold to demonstrate how 'good' you are...... I saw this as it was shared by a zillion of my 'right on' friends but actually, what is he contributing to anything other than how worthy his opinions are? Bugger all other than that....other than a dislike of democracy I guess

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...