A general thread to discuss Trump

[Loz]

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It is easy, with so much craziness, to almost

> > become immune to it.

>

> That is exactly right, and why we should keep

> posting and (where appropriate) re-threading.

I think quite the opposite. People tire quickly of news. If it's sharp and relevant, they'll stay interested. If you post and repost any old crap, their attention will go somewhere else.

My Facebook timeline is currently such a full on trump-dump that I gloss over it. The lowlight of this week was the video from someone with way too much time on his hands that wrote and recorded a song about the idiot who made the 'Bowling Green Massacre' gaffe. Suffice to say, I didn't watch it. Life's too short for that kind of crap.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I e found it particularly galling to see how

> quickly politicians have fallen in behind Trump

> (especially those on the right). Often politicians

> that generally I respect, or would have expected

> to speak out more. This article puts it well

> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-lies-belief-totalitarianism?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Here's another interesting one - how the liberal (American usage) tech companies in California, although natively anti-Trump, are finding themselves heading toward a bizarre symbiotic relationship with him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38866023

[jaywalker]

Loz Wrote:

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

> jaywalker Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > It is easy, with so much craziness, to almost

> > > become immune to it.

> >

> > That is exactly right, and why we should keep

> > posting and (where appropriate) re-threading.

>

> I think quite the opposite. People tire quickly

> of news. If it's sharp and relevant, they'll stay

> interested. If you post and repost any old crap,

> their attention will go somewhere else.

>

> My Facebook timeline is currently such a full on

> trump-dump that I gloss over it. The lowlight of

> this week was the video from someone with way too

> much time on his hands that wrote and recorded a

> song about the idiot who made the 'Bowling Green

> Massacre' gaffe. Suffice to say, I didn't watch

> it. Life's too short for that kind of crap.

I don't see how that is the "opposite" to my post. Clearly there are two separate questions: to respond in a timely manner to new events (of which there may be many), and how to respond (posting crap or posting not-crap). Posting not-crap is not the same as not posting (either not-crap or crap) when there is something to post about.

I am a little scared by Facebook and other flows - the one that really gets me is the BBC's Have Your Say, which seems to have been over-run by people with extreme views. The 'echo-chamber' effect here is deeply worrying and trying to interrupt it tends to reinforce it (on the whole the EDF doesn't suffer from this, except perhaps with respect to the serial cat killer).

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

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

> jaywalker Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > It is easy, with so much craziness, to almost

> > > become immune to it.

> >

> > That is exactly right, and why we should keep

> > posting and (where appropriate) re-threading.

>

> I think quite the opposite. People tire quickly

> of news. If it's sharp and relevant, they'll stay

> interested. If you post and repost any old crap,

> their attention will go somewhere else.

>

Politicians know that :)

[Jenny1]

Precisely. Which is where much of the danger lies.

[intexasatthe moment]

People stay interested if stuff is sharp and relevant and get bored and stop reading if crap is posted and reposted ?

Who knew ?

I see that a federal judge is disagreeing with Robart - I can't think how this "works" ? Would it be the case that HS officials working at airports in Mass. turn peoople away ? While their colleagues in other states follow Robart ?

"On Friday, a federal judge in Massachusetts declined to extend a temporary stay against the order issued last week, after expressing scepticism about arguments that the ban represented religious discrimination."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/04/so-called-judge-donald-trump-attacks-decision-to-halt-travel-ban

[Jenny1]

Others will have a more detailed and informed view.

But I simply understood it that those implementing the Executive Order, as an innovation, have the onus on them to prove its legality.

So if any serious judgement is made questioning that legality then a full case needs to be heard examining that Executive Order. Until that's done the EO is suspended.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanksz Jenny .That seems logical and understandable .

[Loz]

The judge made a temporary order, which I think only lasts 14 days, so it will have to be heard in a full court anyway.

I suspect some of will will hold up and some won't. Parts about religious discrimination seems the most likely to fail as, as far as I can see, it is applying the US constitution to non-Americans not on US soil, which is beyond its reach.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Read an interesting piece in the FT today https://www.ft.com/content/69295304-ea34-11e6-967b-c88452263daf

For those who aren't subscribed, in (very brief), it points out that Trump couldn't have won the US election without the backing of the Republican party and that Farage didn't bring about Brexit on his own - he relied on the support of Gove and Johnson and it was the result of a long term campaign both in the majority press and from within elements of the Conservative party. Basically, the idea of a rise in 'anti-establishment' populism, ignores the fact that in both cases it was actually the opportunism of nominally establishment politicians that got us where we are.

[Loz]

Marketing Trump and Farage as anti-establishment is, in a frightening way, pure genius. A billionaire and an ex-stock broker? Anti-establishment? How the hell did they pull that off?

Still, I'm sure there are those out there who drink stuff like Innocent Smoothies, eat Ben and Jerry's ice-cream and breakfast on their Dorset muesli to stick it up the big corporates like Coca-Cola, Unilever and Associated Foods.

The world is full of gullible suckers... and they know it.

[rendelharris]

There was a great caption to the celebratory photograph of the two doing the rounds: "A millionaire and a billionaire standing in a gold-plated lift in a tower named after the billionaire claiming they've taken on the elite and won."

[????]

The thing is I think you guys are missing the point on this - especially with Farag ( but I think the same applies to Trump probably). It is really not about who they actually are at all - brits aren't idiots about Farage it's blatantly obvious his background when he opens his mouth (which he does far too frequently) the clothes he wears etc and he never tries to hide/disguise his background....it's just not an issue in the way, I'm struggling not to be accused of the same old here, that 'metropoplitans' and 'the left' in general think it is (*see also Labour's failure to hit any traction with their continuous 'posh boys' line with Osbourne/Cameron). It is what they are saying which is anti-establishment, and it genuinely is, as the last few months have absolutely demonstrated.

None of this post is an indicator of support for either of these two to be clear before everyone flys off again but it really is the lack of understanding about this as demonstrated by both of you here that explains why Metro Liberal such as us (yes me included) are wondering what the fook has happened.

Basically Farage is a posh stockbroker who went to public school - the vast majority of UKIP voters know this I suspect.

Trump is a celebrity billionaire - the vast majority of his voters know this. No-one is being hoodwinked. They don't care about the 'messenger' in either case.

You're both barking up the wrong tree....and you are not alone.

[Louisa]

All these things are just symptoms of a massive vacuum in politics. Race and class play a part, and anyone who denies that need only look at the issues which have consistently been exploited by Trump/Farage, issues which have been exposed and open to extreme rhetoric for decades, because no one in the centre ground has attempted to put forward a logical and reasoned argument about the positives of immigration, whilst also acknowledging the strains disproportionately felt in poorer, mostly working class localities.

Most people who have these fears (founded or unfounded pick your side), don't really care about where Farage or Trump went to school and how big their respective bank balances are, they just see people talking a language they understand which hasn't effectively been communicated by middle of the road politicians. Simple as that really.

Louisa.

[rendelharris]

I agree with most of what you say there ???? - certainly the people who voted for Trumpage (my new compound proper noun) are perfectly aware of their status and, as you say, don't care. I think the question which arises is are they genuinely anti-establishment? Farage, possibly, but much of what Trump is doing is helping his own kind - opening up oil pipelines etc. It will be dressed up as helping the working man, and it may create some jobs, but the main beneficiaries will be the CEOs and major shareholders. 'Twas ever thus, of course, but I suspect people are going to find that when push comes to shove "anti-establishment" Trump is not going to pass laws which favour the working person over the billionaire. We shall see. He's already said he favours the US having a low minimum wage and refused calls to set a federal minimum wage, similarly his nominee for Secretary of Labor, Robert Pudzer (a multimillionaire CEO), has said he will not raise the minimum wage and opposes legislating to improve working conditions. Trump's supreme court has several judges noted for their opposition to union rights and collective bargaining. His own record as a businessman is not notable for a regard for workers' rights and fair wages...as with everything at the moment, we shall just have to see, but I suspect the rust belt voters aren't going to find his promises as solid as they were during the campaign (when he was careful to keep it to vague generalisations).

[red devil]

It will be interesting to see how well Macron does in France. So far he's managed to distance himself from the establishment despite in the not too distant past being part of it...

[Earl Aelfheah]

The point is that without the Republican party backing him, it's unlikely Trump would have won. Without Gove and Boris joining the leave campaign and without years of campaigning from many tabloid papers and a significant contingent on the right of the Conservative party, it's arguable whether we'd have got 'Brexit. It's not about Trump or Farage, their background, or personal characteristics, the fact is both campaigns where reliant on either the opportunism or genuine support of 'establishment' politicians.

[rendelharris]

Good point RRR - obviously there are times when it suits parties of all hues to have a "game changing anti-establishment" figure leading the charge, then once they're in to carry on business as usual.

ETA kind of what, it pains me to admit, they managed under Obama...

[Alan Medic]

So The Donald uses his 'official' twitter account to have a go at the company which has chosen to drop his daughter's fashion line. I didn't see that one coming.

[nxjen]

He has what I believe are called boundary issues.

[Jenny1]

It's a good point well made rahrahrah.

And the follow through on both the Trump and Farage victories is, like their initiation, also primarily about sustaining the establishment (as per that Atlantic Monthly article I linked to).

In the US, Trump is dependent on the ongoing support of a Republican Party which sees an opportunity to institute long cherished policies that wouldn't have been possible under a Democrat President. Without this support Trump would be unlikely to remain in office long.

In the UK I see all government policy on Brexit since the referendum as being about keeping the Conservative Party intact and ensuring their victory at the next election. Long term thinking on national interest doesn't feature.

[nxjen]

It's like DNA is coded to survive regardless of any collateral damage

[Jenny1]

.....though it would be quite fun if Melania Trump brought down the Daily Mail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38898530

[nxjen]

... and if indeed the Daily Mail brought down Melania Trump and her husband

[Jenny1]

...I would see this as a 'win win' situation, whatever the outcome.