Trump
"Libtarded"?! For Gump's sake. Kochie for PM/Prez.
InSypo, read that looooooong Q & A I posted before? Any arguments with it? Not a reasoned and reasonable view on events?
It's with Chomsky, by the way. I dunno if that means it a) will be read, b) will not be read, c) TL n TH: WRDCB, GMS,Y!*
*Too long n too hard, won't read dat commie bastard, gimme memes suckers, yeeeeeeeew!
he's a woeful man benski, but when you sign yourself up to be objectified...you've gotta expect some objectification
let's see how many of these 'assaults' are followed through with and how many disappear into the ether like the one supposed talk to the media days before the election
I'm sorry benski but it's Hillary's side that reduced the election to misogyny versus world war three
thankfully the public seems to be developung some scruples.
turkeyman, you are getting a lttle wordy, fuck razar was a slog and she's my messiah.
generally agree, but what's you and what's cut and paste? it's fucking hard to know with you. if you wrote it then I'll try a little harder, edit oh I see it's chomsky
I'm not big on climate change, but it sure don't seem like a priority at the moment, which probably is not a good thing
Benski you write "It's the fact that he bragged about committing sexual assault and then when women came out and said, he did that to me. His response was, pfffft I'd never touch her she's not hot enough. That's of course after boasting about going backstage during Miss universe contests while the girls were all naked so he could cop an eyeful."
Mate, that all fair enough..... Pretty tacky stuff I agree..... But...... BUT!!! Where are the "I'm offended" crowd now, as his wife gets publicly slut shamed? These same dickheads that tried to make misogyny and sexism the main form of attack against Trump are now doing the same thing to his wife..... Where's De Niro? Where's the celeb A list? Just the sound of crickets...
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Stumped-By-Trump-Win-Liberals-Are-SlutShaming...
Maybe because it's normal people doing it, and under the guise of free speech, and not the President elect?
I don't agree with it but of course we hold people to different standards depending upon their station. Trying to make a case of it is a bizarre misread of human nature.
Q&A is now passe. With the errors in Four Corners, Catalyst, it is becoming clear that the ABC itself will become passe. Further, the 'formal' media is fast becoming irrelevant or not the source of where the 'people' get their information. We know its not the politicians. It is now the cloud. Wikipedia is not reliable, nor are 'reputable' government bodies, scientists, doctors, medical specialists, ...and more.
a very interesting few years ahead of us, as exemplified by the US elections.
Its easy to generate fear and hate but there will be some good out of this.
Yes agree Stu, but you can't have different standards for different class or position of the person. The child abuse commission has clearly identified this.
agree tb, all the more reason why trump should be held to account for his ridiculous (er childish) remarks.
sheepdog, basically what stu said. It's very poor form, disgraceful actually, but you'll have to take that up with the people doing it because it's not relevant to Trump's words and behaviour and the implications of them for his candidacy. I'm not talking about the attitudes of his supporters or Hilary's (there's deplorables among all of them).
That crap has nothing to do with either Hilary or Trump.
so what qualities does trump have that make him a good leader?
he is dishonest, un-empathetic, has no clear vision, changes his tune often, badmouths people, appears unaccountable, and engages in childish behaviour
is he actually 6 years old?
Interesting rebuttal, Kochie. Not the content but the form. The meme! It's part of the problem in this supposed "fact-free", TL:DR world. Look, where's it getting us all! TRUMP!
Here's the interview with Chomsky that forms the basis of your "truthiness" factoid. TL:DV?
How's that hoary old chestnut go? "If you're not left-wing in your 20s, you've got no heart. If you're not right-wing in your 40s, you've got no brains."
The long-time appeal of the 'right'?
Thinking, huh? Change? Waste of time! Time-poor? Too busy dealing with real shit?
Too hard, too lazy, get cynical, give up, and punch-down?
Get Trumped! The king of the down-punchers. The real coward-punchers. The willfully ignorant. Yeeeew!
Which side are youse on?
Stu writes "Maybe because it's normal people doing it, and under the guise of free speech, and not the President elect?"
And there, glaring for all to see, is the issue.... It's why Trump won..... You subconsciously called these people slut shaming Trumps wife "normal people".... If that's the case, then Trump voters are "normal people"... Everyone is freekn "normal"... And these normal people that voted for Trump knew that the beefed up latte outrage over "pussy grabbing" was just that...... And the actions of the anti trump camp post election proves it..
The only bizarre misread of human nature was by those thinking the "normal people" were going to swallow that faux pa outrage over a secretly recorded conversation back in 2005....
Benksi, therefore it is totally relevant
ps stu- 2 of these "normal people" in my link are William Dalrymple- award winning writer and historian with 323 000 followers on twitter, , and Ram Gopal Varma, one of the biggest names in Bollywood, who has 2 160 000 followers..... You're a "normal" person ,stu..... Are you on twitter? How many followers do you have? Is 2 160 000 close?........ ;) lol
"And there, glaring for all to see, is the issue.... It's why Trump won..... You subconsciously called these people slut shaming Trumps wife "normal people"."
Totally unconvincing. You're struggling SD. The moderator just ruled against the affirmative, says you've got misplaced understanding of 'normal', and you should go back and reconsider your argument.
Good luck!
Hmmm.*
*play & repeat.
Longest bow I've ever seen there sheepdog.
I'm criticising trump based on what he said and did (and says and does). It ends there. It's got nothing to do with his supporters. I'm critical of Hilary's hawkish foreign policy and that has nothing to do with her supporters. No idea why you'd conflate criticism of a candidate with the actions of the supporters of their opponent. So irrelevant it's somewhat laughable.
the problem with "true" free speech is that it ends up not being very fair at all and those with lots of money get to say what they want without repercussion while the poor man gets slammed for sticking his head up. we need to keep our leaders accountable otherwise all is lost.
Yes Tonesdauchebag it is your IPAs policy to get rid of the ABC, isn't.
No mention of Chomsky can be made without a link to the chomskybot:
http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
Hours of fun
And: the US was not set up as a democracy. It was set up as a Republic. Hence the electoral college format. To whit, Thomas Jefferson's quote:
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
Yep, HappyAs, money certainly gives you more 'free speech'. Here in Aus, The QUT case clearly demonstrates that. The complainant actually has no money but her legal fees are paid by a third party council. Whilst some of the students were offered a legal blackmail of $5000 and took it. Interestingly, a fourth student decided to fight or challenge, should say. Here, it seems, his legal support fees are quid quo pro.
So the question is - who should pay the fees if the case is dismissed.
no mention of chomsky can be made without referencing nim chimsky -- a chimpanzee who was the subject of a study of animal language acquisition.
TB "Yep, HappyAs, money certainly gives you more 'free speech'. Here in Aus, The QUT case clearly demonstrates that. "
Jeez TB, let it go mate, every damn post you find a way to weave it in. There's been three 18C court cases in twenty years, it's not a great piece of law, but far better than many others. The reason it's being attacked now is on purely ideological grounds, and by continuing the Murdoch-fuelled witch hunt you're betraying your own ideological blind spot.
One aspect that hasn't had a mention here yet is the difficulty of getting legislation through the Senate whose rules were specifically developed to limit the power of a President. The slight Republican majority is not as significant as it sounds. US Senators have greater loyalty to their states than to their party so are unlikely to support some of his economic policies. Even without a majority the Democrats can delay legislation by manipulating the committee structure and only need a third of the vote to run an indefinite filibuster. To successfully legislate Trump will need someone with long experience and established power within the Senate when to do that would be an incredible risk to their own career given the very strong possibility that Trump, sooner rather than later, will crash and burn taking his supporters with him.
not sure on that strategy BB....the crash and burn one, that is.....people have been saying that about Trump: don't worry he'll crash and burn, for years now.
And here he is POTUS.
......almost POTUS. He still has to get through the the electoral college. You might be right freeride but there remains the point that he needs an established Senator, who does not need him to have a secure career, to work his arse off to get his legislation through. It seems a much smarter strategy to sit back and watch what happens.
Bugger Velocity Johnno, I was trying to post that Chomsky-Bot earlier in response to Kochie on the What's What? thread. BUT I CAN'T POST ANY LINKS!
Ah well...
Oi Kochie, ditto!
Ok, Stu, given the recent talk about the Commish's tenure then I'll let the bone go. But....
The London Review Of Books has a great analysis of why Trump was elected.
Thing is Benski, the problem with pointing out why Clinton was such a better candidate than Trump is that it just illustrates that you fail to grasp why Trump was voted for by anybody - anybody that doesn't have a soft spot for orange skinned, rapacious daddy's boys that is.
The reason they voted for Trump as every one has stated is because Clinton represented the establishment.
So your link that noted Trumps faults versus Clintons should be accompanied by the faults of the establishment ie growing equality, the continued selling out of the nation's workers and war , war and more war.
Iraq - hundreds of thousands dead
Afghanistan - more dead
Syria - more dead
Bali - hundreds dead through terror attacks linked to Middle East invasion
Europe - hundreds dead, society fractured, continent invaded by opportunistic economic migrants under guise of asylum seeking, increasing radicalisation and demonisation of Muslims .
Australia - fractured society through fear generation of the media and the real threat of terrorism.
Could go on and on.
You get the picture.
Remember all the reasons everyone hated Bush so much ?
Well they are still around.
That's what people voted against. You can only cop shit for so long before something has to be done.
Trump may be worse, he may not.
People rolled the dice.
Could someone confirm (from a reliable source) if Trump has won the popular vote. My understanding is that this is still being counted. On the flip side, I can't see a change to this given it requires a constitutional change.
TB. i thought that clintons lead in the popularity stakes is increasing.
Blowin, "Thing is Benski, the problem with pointing out why Clinton was such a better candidate than Trump is that it just illustrates that you fail to grasp why Trump was voted for by anybody"
Bollocks mate. Of course I recognise the vote was in part anti-establishment and I've said as much, see one of my responses to sypkan, referring to Australian voters and punters loving up to the bloke:
"Anti-establishment is one thing but surely we've got enough nous to recognise the first anti-establishment fella isn't necessarily worth jumping behind."
As I said, that link was a joke and that means it's not meant to be taken literally, much like trump we're told now. But it highlighted the reasons why I think he is a nut job who doesn't deserve to be prez (for the little my aimless opinion is worth). The guy's a disgrace in my view and I wouldn't have voted for him if I had a say, but that doesn't mean I support the status quo or the establishment nor that I don't understand why people voted for him.
And to be clear, it wasn't just anti-establishment sentiment either, it was a lot of other things too, like plain old house hold budgeting and economics and fear of the social changes that have been running through the US for the last few decades. There's more to it than him just being, not Clinton/Bush.
So if you're a working class person, busy every day with your job and your family, how do you invoke change except for your vote ?
It's the only available lever to most people so they chose it.
Trump isn't great - he's not even remotely good - but how long you going to wait for the right person to come along ?
If they ever do ?
And look at the results already....even our politicians are reacting to the events around the other side of the world.
Shorten is listening , or pretending to listen , to what the traditional Labour voter wants - that they be prioritised in his people to look after.
People - some people - voted for Trump for the same reason I voted for One Nation.
Pauline Hanson is a fucking blunt instrument ....definitely not who I'd like running the country. But her bravery in standing up for what she believes in will hopefully pave the way for someone that is right for the job.
Trump might just barge a hole in the closed shop of US politics big enough to allow a few contenders to be allowed for consideration that would previously been dismissed....and the best thing that ever happened to the most powerful nation on Earth may be amongst them.
Creative destruction.
Benski - "And to be clear, it wasn't just anti-establishment sentiment either, it was a lot of other things too, like plain old house hold budgeting and economics and fear of the social changes that have been running through the US for the last few decades. There's more to it than him just being, not Clinton/Bush."
The items listed in this paragraph are in that situation precisely because of the Bush / Clinton establishment.
People are sick of where they are being taken , against their wishes.
"Trump isn't great - he's not even remotely good - but how long you going to wait for the right person to come along ?"
As long as it takes for that person to show up.
Nothing you're saying is inconsistent with what I'm saying about the reason for th result. As I said earlier I thought he'd win over a year ago (until he bumbled through the convention and I changed my mind). But I won't throw my lot in with a dangerous and lecherous cretin in the hope that he somehow might turn out to be ok, despite all available evidence suggesting he won't. And I won't suddenly pretend all that stuff doesn't matter, because it does.
personally id rather wait too. we dont need hanson to pave the way ahead. the path lays their waiting for someone with courage and self sacrifice to walk it. there are sensible people already in australian politics. we need positive incremental advances not a curveball.
a good leader will unite the nation, not tear it apart. i will be very interested in how trump fairs in this respect.
Clinton currently leads the popular vote by more than 750,000.
And that's what it comes down to in the end.
Are you the sort of person that for some reason finds themselves in a pile of shit and just sits there and hopes that somehow your circumstance will change, or are you the sort of person that looks down at the pile of shit they're sitting in and says " fuck this " ?
Been a big day for the Tones .... the ABC, 18c and now Clinton.
Sounding like an old record there Tones
...and to add to Trump's potential problems there exists the real possibility of trade sanctions against US products by the EU, Japan and various other nations if he if he abandons existing climate change commitments.
Indeed. I'm the kind of guy who gets up and sorts out his own shit as opposed to blaming the government or the Asians or the Mexicans ;-)
Blindboy, it's not just the climate change agreement, he's talking about tearing up the WTO rule book too. Whether people like that or not the world is in with the free trade arrangements. The US has been slow to drop their trade barriers while still enforcing others to keep up the pace. If they suddenly bail on that, you can imagine the EU and China in particular are not going to wait around to put up their own. Those factory jobs he's going to restore in the Midwest will be serving a very small export market. He's kidding himself if he thinks he can sustain a manufacturing economy on domestic demand and a few agreements with Australia and England.
You've got nothing to worry about then Benski.
If a government isn't to blame for any of your troubles then Trump won't affect you no matter what he does.
I'm not worried about me, I'm being magnanimous and showing concern for the deplorables who know not what they brought upon themselves... It's the innate humility that we elites possess that allows us to look out for those less intelligent than ourselves.
Don't you know.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/16/facebook-bias-bubble-us-...
Nothing particularly new in that but a bit of a human touch to the Facebook news bubbles.
Well said ... 'we elites possess that allows us to look out for those less intelligent than ourselves'.
As someone previously said ...' find themselves in a pile of shit'.
Er, well said? I just want to make clear that comment was a joke. It was as deliberately and jokingly condescending as I could muster.
"It was as deliberately and jokingly condescending as I could muster."
And yet you didn't include an emoji...?
Ah yes dammit, rookie mistake? :-|
I thought my "don't you know" was a giveaway toffy thing to say but you should never forget the emoji :-}
Dammit benski. stupid!
:-§
Well, given the tone, vitriol of most of the comments, i took it literally as that seemed to be the jist of the chat. Maybe a bit too subtle for me. Time to get back out in the water, for me.
The most perceptive piece yet written about him.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trum...