Trump

takesnoprisoners: Once again, I see an answer to very justified criticism of Trump in the form of an attack on Hilary. I am not interested in defending Hilary on here, Trump won. I want to talk about "Trump and what it all means".
And actually I did see articles and hear discussions in the mainstream media which mentioned positives about Trump. Yes, none of those articles or discussions were exclusively positive about him and nor should they be.

" Her boss, Obama, did not know that she had a private server?"

He denied knowing anything about it. Sadly this lie is laid bare by him using her separate email address himself.

Spinflight:
"Haters"? Really?
All those policys you listed are awful. You're right, there is so much to worry about regarding Trump, that it's hard to know where to start. And btw the things I mentioned earlier were not an exclusive list of my concerns, not by a mile.

So Trump is someone who has no redeeming qualities at all? The MSM could not report ONE good thing about a presidential candidate? Really? I refuse to believe that he has no potential at all.

The MSM leaked the debate questions to the other candidate. They refused to question her about the crimes that she most definitely has commited against the nation. Have you tried to set up a private server at work and get away with it? Looks like HC can do what she fancies. Let me ask you another question. Her boss, Obama, did not know that she had a private server? He and his team could not tell from her emails? Why is the MSM not asking questions about what Obama has done to cover up the woman's crimes?

"as a personal attack and evidence of a biased, lying media conspiracy."

Which the wikileaks confirm.

Would you prefer that he stayed silent or raised issues he has? Personally I think raising issues is the correct thing to do, though admittedly the snowflakes in the media took it rather badly.

It baffles me it really does. Trump is proposing to massively increase the American military and refurbish their nuclear arsenal. Not a word of comment on it from his haters.

He's going to massively increase their $17 trillion of debt, which by the way has major implications for other economies. Not a word from the haters.

He's opposed to climate change measures. Not a word from the haters.

He is looking increasingly likely to to disrupt world trade with massive economic impacts upon the developing world. Not a word from the haters.

I deduce from all this that those who claim to protest against nuclear proliferation, climate change, our own economy and the poor in developing countries basically don't.

The evidence being that they appear more interested in clenching their tiny fists and screaming racist into the internet ether or spurious outrage because one of 'their' journalists was told off. Meanwhile Merkel is proposing censorship of social media to nill interest.

It's pathetic. Truly pathetic.

What about the way the alt-right have actively pushed conspiracy theories to discredit his opponents?

takesnoprisoners: There has been plenty of msm criticism of Obama over the last 8 years. Hillary too. If the accusations against Trump from the msm have seemed worse, do you think it might be because there is worse material?
Yes, several journalists (not all) did admit that they could no longer be neutral about Trump. That is because they were frightened by him and his support - not because he is smashing a corrupt establishment (he epitomises the corrupt elite) but because he is a fucking terrifying man.

InformalRoman: Yes, that's possibly why he has such a bee in a bonnet about it now. He certainly comes across as a man who holds a grudge.

The media IS a mouthpiece to the current president. There is no denying that the media has not been fair in its coverage of the election. It has been severely anti-trump. There are journalists who came on national Tv and said "fuck being neutral. I hate Trump and will do everything to stop him." He owes media no respect. They did not earn it.
When the FBI director reopened the investigation right before the election, CNN refused to air any of that news and were still strong on being anti-Trump. The main stream media created Breitbart and other sites that they hate and villify today. Had they been fair, things could have been different.

takesnoprisoners: It may be an unprecedented situation, but he doesn't seem to be making any attempt to even pretend that he won't use political power to further his business concerns.

Didn't The Donald get laughed out of Holyrood when he challenged the Scottish Government over wind farms the last time?

In case you missed it spinflight:

Kaija' post half an hour before yours: And here's the anti-elite people's champion in action. 47% of tax cuts to be given to the wealthiest 1%
Very concise, accurate criticism of Trump's policys without any stomping of feet, wails of angst or name calling

No matter what he does, there will be a conflict of interest. He is the President of the USA. He is a Billionaire with wide reaching investments. There is no way that he can function with any 'traditional' set up as far as his wealth his concerned. They have to come up with something new.

His attitude to the media is deeply chilling as well. The quotes from his meeting with the press which Claig posted several times earlier in the thread are deeply un-professional.
He has shown again and again during his campaign that he regards any criticism - even from a Republican news outlet like Fox - as a personal attack and evidence of a biased, lying media conspiracy.
Good journalism is supposed to be critical of those wielding power. It is not supposed to be a mouthpiece for the president, which is what Trump expects it to be.

All right, to get back to discussing "Trump, and what it all means",
Who else is deeply concerned about the conflict of interest with his business interests? Just one example. It is a very petty issue, but very revealing of his attitude: He is already trying to drag up an old argument about the view from one of his golf courses (he compared wind farms to the lockerbie disaster once) by spending most of a meeting persuading Farage to lobby against them. Which also suggests that he misunderstands the amount of influence Farage has with the Scottish government.
I am sure this is not the last conflict of interest we'll see, especially as he is refusing to put his business concerns into a proper blind trust.

If there has been a criticism of Trump's policies on these threads that didn't amount to stomping of feet, wails of angst and name calling then I'm not convinced I've seen it...

I do remember watching all three debates during the election plus the primary debates. Yes, you are right the attempted debates were terribly poor. Slander, name calling, vicious attacks. And almost all of that from Trump. What a fine example he set all of his followers.

And here's the anti-elite people's champion in action. 47% of tax cuts to be given to the wealthiest 1%:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality?utmsource=dlvr.it&utmm_medium=twitter

Unless you think one of us is the Donald.... I'm confused.

Thinking that someone has a thick skin is no excuse, nor is offering no argument except name calling. Then again I find it difficult to entirely blame you when the MSM resorts to similar tactics.

So Trump's arguments are polite, kind and reasonable, and free from personal slurs and abuse of any kind? Just jaw dropping. But obviously his personal style is just dandy, since he's just a lovable rogue who's putting the world in order.

^ is done very bluntly, that should read.

I must have missed the pages of personal abuse. Calling someone out on the things they say is not personal abuse, even if it does very bluntly.
And as for the mainstream media smears... I don't need to read/watch the msm to know that Trump is a very dangerous, unpleasant man. I can get that from his twitter account. Unless the elites have somehow managed apply magic spin there?

"I do think that she is very wrong about some incredibly important issues, and makes poorly constructed arguments in the defence of an utterly indefencible man."

I'm not going to read back through it see who said what but all I saw was pages of personal abuse. Thinking that someone has a thick skin is no excuse, nor is offering no argument except name calling.

Then again I find it difficult to entirely blame you when the MSM resorts to similar tactics. If they can't provide coherent arguments then we can't really expect their readership to unless they undertake independent research, which is rare. The poverty of debate in the entire election cycle was shocking and policy rarely discussed.

I think I understand the references to blair, it isn't one of philosophy or policy but a comparison of value signal and smear. Of course it almost seems ironic now that Blair's constantly value signalling has been laughed out of town by his callous actions.

And don't forget that Blair had quite an effect across the pond. The Republicans roundly blamed him for the dodgy dossiers etc, for taking the lead with the tail wagging the dog. Doubt they'll make that mistake again.

It's one reason why Nigel goes down so well over there.

fourmummy - I am British, I think that Blair is an odious man, but I don't think that every single thing that has gone wrong for anyone since the 90's is his fault. Nothing is that simple. I was objecting to the bizarre "blairite" accusations, and confused because I thought this was a thread to discuss Trump.

Spinflight, I don't think that "claig is a fascist three eyed frog with halitosis".
I don't know her and she may well be perfectly lovely in real life.
I do think that she is very wrong about some incredibly important issues, and makes poorly constructed arguments in the defence of an utterly indefencible man.
She has always come across in her many posts as someone with a thick skin and a good sense of humour however, so I assumed the odd glib comment wouldn't offend her.