Is it really that wrong to want for your country what Trump stands for?

[Anniedash]

I know that there are plenty of threads on Trump at the moment, but most of them are designed to rubbish the guy. That’s been done to death in the last 10 years.

He has still won two presidential elections so perhaps it’s time to move the discussion on a bit.Let’s put aside Trump’s personality, bluster, and whether he will deliver or not, for a second.

Is it really so wrong and bad to want to go for what his core message is? Why is the far right label used so liberally and will we ever see a government in this country which can tackle this madness -

A stop to or huge reduction in illegal immigration

Putting your own country first ahead of internationalism. It’s not a novel idea and certainly not a byword for automatically wanting war. In fact Trump’s argument is that war is bad

Saying no the climate hysteria. Climate change is real but climate emergency seems to be a made up concept to simply tax people to death to re distribute taxes to government lobbyists. Why should people accept being poorer in the name of this dangerous ideology

Putting a stop to woke madness. When did it become ok for state sponsored mutilation of children? Men pretending to be women in prison and hospitals getting access to women’s spaces. People being sanctioned do not using the correct pronouns

Driving the economy forward and putting a stop to endless freebies for those who have no intention of contributing to the system and refuse to work because they are sad.

The fact that someone as eccentric as Trump has to fly the flag for common sense ideas shows you just how batshit the political discourse has become.

I said the 2000s, the nhs collapse really took hold in the the 2010s... Austerity caused that.

EU workers were young, v hard working and used little in the way of the NHS.

My point is under Blair, we had approx 200k pa net, under the Tories its been 600k to over 800k pa and often older migrants....

Trump won't stop immigration because it would damage the economy. A world focused on economic growth will damage the environment. Trump is surrounded by oligarchs so I'm not convinced ordinary USA people will end up financially more secure. Less likely to have drinking water due to pollution and climate change so reduced self-reliance

We will have to agree to disagree.

@EasternStandard do you really think that's a healthy way to operate though- basically if he says to the UK as an example you have to give us unfettered acccess to your xxx markets or its 15% tariffs ( or whatever) on any of your import markets? So in order to keep UK business that involves any exports to USA happy we have to totally cow tow to their demands? I think that's incredibly unhealthy for other country's lack of autonomy -

By pardoning any future crimes you give a blank cheque to anyone wanting to go on a mass murder spree.

‘Woke culture’, such a lazy, unintelligent phrase.

We've lost them or fewer are coming?

July 2015

Nearly half of all EU doctors who sought work in the UK in the past year were turned away because they failed to prove their English was good enough, the medical regulator has revealed.

In all, 779 doctors – 45% of those who applied – did not give evidence of their language skills to the General Medical Council (GMC), and were therefore refused a licence to practise, between 25 June 2014 and 6 July this year.

The GMC, which registers doctors and licenses them to work, has been able to check EU medics’ English since last summer...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/27/eu-doctors-work-in-uk-failed-english-skills-gmc-licence

https://www.nursingtimes.net/education-and-training/peer-issues-warning-over-language-skills-of-eastern-bloc-nurses-09-09-2011/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853527/Come-NHS-nurse-don-t-need-speak-English-ll-twice-pay-half-hours-hospitals-tell-foreign-health-workers.html

How many EU nurses have moved to the private sector or are employed administering Botox injections instead?

I was listening to Israel spokesperson on why Trump could bring change and Biden couldn’t. He pretty much said Trump makes an offer you can’t refuse.

I don’t think it’s the US people should feel
sorry for as often posted, that kind of get what you want will benefit them.

It’s likely to end wars that look interminable, end high migration they don’t want and get other stuff.

Sure it’s not great for others which is why I initially said the US will surge ahead and others will find it more difficult.

@Alexandra2001
From The Guardian so probably easier for you to digest.
How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story | Patrick Wintour and Nicholas Watt https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story?CMP=share_btn_url

@Goldenbear

"Who do you think will be paying for the Tariffs- the Customers of course so the promise to bring prices down might be a challenge!"

Well that all depends on the country and its ability to replace (and at what cost) imported goods through domestic production.

For example in the UK it would be very expensive to replace imported oranges with domestically produced oranges. Whereas in the US it would be much cheaper.

In the pursuit of cheaper and cheaper products, globalisation has seen a massive transfer of industry and manufacturing from Western countries to China. This has also come at the cost of higher CO2 emissions and dubious labour practices.

Yet for many consumers whilst they may profess support for measures against climate change or criticise labour practices in their own country or abroad they are quick to ignore these if it means that they can buy cheaper products.

A good example of this is people shopping at Shein.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but what you’ve written here is categorically not correct in relation to the circumstances in which abortion is permitted. It changes from state to state but (as of August 2024) ten of the twenty one states with abortion bans do not allow exceptions in cases of sexual assault. Texas has an almost total ban on abortions no matter what the mitigating circumstances might be.

I can see you and I have very differing views on a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, but please don’t try to persuade me of your point of view with made up information.

The abortion debate is a bit of a red herring.

I don’t think Trump is anti abortion, He just threw it back to the states, so some are very liberal and some are outrageously restrictive.

But Roe vs Wade was bad law according to nearly all legal scholars, regardless of whether you like the outcome.

They either need new federal legislation or the outrage should be with the states which restrict it, not the president.

How in the name of fuck do you think that Trump is putting womens' rights first? By denying them healthcare and undermining their reproductive rights at every turn? By condemning the poorest women to bear children that they don't want and can't afford, even if said child is the result of rape or incest? When has Trump and his cabal of rich crazies ever shown any interest in or empathy towards women? And as for illegal immigration - if was living in Afghanistan now I'd do whatever it took to remove myself and my daughters to somewhere safer. There are so many places in the world now, run by men not dissimilar to Trump, where life is so hard and so pointless that travelling to somewhere better, however perilous and uncertain the journey, seems like the best bet. And as climate change takes hold, there will be many more places simply won't be people won't be able to live - are we just going to turn them all away? And you never know - if England becomes totally waterlogged, we might be amongst those who are seeking sanctuary somewhere safer. This 'I'm alright Jack, fuck you' attitude is beyond abhorrent.

California have been allowing near-term abortions with no time bar. That is wrong.
That is ALSO a patent lie! The state does not allow abortion after the foetus becomes viable, ie 24 weeks.

And this has ignored the increase in maternal death rates in those states that have implemented a ban.

Who is going on a mass murder spree?

And why is protecting 6 people from politicised prosecutions worse than releasing 1,600 violent thugs?

(Also to be clear no, nobody has a pardon for a potential murder spree. You made this up.)

@catmum44 - with regard to 'near term abortions', you need to ask why someone would get close to term and then abort the baby. I am sure that no-one is doing this to deal with an unwanted pregnancy - that would happen much earlier, probably well before 20 weeks. It is my understanding that late term abortions happen pretty much exclusively when the foetus is diagnosed with an unsurvivable, catastrophic deformity or problem, and rather than making the mother carry to term and birth the baby who will be born dead or die immediately - and has zero chance of survival - they perform a late term abortion.

What I am saying is that no-one is going to have a late term abortion except for the most catastrophic of circumstances.

Who said it was bad law and why?

According to Californian legislature:

Abortions can only be performed after the point of viability if a physician determines based on a good-faith medical judgment that continuing the pregnancy would pose a risk to the life or health of the pregnant person.

So your argument is that you prefer to see a woman die than to have a late-term abortion performed.

I don’t think you can police people on what they’re allowed to think about and at what time they’re allowed to think it. Doesn’t take much to blow your mind does it.

Trump is anti abortion.

''It was one of Donald Trump's first acts as President: a Jan. 23, 2017 executive order that cuts off U.S. support to foreign groups unless they promise not to "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."

www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/13/616906884/trumps-ban-on-funding-for-overseas-abortions-has-some-little-known-exceptions

@JHound

"So your argument is that you prefer to see a woman die than to have a late-term abortion performed."

Now I am most definitely of the view that women have the right to decide what happens with their own bodies and it is bugger all to do with central government to say what I can and can't do (even if that is not in my own interest such as eating unhealthy amounts of Galaxy chocolate).

But on the point of "late term abortion " - do you see any time restrictions or should abortion be allowed full term?

I did not say Trump is putting women’s rights first. I said if a centrist party would put women’s sex-based rights first (eg get rid of “gender” in legislation and official documents and policies and return to biological sex) I would vote for them. In America there was only a choice between Kamala and Trump therefore I would have voted Trump.

Your shouty, sweary, accusatory tone is not conducive to reasoned debate by the way. Just an observation and my opinion.

It was bad because it wasn’t a law. Roe v Wade shouldn’t exist, it should have been decided either federally or state by state if it was too fractious in Congress (and it probably would have been). Even RBG said this. A Supreme Court decision is suboptimal.

Pretty sure there were people in Germany in the mid 1930s thinking very similar thoughts OP and that ended well....oh wait