Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

'Clearly not too busy to explain why you haven't replied, though.'

I haven't absorbed your questions. I came on here to complain about the relentless pursuit of posters with questions. It's gone on since Claig started these threads. Proper conversations are much more satisfying to read and participate in.

I came on here to complain about the relentless pursuit of posters with questions. It's gone on since Claig started these threads.

And again... no answers at all.

How else are people supposed to clarify issues, particularly when posters are slippery and use spin rather than arguments?
The original question was to us, to show that women were worse off under Trump. We did reply with specific examples. That's why you don't get relentless questioning of Trump doubters. We answer the bloody questions. With proper answers. Not spin or ill-informed statements.

But, Inkanta, proper conversations inevitably involve questions, and to continue the conversation it's normal to reply. When I meet a friend, for instance, I would expect to ask about their family, work, mutual friends, what's happened in relation to ongoing issues etc; and if we get on to the subject of the US election and I say I'm pleased that X has won, I wouldn't be in the least offended if friend asked my why.

It's now over 90 minutes since Lweji asked the single question that you said was reasonable, and no-one including you has bothered to reply. The fact that you have come on here to complain without being prepared to say whether you believe that women are not worse off under Trump speaks volumes.

For those who would restrict access to abortion except in cases of rape or incest, how might that be determined?

Would there have to a court verdict, confirming rape or incest? Would this be likely to be resolved before the end of a pregnancy?

Would a woman have only to say she'd been raped/committed incest to satisfy this requirement?

How could this be practicable?

'But, Inkanta, proper conversations inevitably involve questions, and to continue the conversation it's normal to reply.'

DeepanKrispanEven Yes, they do and I'm quite a curious type of person myself. But it's how you ask. Interrogation style is off putting - it closes people down.

Nice username by the way. Good King Wenslcelas is my favourite Carol.

When someone says they don't think Trump's presidency will disadvantage women, it's extremely difficult to see how you could frame a question about the basis for that view in light of his abortion beliefs in a style you don't think would be interrogatory, Inkanta. How would you suggest the question be put?

For the record, bullying was when I was repeatedly and relentlessly accused of reporting a post that got deleted (I'm sure for good reason) on another of these threads.

What I'm trying now is to get actual answers in a debate. Which has, once again diverted into style instead of substance.

Anyone, please, if you think women are not worse off with Trump, do let us know why.

'And again... no answers at all.

How else are people supposed to clarify issues, particularly when posters are slippery and use spin rather than arguments?
The original question was to us, to show that women were worse off under Trump. We did reply with specific examples. That's why you don't get relentless questioning of Trump doubters. We answer the bloody questions. With proper answers. Not spin or ill-informed statements.'

Lwegi - you're not getting it!

There is some kind of assumption that folk should answer your questions.

You follow that up with with goady talk about posters being slippery.

How about you change your approach. Less intense ...perhaps.

I guess if questioning is out, we can only restate that a Trump presidency looks like very bad news for women's rights, and point to the evidence already provided on the thread.

Lewiji- you just need to be nicer..........

Oh, Inkanta, I AM getting it. Loud and clear. :)

You are actually answering my question in more ways than you think.

Lewiji- you just need to be nicer.

I think you mean I just need to stop asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe I'll change my questioning style to: Isn't Trump great?

Inkarta- I am happy to answer any questions you care to ask........

'You are actually answering my question in more ways than you think.'

You're doing it again!

At some point I've decided to take Trevor Noah's advice.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/30/the-daily-show-on-how-we-should-start-treating-trump-like-a-toddler.html

The result has been interesting.

Not sure if this has been posted already, but great article here from Teen Vogue of all places, on Trump and gas lighting:

www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america

You're doing it again!

Sorry for asking, but doing what?

Less intense ...perhaps

Inkanta, can you tell me how Lweji could have asked her question in a less intense manner than "Anyone, please, if you think women are not worse off with Trump, do let us know why."

'Sorry for asking, but doing what?'

You figure it out!

Thanks, Inkanta, for doing it again, and repeatedly.

This, from the Trevor Noah link, outlines the problem precisely. Trouble is, by refusing to hold press conferences and instead issuing a stream of mad tweets, Trump prevents any interrogation of his pronouncements.

"For example, Trump unleashed tweets recently attacking the Broadway showw Hamiltonon, criticizing Saturday Night Live^’s parody of him, and suggesting that Americans should have their citizenship revoked if they burn the American flag—a constitutionally protected right. The media proceeds to pump the volume all the way up to 11, and his wacky tweets dominate the news cycle—while actual would-be scandals like his problematic Cabinet pickss or his myriad conflicts of interest around the globee pertaining to his businesses.

“Trump wins. It doesn’t matter what he says. He could tweet anything! He could tweet ‘goblins are faster than unicorns,’ and the next day the news would lose their minds,” said Noah. “For 24 hours, it’s all they’d be talking about. CNN would bring out a hologram unicorn, Don Lemon would host a panel where people would argue about goblins, and then after all that effort, Trump would just tweet out that the news is bad at journalism because they can’t prove their claims—claims no one could prove because Trump invented them!”

Yes, and it's funny how Trump fans tend to copy him.

So no-one can tell us a less intense method of asking (a) why they believe that women are not worse off with Trump or (b) what woman should do about unplanned pregnancies when for good reason they haven't been able to get an abortion before 12 weeks - so presumably they accept those are perfectly acceptable ways of putting those questions. Yet they still don't answer, and carry on complaining about how the questions were put. It's a puzzle, really, isn't it?

South, I have not been bullying you or bombarding you with questions.
In fact on page 23 you stated: "Women's right are not in jeopardy in the USA. Give examples if you can"
We then provided several examples, one of which you picked up on (access to abortions) and we discussed it for several pages.

During that time you used the following language to describe women with unplanned pregnancies:
"The same excuse trotted out by each and every gormless smirking female"
"Sure, among the sloppy, undisciplined who have gotten out of the habit of not taking care of their own business"
"should have got her skates on earlier"
"The bloodthirstiness that comes across to me, posing as Women's Rights, is quite shocking and without compassion and lack of consciousness."
"If I was unemployed, single, had a baby already and knew the difficulties in getting a termination were I would make damn sure I did not get pregnant again"
"Women seem to be sleepwalking during their fertile years into unwanted pregnancy, and I'm stating that a bit of care and consciousness in your love life is necessary"

You are of course entitled to your opinions, but it is not surprising that several of us reacted quite strongly to that language, in particular the complete lack of recognition from you that it is possible to fall pregnant even when the women is being extremely careful.

We answered your questions, you don't have to answer ours, but we are not unreasonable to ask them.

At least Chis was honest and admitted that the treatment of women would never be an important enough issue to discuss.

By the way, I don't like the idea of abortion. I would not argue that it should be available at any stage for any reason. I definitely don't think it should be considered as an alternative to contraception. In an ideal world it would not exist, because unwanted pregnancies would not exist.
However, I realise that because we live in the real world where unwanted pregnancies do occur, there is a need for safe, legal, terminations.

And there is every indication that women will suffer particularly badly under Trump.