Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

You've got it squishy

'It is clear that the thing "elites" as used here have in common is simply liberal values and nothing else.'

I have already explained to you that it is not because the elites support Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is as illiberal as it is possible to get.

And John McDonnell is liberal and is nowhere near elite. They don't like McDonnell.

There are certainly elites, the problem is that you don't think Trump is part of them, and that he's not choosing his administration from them either.

He is both.

And his administration will be more of the same Republican white right wing mess as usual.

And I'm even more confused. Do you or not read Guardian articles?

'So to classify people who have a dislike of Trump in common we could use the word "elites"?'

No, because you dislike Trump and you are not "elite".

But in the battle of power politics, the really powerful elites all opposed Trump. They are not you, McDonnell, Miliband and Blair, because those aren't the real elites.

'Elites vs. Trump -- and the elites haven't won yet'

Ah that slippery floating signifier

'There are certainly elites, the problem is that you don't think Trump is part of them'

RTFTs. I have explained exactly why over many threads

'Elites vs. Trump -- and the elites haven't won yet'

Powerful elites backed Trump. And now he is rewarding them.

"No, because you dislike Trump and you are not "elite""

Well how do you know? Maybe I am in Latvia...

'There are certainly elites, the problem is that you don't think Trump is part of them'

You RTFT. I've explained to death why he is.
And the post-election events support the view that he is.

'Do you or not read Guardian articles?'

Very rarely because I don't like spin. I read Marina Hyde because she is very funny and a good writer even though I don't agree with her most of the time.

But, no need to swear or to call your own thread names.

Still getting distracted here. Again...

So CEO's of Fortune company's are the elites now?
What about the CEO of the company ranked second in the Fortune 500?

Language control. have you been reading about it on a conspiracy site and decided to give it a whirl?

Sorry Lweji. Crossposted.
What she said.

"For the the sake of putting this to bed, can I just ask again, Chris, do you believe a Trump presidency will be good, bad or neutral for women's rights?"

The biggest issue on here with you guys who wish to goad, goady goad goad, is your persistance in asking the same shit over and over again, whilst ignoring very straightforward responses. But just to humour you for one last time....

Here was my view previously posted on Roe v Wade

"Pallisers, am I right that Trump isnt the first President who has sparked controvesy surrounding Roe v Wade? Wasnt your position argued with Reagan and his appointments? Then George Bush? Of course its a thorny thorny issue, complicated by variances at state level, whereas here in the UK we have very clear guidelines almost nationwide. (Excluding Northern Ireland)

Im not sure its an issue that ever has an easy black and white answer nor is the issue of access to healthcare/sexual healthcare as simplistic as you portray it, quite simply because of how your state and federal law systems are set up. I just dont think this is an issue that is unique to Trump, indeed, if my understandings right, various states have implemented their own laws to protect against Roe v Wade being overturned, long before Trump was even on anyones radar. "

Heres my view, previously posted, on the 20 week abortion cut off....

"Women decide to think about contraception when the choice to use abortion as a contraception method may be removed. What else is there to say?

20 weeks (thats 5 months!) is more than acceptable to me (exceptions as stated)."

Heres my view on NOT prioritising Trumps ALLEDGED 'attitude' to women...

"Yep, I utterly agree with this. I held the same view over Monica Lewinsky and cigars."

THIS, seems the bit you all have a problem with. Im not interested in the slightest if Trump is catholic, protestant, muslim, amish, mormon. Im not interested in the slightest if Trump has been married 1, 2, 3, 4 times. Im not interested if Trump is gay, straight, transgender. Im not interested if he watches Porn on a saturday night. Im not interested if hes told a woman to fuck off, just as he would tell a male to fuck off.
I clearly compared the Monica Lewinskys and Bill Clinton 'scandal' in exactly the same "Im not Interested" post. Willing consenting adults and all that.
Im simply not interested. Im not interested in locker room talk, and the faux offence on behalf of 'all women' (Im not offended) whether its the President of the day, or a bus driver on my route. Thats life, and the faux outrage at being wolf whistled by a builder is way down my list of priorities. Just as the likes of Karen Danczuk getting her tits out every 5 minutes online, doesnt interest me in the slightest.

I AM interested that Trump has made it clear that he is pro-life, yet supports a 20 week cut off, which I too agree with by accepting not all women are pro-life. I agree with that, and agree with his right to that belief.

I AM interested, that he wishes individual states to define their own policy on this thorny issue. (Stronger representation in localised elections and policy decisions, made by the very people who live there). I agree with that.

I am interested that Trump has assigned 4 women so far to cabinet positions. Elaine Chao, Nikki Haley, Betsy DeVos, Linda McMahon. He is tipped to also assign, Cathy McMorris Rogers. No prsident has had more than 4 women cabinet ministers at any one time. (Obama assigned 8 in total during his residency, but only 4 at any one time)

I am interested that the Republican party do indeed have a womens policy committee actually affecting policy, that Trump is supportive of.

IMO Trumps presidency is great news for womens rights, elderly women, veteran women, working women, unemployed women, women who cant afford Obamacare insurance, pregnant women, and women as yet unborn. He has a track record or valuing and promoting women in business around him, and appears set to continue this ethos in his role as President.

I am not interested in spending 3 days debating online, well if 'Amy's car broke down and she couldnt find a child minder to enable her to go out of state for a 28 week abortion, whats Trump going to do about that???!!!!! ' rubbish.

Hope that helps clarify where I stand on most of this. Oh, and goady trolling is goady trolling. Im not interested in that either.

"Because they are not "career politicians" and puppets and because they are successful business people who create jobs and prsoeperity, just like Trump. Trump fans ike Trump because he is a "businessman" and not a member of the "political class" of servants."

Agree with this.
Weve had recent decades of career politicians, entering politics simply to amass a personal fortune. How does that happen? How does a former Prime Minister or Chancellor make himself billions from a career of 'public service'? They should be barred from making any money whatsoever on the back of their political 'title'. Public service is exaclty that. Paid for by the public. Its as wrong as NHS trained surgeons, earning hundreds of thousands providing private surgery, not only by using 'time' already paid for by the NHS, but also theatres and equipment already paid for by the NHS. Wrong wrong wrong.

Heres a liberal left view on the colour white. Both articles same journo, same month......

White on Hillary

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabethwellington/DNCCFashionHillaryyClintonacceptssthedemocraticcnominationconfidentlyyinalllwhite.htmm_l

"But its rare we see her in all white. White is hue thats both soft and strong. But it was appropriate. Her acceptance speech was a coming out of sorts. Clintons white pantsuit is telling us she has arrived. This is surreal. A dream come true.
........Most importantly, Clintons white suit told America loud and clear that she joyfully accepted the opportunity to run for presidentof the United States of America."

White on Melania
_
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabethhwellington/20160720MelaniaaTrumpssall-whitedresswhattdoesittproject_.html

"So while Trump appeared flawless on the Cleveland stage Monday night, whether she intended it or not, her all-white ensemble displayed the kind of foreignness that is accepted by her husband's faction of the political party. To many, that outfit could be another reminder that in the GOP, white is always right.
.............On Monday night, Melania Trump was a not-so-subliminal billboard for what's looking like the Trumpian view of an ideal America.
And if that's the fashion statement Melania Trump intended to make, it's a very scary one."

Claig you havent got a cat in hells chance of having a reasonable discussion with some posters on here. White isnt white dont ya know, its ALL about intentional misinterpretation.

quick Note on last post...the underlining wasnt me, I guess it picked up in copy and paste from the article.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabethwellington/DNCCFashionHillaryyClintonacceptssthedemocraticcnominationconfidentlyyinalllwhite.htmll__
_
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabethh_wellington/20160720MelaniaaTrumpssall-whitedresswhattdoesittproject_.html

Link were rubbish too! These should be better. Apols!

Try post again.... white vs white!!!

I give up......try this...

I am in favour of Trump getting real and telling the truth on climate change.

So why would he need to demand the names of all Department of Energy officials who have been to climate change conferences to do that? If he's going to "tell the truth" what difference would that information make? Anyone would think he was scared of having people around who actually know the facts.

'if temperatures are rising due to natural causes surely it would still be prudent to invest in defences?'

No because you have to understand the elite's agenda in order to understand their objectives and if you understand that you understand the disadvantages for humanity.

What do you mean by "No", claig? No, it isn't prudent to invest in defences, or No, temperatures aren't rising, or No, they aren't rising due to natural causes?

Chris- it's not just the white, it's the style.

But "Fashhion journalist writes bullshit" ? No shit Sherlock!

Well, thanks, Chris for an answer, although it was not exactly straight forward.

It's true that Trump is not the only president that puts women's rights in danger. That is not to mean women. Shouldn't be worried.

It's simplistic to say he's pro-life but accepts abortion to 20 weeks. I actually don't think he cares, but his support base does and so do his party and the people he's surrounding himself with. Pps here have also explained their concerns over the limit being lowered to 12 weeks or even less.
I've also expressed my concern over the lack of support mothers get to raise their children as an alternative to abortion. Which is not likely to get better under Trump or the Republicans.
I hope Ivanka's plan is implemented, which would be good for mums, but then mums would have had better conditions under Hillary.

You mentioned those without Obamacare cover. This administration is looking to repeal it without a sound plan to replace it. It's one of those fantastic imaginary plans Trump has. Borderless competition won't be enough.

As for the record of employing women, yes he does, and from one report I read he seems to like that women work longer hours and don't argue with him so much. Great reasons.

Also look at his Labor secretary and let me know if his track record suggests he cares about workers, let alone female workers.

Claig you havent got a cat in hells chance of having a reasonable discussion with some posters on here. White isnt white dont ya know, its ALL about intentional misinterpretation

Erm... I wasn't aware that any pp here had discussed white as a dress colour. Using two random links to then berate posters is exactly why reasonable discussion is not possible with you.