Trump (Part 6)

[claig]

More on Trump

It is a Trump world and as the Modi saying goes

“Aab Ki Baar Trump Sarkar”

and as the Stump for Trump Sisters say

"Get on the Trump Train or get the hell out of the way"

Rock'n'roll

You've never seemed bothered by it until today, but I apologise if you were offended - I just always heard you as a male voice. I don't agree with a lot of claig's views but this insistence that she is a man is bloody ridiculous. She has stated over and over again that she is a woman.

It's the Trumpers that tend not to discuss Trump. It's all people this elite that, political correctness gawn mad...

'Can't stand Greer myself.'

I don't agree with everything she says or thinks, but I don't agree with everything Trump says either. But Germaine Greer is still a legend, as is Trump, of course.

Claig, you introduced the side subject, to point score (as you say), as you couldn't really answer the actual point that was being asked.

You posted something that was not true. At the very least you should have the intellectual honesty to say you made a mistake and GG wasn't actually prevented from speaking at Universities.

Just in case anyone is remotely interested, here is an article about some high profile "no platforming" incidents. Including Greer. She spoke.

Derxa, I very clearly and explicitly haven't insisted that Claig is a man. I have never seen Claig state that she is a woman until she requested a "she" pronoun just now. Which I agreed to use. The only person on these threads who has ridiculed preferred pronoun use is Claig.

't's all people this elite that, political correctness gawn mad...'

Because that is what Trump is all about. He told teh elites

"I refuse to be politically correct"

He told the people

"I am your voice"

and his whole victory was one of teh people vs teh elites and the entire corrupt global establishment was defeated by him and the Trump fans.

Blair has set up a Destitute to fight back for the elites. They are desperate.

Trump said of the "corrupt global establishment"

"Our movement represents an existentiial threat like they have never seen before"

If you don't realise that Trump is about the people vs the elites then you must have been reading the wrong thread.

He is indeed. But Trump represents the elites, not the people.

But I welcome going back to discussing Trump and his administration.

I believe this was not addressed:

So, if the Secretary of State has personal financial and historical interests with foreign states, that's OK, not swamp? Or any cause for concern?
Interesting...

If you don't realise that Trump is about the people vs the elites then you must have been reading the wrong thread.

Oh, we realise that Trump has said he is about the people vs the elites.

We just tend not to believe what Trump says. Because he lies. Repeatedly and unashamedly. And his actions contradict the idea that he's for any people and not for elites.

'*So, if the Secretary of State has personal financial and historical interests with foreign states, that's OK, not swamp?'

Depends what the interests are and what they are worth and whether they affect his decision making

Interesting article Bertrand. The comments are even more interesting

'We just tend not to believe what Trump says.'

Yes, but the people who voted for him did believe him. That is what counts since they saw it as people vs elites and that is what BBC Newsnight discuss so often

Depends what the interests are and what they are worth and whether they affect his decision making

So, if Rex still has stocks in Exxon (for example) and sanctions to Russia are lifted, allowing Exxon to obtain oil from Russian's fields, would you say there's a conflict of interest? Or considering he's received in the past a Friendship award from Russia?

There's an interesting problem about Rex's stocks at Exxon. He may lose a lot of money when leaving, because he may not be able to sell quite a huge chunk of them.

Actually that's not what counts. What counts is what he's going to do - or not do - for those people, as opposed to what he's going to do for the elites in his cabinet.

Yes, but the people who voted for him did believe him. That is what counts since they saw it as people vs elites

But it doesn't make it real.
It just means that they were conned.

And yes, that is a pretty incontrovertible conflict of interest.

"Why no platform?

Rachael Melhuish, women’s officer at Cardiff University, called for Greer to be no-platformed last October for her “transphobic” views. Melhuish and her fellow campaigners took particular issue with Greer’s repeated assertion that post-operative transgender women are not women, and 3,000 students signed a petition urging staff to cancel the lecture.

Was she actually no-platformed?

Not successfully. Greer was invited by the university to give her lecture with the caveat: “We in no way condone discriminatory comments of any kind.” She ended up delivering her lecture the following month, after calling the university’s statement “weak as piss”.

---

Why could she not speak when she was asked and only one month later? And Germaine called the statement "weak as piss" and the attempt to no platfor Germaine failed on that occasion, but there is no guarantee that similar attempts will not fail in the future and I read somewhere that Germaine has said that at &^ years old she won't bother any more because of fears for her safety because of all teh fuss about what she thinks.

It is a slippery slope and I am against it and for Germaine and free speech.

www.thecollegefix.com/post/30436/

The world has gone mad. The lipstick liberals are racing to the bottom. My faith is in Trump to put a stop to this

'But it doesn't make it real.
It just means that they were conned.'

They felt it was real and that is democracy. Blair said he didn't think the people could be trusted with an EU vote. No bigwigs can annul a Brexit Referendum because they claim that the people were conned and lied to by a sign on a red bus

'So, if Rex still has stocks in Exxon (for example) and sanctions to Russia are lifted, allowing Exxon to obtain oil from Russian's fields, would you say there's a conflict of interest? Or considering he's received in the past a Friendship award from Russia? '

Nope because sanction swill affect a lot more comapnies than Exxon and there are other factors involved too.

' Or considering he's received in the past a Friendship award from Russia? ''

What's teh problem with that, by all accounts he is a friendly guy and lots of world leaders like him. If he is given the Freedom of the City of Newcastle, does that mean he should resign?

"
What's teh problem with that, by all accounts he is a friendly guy and lots of world leaders like him. If he is given the Freedom of the City of Newcastle, does that mean he should resign?"

Well if multiple intelligence sources found that Newcastle had been interfering in the election, yes, we should at least be asking some questions about it.

'yes, we should at least be asking some questions about it.'

They can ask all the questions they like. But Trump has chosen him and he was recommended to Trump by people who didn't support Trump like Condoleeza Rice, so we will have to see if he gets confirmed or is opposed and as long as everything is transparent, then it is OK.

"Yes, but the people who voted for him did believe him"

The 2.8 million fewer people than voted for Clinton.......

I have seen lots of posts by you asking people again and again to answer some minor inconsequential point

No, you certainly haven't. I'm afraid your hero's attitude to facts is rubbing off on you, claig.

That's fine but if they don't answer after several requests then maybe they don't think it is important enough or clever enough and is a distraction.

Again, untrue. It is usually a clear sign that they can't answer without contradicting themselves, and/or demonstrating the inherent weakness in their arguments, and/or demonstrating that a previous statement by them that is being queried is baseless and without foundation.

This thread is not a BBC Newsnight show, there is serious political debate here.

If only it was. But serious political debate doesn't happen when you resort to making unpleasant personal comments about other posters, and when you repeatedly resort to the same tedious buzzwords to avoid saying anything of substance.

And when you deliberately attack someone and lie about them, how on earth is it hectoring or bullying to ask you to withdraw and apologise?

What has it got to do with you?

Don't be silly, of course it has to do with me, given that that is the accusation you made against me. But of course you are seeking to evade the point yet again.

But I am not unpleasant about them.

You seriously believe that it is pleasant to accuse people of being patronising, snidey, goading, inane, out of their depth, hectoring, bullying, or on these threads only to show how clever they are? I'm afraid there is something seriously out of kilter with your judgment there.

And to bring this back to what the thread is about, this is what worries me about the tone of political debate generally over the last year. The right wing has clearly developed a perception that the attitudes that Trump exemplifies have been validated, hence the loss of basic good manners and ordinary consideration. Elsewhere, it is what has led to the emergence of even more unpleasant tendencies - particularly in the context of the victimisation of minority races and the disabled, and the increase in misogynistic attitudes which are increasingly evident.