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

as inaccurate as saying that Trump isn't part of the elite establishment.

Trump is a rich guy, he knows everyone, has rubbed shoulders with the great and the good. But he is anti the globalist elite. We are not talking about elites as in rich society. We are talking about Trump's declaration of war against the connectedness that exists in the ideology that is globalism.

This globalists control the politicians, the courts, the educational institutions, the food, the natural resources, the foreign policies, the economies and the money of most nations. And they control the major media, which is why we know nothing about them.

To cut to the chase, the end game is a global totalitarian society. It means ultimately the destruction of nation states.

One of the goals it is to reduce USA & Europe's productive might, and therefore standard of living (already done). The intention is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up.

I think it's hypocritical to be so critical of immigration

Only to you. But it is not hypocritical. You have to gauge what your country can accommodate without impoverishing everyone.

That notion then is never-ending in your opinion, because in 50 yrs time the whole of GB's current population will be more or less replaced by immigrants. Do you not consider things such as space and resources?

Southall,

Trump is just as much a part of a connected global elite as the people that he claimed he was against, just look at his appointments and the things he has tried ( with Argentina) for example since he became President Elect. All of his appointments are connected people, whether it be from Goldman Sachs, to Exxon Mobil ( and as revealed today being on the board of a US/Russian oil firm) etc etc.

To cut to the chase, Trump is the elite, he has just exploited "the people" because it was politically expedient to do so.

Oh and the "destruction" of nation states etc? Lets not pretend that nationalism is the same as patriotism or that this was actually the goal.

But I understand that he thinks that they were worthy, unlike most, who aren't French or German

Dearie me, what shoddy reasoning. You only see colour, don't you? Do you know that there are people (that I know) such as the West Indians, Indians and Sri Lankans who also think this country is full up?

"because in 50 yrs time the whole of GB's current population will be more or less replaced by immigrants."

Yes because immigration is changing the population at a rate of 0.5% of the population per year, so in 50 years there would be an extra 19 million immigrants in the UK, if none of them die, or go back home etc. So the "whole of the population" will not be replaced.

Trump is just as much a part of a connected global elite

He may be, Darth, but if he has been telling the truth about why he stood for the presidency, then all I can say is what a wonderful opportunity America has.

Perhaps places like Detroit, the motor city, can come back to some degree. How wonderful that would be to have the hum and activity of manufacture.

He hasn't been telling the truth, just look at his appointments, all firm members of the "swamp". Lots of middle Americans are likely to be worse off due to his tax changes too!

South

I'm not for fully open borders, but I don't think immigration is the reason for all problems either.
It's how Farage forgets that his ascendants and his wife have also put more strain on health care and housing and took someone else's job. Or had a positive contribution.
It's nice to have control on borders, but in the EU it works both ways.
Anyway, it's a discussion for another thread.
And it is in fact distasteful to simply call Eddie a dick, when he was simply presenting arguments. That's an example of what I'd call shutting the discussion.

How do people reconcile their belief that Trump is anti-globalist with the fact that Trump's cabinet has an oil tycoon Goldman Sachs Banker, and many long-time establishment figures in the Republican party. If Trump was really so anti-globalist, why isn't Bernie Saunders offered a job in the cabinet? How do you guys not feel like you've been victims of a giant Con?

John Goodman's impression of Perry is priceless.

BTW Detroit has had major problems for decades, there were job losses from the 1950s onwards, and the 1967 riots had a big impact. Many of the problems of the US car industry are also to do with the obsession in the US of maximising shareholder value (and therefore profits and dividends) and not retaining profit for investment.

Dearie me, what shoddy reasoning. You only see colour, don't you?

I was talking about his ancestry. It works in relation to other EU countries too. You assumed colour. Why?
And those west indies older immigrants are hypocrites too.

And, BTW, I thought you were against silencing and telling people to shut up

Are you referring to the audience member who shouted at Izzard to shut up? If you are, did you not get that Izzard was being very annoying and just gabbling at Farage. The fact that it was someone in the audience and not from the panel, really brought Izzard up short and he stopped immediately. If you look at his face, you will see his realisation that the audience is not with him for once.

And it is in fact distasteful to simply call Eddie a dick, when he was simply presenting arguments. That's an example of what I'd call shutting the discussion

Did you watch that YouTube clip? You will see how bad he got - never seen him like that before. Talented man, but he let himself down that time. Shutting down what discussion, what are you talking about? Eddie was in Farage's face ranting.

This is why:

"But I understand that he thinks that they were worthy, unlike most, who aren't French or German."

Goodman looks the healthiest I've ever seen him. He must hv easily lost about 100 lbs.

If anyone's interested I think there is some very accurate analysis in comparing both the Trump and Obama first elections.

Neither Candidate was the preferred one from the Party they were seeking to lead. Obama got lots of donations through the internet and got a large momentum going that way, Trump did get some like this too.

Both offered change, and a different type of politics, both won elections by winning victories in the "rust belt" and other swing states.

The interesting thing comes next, where as almost everything Obama sought to change was blocked by the Republicans on Capitol Hill , so he was unable to bring about the changes that he thought were needed. despite delivering a growing economy and low unemployment there was still the feelings of frustration in the areas that had voted for change in the first place.

So they vote for the change candidate again in Trump. It will be interesting to see if Trump is more successful. The Republican party are often much more generous regarding fiscal spending when one of their own is in the Whitehouse.

If it doesn't work out I can see him being a one term President and a Sanders type candidate elected next time.

Eddie was in Farage's face ranting.

No he wasn't. He was sitting next to Farage.

Oh My.

When a 5 year old is elected president:

"We should tell China that we don't want the drone they stole back.- let them keep it!"

I expect China will get back with:
"We never wanted it anyway. We have better ones"

It's encouraging.

Remember your Sun Tzu, Lweji. Because the Chinese certainly read him.

'If you sit by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.' (Or something like that.)

"You're still not getting it! The point is that presenting Trump's victory as some sort of victory for "the people" when more of "the people" voted for the other candidate is just inaccurate.

Nearly as inaccurate as saying that Trump isn't part of the elite establishment."

Darth, (Ive been away for a few days, so catching up on thread 6! Congrats Claig )
This has been thrown around regularly since the day Hillary lost. Not wishing to go back to thread 1 or 2, 3 etc but its a typical tactic of those who lose in the 'first past the post' system. What you disregard when claiming a 'proportional representation' win, from a first past the post vote, is thats its a recognised fact that voters vote differently in both those systems.

In a FPTP system, those areas heavily 'blue' or 'red' will see a low turn out as voters feel they have a wasted vote. We do it here in the UK just as they do in the US. However, when you offer a PR vote, or a 1 man 1 vote counts, as we saw in the referendum, turn out shoots through the roof. You cant compare FPTP vote count to a perceived PR or 'popular' vote. Voters werent given an 'every vote counts' election.

However, if I humoured you, in California, Hillary won by 4.3 million votes, yet the nett 'popular vote' alleged across the country is 2.8million.
First question, do we accept that if you take out Califonia, the rest of the US voted overwhelmingly for Trump? Second question, are you proposing to impose Califonias' will on the rest of the US for example?

In short, this is exactly why the US have the electoral college. Personally, I think the anti-trump brigade are going to be extremely dissapointed tomorrow, they may get 1 rogue EC vote, if they get 2 theyll be doing well. The EC will indeed vote with the 'popular vote', and thats Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedStatesspresidentialelectionninCalifornia,,_2016

I'm not complaining about the result Chris, what I'm saying is that as the popular vote was won by Hillary its not an accurate representation of the Trump victory that it was victory of the people over the system/elite/establishment or whatever because it simply isn't true. MORE people voted for Hillary.

The thing about taking out California is also a bit silly too isn't it, take out this state or that and Trump wins the popular vote etc etc. Well as I said above change 200,000 or so votes in Wisconsin and Michigan and Hillary is president. Both are ridiculous.

I'm not complaining about the result or trying to change it, I'm simply saying that portraying the Trump win as the "victory of the people" is inaccurate and rather revisionist.

I

It wasn't even that big a victory.

"Added Boston University history professor Bruce Schulman : "To say that Trump won by a landslide, then Obama won by even bigger landslides.""

"Indeed, the narrower of Obama’s two wins in 2012 with 332 electoral votes was described at the time as not being a landslide by The Atlantic, Politico, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, Fox News’ Brit Hume and others."

www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/

Since 1952, six presidents won with over 400 electoral votes. Against 306 for Trump.

And considering that he lost the popular vote by 5x the President with the highest popular vote loss, then Trump and trumpettes should take a humble pill. Neither the "people", nor the "country" is for him.

And if saying he won by a landslide or that it was a victory isn't spin, then what is?

'portraying the Trump win as the "victory of the people" is inaccurate and rather revisionist. '

No this is a misunderstanding of what it was all about. You are new to the 20 or so Trump threads which explain the revolution in detail.

"The people" does not mean the majority of the people, instead it refers to the people as opposed to the elites and the reason for that is that the elite all backed Hillary, as did the elite's media and all the politicians across the planet who were told to call Trump "unfit". That is why Trump's victory was a victory of the people over the elites - a populist victory, a people's victory over the powerful elites.

It is irrelevant if even the majority of the people voted for the Establishment, the end result was that the Establishment backed Hillary, Blair backed Hillary, the entire world's political class backed Hillary, the EU panjandrums backed Hillary and they all lost, so that means that the people were the winners and the Establishment were the losers.

That is why Tony Blair, Oxford PPE, servant extraordinaire, says "I no longer understand what is happening in politics"

"Tony Blair: I've shut down my businesses to fight Brexit and Donald Trump

TONY BLAIR has revealed his plans to set up a new organisation to tackle the “political earthquakes” of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/738783/Tony-Blair-shut-down-business-return-fight-Brexit-Donald-Trump-EU-referendum

"Tony Blair aims to fight resurgent populism with centre-ground campaign

Former PM to launch new organisation in the new year in response to global forces that have led to Brexit and election of Donald Trump"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/21/tony-blair-hoping-to-revitalise-centre-ground-with-political-comeback

How the Chris Hayes book Twilight of the Elites explains Trump's appeal

www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/13/13259860/twilight-elites-trump-meritocracy

That is why Trump's victory is a people's victory, a populist revolution, over the elites and all their servants and Oxbridge teams and servants extraordinaire in the political class.

They are desperate, they are defeated, the people are victorious

Sir Bob, Blair, the BBC and a pack of lies are all they have left.

Claig, you've not explained anything in detail, let alone a revolution.

We still haven't had a proper definition of elites, as it's constantly shifting according to whether they are for or against Trump. The same for the Establishment.
And if "the people" is not the majority of those that are not elites, what is, then? Who defines what is the people and what they want? You? Trump? That's laughable.