President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can't you attack both?



I have never denied it, I just don't see it as being of any significance whatsoever.



[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January–April_2011)

Seems incredibly political to me. Some highlights:



No, you're totally right. These protests had absolutely nothing to do with political oppression, police brutality, and violent suppression of dissent. :rolleyes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Major unrest began on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, yet in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution", protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city, reading: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام" – ("The people want the fall of the regime") – a trademark slogan of the Arab Spring.

Demonstrators clashed with local police, and confrontations escalated on 18 March after Friday prayers. Security forces attacked protesters gathered at the Omari Mosque using water cannons and tear gas, followed by live fire, killing four.

But again, you're totally right. It wasn't political at all. Had nothing to do with people being sick of living under an autocratic regime without civil liberties or basic freedoms.



What has this got to do with anything? Why are you so obsessed with conflating religion with politics? The protests did not have a religious basis but a civil one - that much is blindingly clear to anyone who was paying attention at the time. The religious and sectarian elements arose far later - the initial spark of the uprisings was generally some incident of brutality or overreach by the unelected government in each of the states involved.

The reason I bring up religion is because in that part of the world religion and politics is intertwined. If you look at Israel that gvt emphasizes that it is a Jewish state at the expense of the Arab population. As for the demonstrators in Syria the violence on the streets perpetrated by the mobs caused the destruction of Mosques and burning of Christian Churches including the chanting of Anti Alawite slogans. This had all the fingerprints of sectarian killings. The gvt had to react to a dangerous situation that had sprung up in another country. The real key here is that west don't like it when Arabs want to rule themselves have have their own laws instead of being dictated to by an international cartel. The Demonstrators perpetrated heinous crimes against innocent civilians across the Arab Muslim world the chief beneficiaries of whom are the Jihadists.

KingBrian2

Ardillaun wrote: »

What does all this sudden love for Russia from the Trumpkins/Paleocons mean for Europe? A free hand for Putin in the old Soviet Union? And maybe in Eastern Europe generally? It's a bit surprising that actual Europeans are cheering for an invasion of their continent.

It certainly beats all the Russiaphobia that has been doing the rounds. A tremendous amount of hate and bigotry is shown towards Russians. In the days of the cold war is was because it was a Communist country now it is just because they are Russian and anything Russian is bad news.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It certainly beats all the Russiaphobia that has been doing the rounds. A tremendous amount of hate and bigotry is shown towards Russians. In the days of the cold war is was because it was a Communist country now it is just because they are Russian and anything Russian is bad news.

I guess that annexation of another nation's territory was all just an illusion then?

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The reason I bring up religion is because in that part of the world religion and politics is intertwined. If you look at Israel that gvt emphasizes that it is a Jewish state at the expense of the Arab population. As for the demonstrators in Syria the violence on the streets perpetrated by the mobs caused the destruction of Mosques and burning of Christian Churches including the chanting of Anti Alawite slogans. This had all the fingerprints of sectarian killings. The gvt had to react to a dangerous situation that had sprung up in another country. The real key here is that west don't like it when Arabs want to rule themselves have have their own laws instead of being dictated to by an international cartel. The Demonstrators perpetrated heinous crimes against innocent civilians across the Arab Muslim world the chief beneficiaries of whom are the Jihadists.

What international cartel is supposed to be dictating to Syria? The Syrians themselves opposed Assad, and continue to. If you can't acknowledge that the primary cause of the civil war there is Assad, and not some fictional CT you dreamed up, then it might explain why you can't understand anything else that's going on in that country.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's similar to how technocratic governments in Europe have been cheerleaded by many of the same posters. They do not fundamentally believe in democracy as the cornerstone of civilisation. They are concerned entirely with ends, regardless of means - therefore if a government's policies are "good" in their eyes, it doesn't matter whether they are democratically elected or not.

Personally I'm the opposite. No leader can be described as a good leader, even if they make gold rain from the sky and have a zero poverty rate, unless they are backed by free and open democratic elections.

There's a flip-side to that argument, which is the danger of believing that a leader anointed by free and fair elections is automatically a good one.

Blair? Cameron? Sarkozy? Berlusconi? Tsipras? Duterte? Trump?

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

What international cartel is supposed to be dictating to Syria? The Syrians themselves opposed Assad, and continue to. If you can't acknowledge that the primary cause of the civil war there is Assad, and not some fictional CT you dreamed up, then it might explain why you can't understand anything else that's going on in that country.

The primary cause of the civil war is not President Assad it is the terrorists that were backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS and infiltrated Syria.

Most of the fighters against Syrian gvt are non Syrians. Where did they come? They came from across the Arab world. Saudi's and Turks, Jordanians, Libyans, Egyptians colleagues of Morsi. Even Chechens are in Syria all under the umbrella of Jihad. None have an interest of keeping a secular state or having free and fair election. That means no peace with Israel and worse relations with the international community.

Why defend people that want to spread terror in a volatile region? What is urgently needed is diplomacy and focusing on removing the threat posed by terrorists. Having free and fair elections is important yes also having security to ensure that voters can freely go to the voting booth without the fear of being attacked is also vital. People won't vote if their lives are in danger and will result in low turnout and leaders not representing the majority of the population.

BuilderPlumber

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The primary cause of the civil war is not President Assad it is the terrorists that were backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS and infiltrated Syria.

Most of the fighters against Syrian gvt are non Syrians. Where did they come? They came from across the Arab world. Saudi's and Turks, Jordanians, Libyans, Egyptians colleagues of Morsi. Even Chechens are in Syria all under the umbrella of Jihad. None have an interest of keeping a secular state or having free and fair election. That means no peace with Israel and worse relations with the international community.

Why defend people that want to spread terror in a volatile region? What is urgently needed is diplomacy and focusing on removing the threat posed by terrorists. Having free and fair elections is important yes also having security to ensure that voters can freely go to the voting booth without the fear of being attacked is also vital. People won't vote if their lives are in danger and will result in low turnout and leaders not representing the majority of the population.

The problem indeed is this. This practice of using proxies dates back to the cold war. The US via Saudi Arabia arranged fighters to go to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. These foreign fighters mostly from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular formed into al Qaeda.

The current situation is the same. The West backed up FSA to oust Assad who was a pro-Russia leader. The Russians and Russia's allies needless to say backed up Assad. ISIS were backed up by elements in Saudi Arabia and Turkey saw anyone including ISIS who opposed the Kurds as someone to support to some extent. The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend mentality.

KingBrian2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The problem indeed is this. This practice of using proxies dates back to the cold war. The US via Saudi Arabia arranged fighters to go to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. These foreign fighters mostly from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular formed into al Qaeda.

The current situation is the same. The West backed up FSA to oust Assad who was a pro-Russia leader. The Russians and Russia's allies needless to say backed up Assad. ISIS were backed up by elements in Saudi Arabia and Turkey saw anyone including ISIS who opposed the Kurds as someone to support to some extent. The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend mentality.

Yes Assad is accused of backing the PKK against Turkey so he is enemy of Erdogan and backing Hezbollah and the PLO in neighbouring states much to the frustration of Washington & Tel Aviv. A settlement needs to be reached on using proxies to undermine states across the region. Israel has to be recognized by the Arab states.

BuilderPlumber

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a flip-side to that argument, which is the danger of believing that a leader anointed by free and fair elections is automatically a good one.

Blair? Cameron? Sarkozy? Berlusconi? Tsipras? Duterte? Trump?

Of all of these Duterte is so far the most dictatorial with regard to his own people. Blair was a warmonger but did not change the internal legal framework of his own country. The next 4 are ordinary run of the mill politicians. Trump has yet to prove what he is!

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The primary cause of the civil war is not President Assad it is the terrorists that were backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS and infiltrated Syria.

Nope. Assad caused the civil war. Long before ISIS existed, there was civil war initiated by Assad's reaction to popular protest. It's pretty much impossible to claim a cause that didn't exist at the time the war started.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Nope. Assad caused the civil war. Long before ISIS existed, there was civil war initiated by Assad's reaction to popular protest. It's pretty much impossible to claim a cause that didn't exist at the time the war started.

It was the Jihadists backed by the West that caused the civil war in Syria. Israel even violated Syrian airspace and targeted the gvt infrastructure. The US was setting on a collision course to attack Syria before going after Iran.

oscarBravo

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Of all of these Duterte is so far the most dictatorial with regard to his own people.

He was democratically elected. And that's my only point: we really, really need to stop using "democratic" as some sort of gold standard. Lots of truly horrible people and truly horrible policies have had democratic mandates.

If there's an objective reason to criticise a leader or a policy, go for it. But criticising them just because they don't have the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy is weak sauce.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

He was democratically elected. And that's my only point: we really, really need to stop using "democratic" as some sort of gold standard. Lots of truly horrible people and truly horrible policies have had democratic mandates.

If there's an objective reason to criticise a leader or a policy, go for it. But criticising them just because they don't have the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy is weak sauce.

Israel is not a democracy. Everyone knows it by now but won't admit it. The US, Britain and France still pretend that Israel is the only democracy in the region. If Syria is a dictatorship so is Israel. Peace walls, police brutality, racism towards Arab inhabitants and unwillingness to negotiate territory swaps with neighbouring states.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was the Jihadists backed by the West that caused the civil war in Syria.

In 1982 Assad massacred between 20,000 and 40,000 people. And that was just one attrocity.

Do you not think the Syrian people might remember something like that and harbour some lasting hatred for assad?

Here's a wiki list of the Syrian Massacres:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

BoatMad

Trump has to think long and hard about what has to be done and should form a government of moderate competent people who can get what needs to be done properly.

yep. Pence, palin , Bannon, all well known moderates

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

In 1982 Assad massacred between 20,000 and 40,000 people. And that was just one attrocity.

Do you not think the Syrian people might remember something like that and harbour some lasting hatred for assad?

Here's a wiki list of the Syrian Massacres:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

In the 80's their was an Islamist resurgence the like of Al Qaeda. Sectarians that wanted sharia law imposed and your ignoring the point I made about Israel. Mossad has committed atrocities all their own in the name of Israel.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In the 80's their was an Islamist resurgence the like of Al Qaeda. Sectarians that wanted sharia law imposed and your ignoring the point I made about Israel. Mossad has committed atrocities all their own in the name of Israel.

No. I'm not.

Do you think that it is possible that the inhabitants of a country that suffers regular atrocities on its people by the rulers might feel some discontent?

Those people are then open to all kinds of outside influence, right?

BoatMad

InTheTrees wrote: »

No. I'm not.

Do you think that it is possible that the inhabitants of a country that suffers regular atrocities on its people by the rulers might feel some discontent?

Those people are then open to all kinds of outside influence, right?

most of the anti-assad ferment is religious or pseudo-religious

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

No. I'm not.

Do you think that it is possible that the inhabitants of a country that suffers regular atrocities on its people by the rulers might feel some discontent?

Those people are then open to all kinds of outside influence, right?

Are we talking about Israel here or Turkey. You comment is so vague it could apply to virtually every country in the region. You apply one standard to Syria and look away from Gaza or the Kurds engaged in a war with the Turkish gvt. You select Syria for special treatment and condemn them for actions that are committed across the region namely terrorist attacks like Hamas targeting Israeli settlements or MB, Al Nusra & FSA targeting gvt forces in Damascus and elsewhere. Condemn all atrocities which I do. I condemn them all accepting that this is a war and states have to defend themselves from terrorists whoever they may be.

BuilderPlumber

oscarBravo wrote: »

He was democratically elected. And that's my only point: we really, really need to stop using "democratic" as some sort of gold standard. Lots of truly horrible people and truly horrible policies have had democratic mandates.

If there's an objective reason to criticise a leader or a policy, go for it. But criticising them just because they don't have the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy is weak sauce.

Most of the worst dictators rose to power either democratically or else as a popular agent for change. Hitler is an example. Duterte is an example now. Governments can be sold to the people, racism can be sold and poor policies of all kind can be sold. Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, etc. all can be marketed in different ways and be shown as antidotes to the problems of the day.

Democracy does not exist. Governments get into power, break their promises and rule obo an unelected elite of big businessmen. The media expose them are the media in turn are owned by rival interests. The people are pawns in the process and their opinions are changed by clever marketing by the politicians and/or media.

BuilderPlumber

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes Assad is accused of backing the PKK against Turkey so he is enemy of Erdogan and backing Hezbollah and the PLO in neighbouring states much to the frustration of Washington & Tel Aviv. A settlement needs to be reached on using proxies to undermine states across the region. Israel has to be recognized by the Arab states.

Mature leadership is needed in the region. Hardliners in Israel like Netanyahu hardly encourage the Arab states or other Islamic countries to reconsider their views on it. Since 1948, every Arab and many other Islamic countries have come out with their 'Israel should be wiped off the map' thing. Saddam was the most famous spouter of this in recent time and ironically a man called Ahmadinejad who was fighting against Saddam in the 1980s regurgitated Saddam's words in 2005. But Nasser may have originally popularised this type of talk along with Assad Senior.

Now the time has come for more maturity. But that won't happen. The arms industry would probably pay politicians to say hateful things about each others' countries. Israel v Arabs is one thing. But Israel and Iran 'hating' each other makes no sense at all, unless one knows about the stock market strategies of the arms industry: 2 non-enemies who have no back history say poor things about each other to create a fake war footing to up the price of arms and budgets for arms is what this is all about. In reality, Iran and Israel would join forces to crush their common real enemy Saudi Arabia. But only if they knew for sure that Iran could replace Saudi's oil!

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was the Jihadists backed by the West that caused the civil war in Syria. Israel even violated Syrian airspace and targeted the gvt infrastructure. The US was setting on a collision course to attack Syria before going after Iran.

It really wasn't. All evidence supports the fact of an internal popular uprising by Syrians. Israel has been violating Syrian airspace for as long as Israel has been at war with Syria - nothing new in that. And what have Israel actions got to do with jihadists or the U.S.? Israel have been more than happy to maintain the status quo in Syria - the uprising in Syria goes against their interests.

alastair

BoatMad wrote: »

most of the anti-assad ferment is religious or pseudo-religious

Most of the pro-Assad 'ferment' are religious too. It's a region with a lot of religion going on.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Most of the pro-Assad 'ferment' are religious too. It's a region with a lot of religion going on.

Their are religious elements on both sides but President Assad does not have a monopoly on terrorism the spread of Wahhabism has come out of Saudi Arabia. During the war against Al Qaeda it was the Saudi's and Pakistanis that were causing the sectarian conflict. You forget so soon the Sunni attacks on the Shia mosques in Iraq. You also don't account for the attacks on the religions buildings in Syria perpetrated by the Sunni protestors which you say played no part in the causing the uprising.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

It really wasn't. All evidence supports the fact of an internal popular uprising by Syrians. Israel has been violating Syrian airspace for as long as Israel has been at war with Syria - nothing new in that. And what have Israel actions got to do with jihadists or the U.S.? Israel have been more than happy to maintain the status quo in Syria - the uprising in Syria goes against their interests.

Not if it takes the attention away from a peace deal with the Palestinians which they refuse to deal with. With Assad knocked out it will be the Saudi's who will the friends of Palestine and for decades Saudi Arabia did nothing for the Palestinian refugees.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not if it takes the attention away from a peace deal with the Palestinians which they refuse to deal with. With Assad knocked out it will be the Saudi's who will the friends of Palestine and for decades Saudi Arabia did nothing for the Palestinian refugees.

This 'deal' that's what, exactly? Not interested in your wooly CT guff - evidence and specifics of this supposed deal you refer to. Because there was no deal.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

This 'deal' that's what, exactly? Not interested in your wooly CT guff - evidence and specifics of this supposed deal you refer to. Because there was no deal.

The chance of a deal was certainly derailed when US administrations behaved belligerently in the region. Backing the worst Islamist groups in the region then crying foul when Syria or Egypt defend themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood engaging in a mob violence with the US condemning them when the mobs had access to US arms.

El_Duderino 09

Trump outlined his plans for his 'first day's in office. No mention of building a wall or reporting anyone. That rhetoric was left on the campaign trail.

Now he only needs to show that he's being unkind to illegals and his base will consider it job done. If he shows them that he doesn't care about breaking up families by deporting parents for example. Obama has been playing that aspect of his deportation down. Trump will play it up and call it a mission accomplished

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The chance of a deal was certainly derailed when US administrations behaved belligerently in the region. Backing the worst Islamist groups in the region then crying foul when Syria or Egypt defend themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood engaging in a mob violence with the US condemning them when the mobs had access to US arms.

Nope - that's more wooly guff. What 'deal' are you talking about, because there was no deal. If you reference an undermined deal, the onus is on you to show that there was a deal to actually undermine.

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Trump outlined his plans for his 'first day's in office. No mention of building a wall or reporting anyone. That rhetoric was left on the campaign trail.

Now he only needs to show that he's being unkind to illegals and his base will consider it job done. If he shows them that he doesn't care about breaking up families by deporting parents for example. Obama has been playing that aspect of his deportation down. Trump will play it up and call it a mission accomplished

To be fair to his base, there is a second wing made up f a lot of them feel completely screwed by Republicans and Democrats alike (ironically the other branch of his base keeps comparing him to Reagan in a favourable sense, who is the basis of a lot of these problems) - if, or more likely when, he fails to deliver 'the jobs' and prosperity back to these people, and fails to deliver on his claim that he would be able to reinvigorate possibly up to tens of thousands of towns and small cities in a short time frame, he is going to face a massive backlash.

That's the main area where he has set himself up for failure, because as we have already seen on the Trump/presidential threads here, the other wing of his base will praise him if he says/does one thing... and will equally praise him if he says/does the complete and utter opposite. The rust belters just looking to better their lot on the other hand, will be expecting results, and they make up a huge portion of those who voted for him.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Nope - that's more wooly guff. What 'deal' are you talking about, because there was no deal. If you reference an undermined deal, the onus is on you to show that there was a deal to actually undermine.

Their were negotiations between Israel and Palestine prior to the turmoil. Google only goes so far. Most articles about this subject occurred years ago before the invasion of Iraq or the Israeli Hezbollah conflict. So the Google entries only bring up articles that relate to events taking place in region today. One key aspect which i'm sure were all familiar with was that Syria, Egypt and other secular states helped America and NATO is combating Al Qaeda post 9/11 whereas what has only come out is that the US understated the level of influence Saudi Arabia had in the spreading of Jihadism across the Muslim world. An indication that it was the sectarian states that have been fueling the violence in the region.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Their were negotiations between Israel and Palestine prior to the turmoil.

There have been ongoing negotiations for the past fifty years. There were negotiations well after the Syrian civil war kicked off. The current impasse with regard to negotiations has precisely nothing to do with Syria.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

There have been ongoing negotiations for the past fifty years. There were negotiations well after the Syrian civil war kicked off. The current impasse with regard to negotiations has precisely nothing to do with Syria.

On the contrary many of the organizations Jihad or otherwise are opposed to the peace process and opposed to Sunni and Shia Islam living side by side. When the MB got into power in Egypt the instances of violence against the west actually sparked. Infact they were calling for the treaty with Israel to be torn up and to help Hamas in the Gaza strip only when Gen Sisi regained power due to the support of the secularists was this course reversed. The people like the MB, Al Nusra and other folks are not interested in peace, free and fair elections or lofty ideals like democracy.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

On the contrary many of the organizations Jihad or otherwise are opposed to the peace process and opposed to Sunni and Shia Islam living side by side. When the MB got into power in Egypt the instances of violence against the west actually sparked. Infact they were calling for the treaty with Israel to be torn up and to help Hamas in the Gaza strip only when Gen Sisi regained power due to the support of the secularists was this course reversed. The people like the MB, Al Nusra and other folks are not interested in peace, free and fair elections or lofty ideals like democracy.

Nothing to do with Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Morsi didn't close any peace treaties with Israel now, did he? So what exactly was Sisi 'reversing'?

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to do with Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Morsi didn't close any peace treaties with Israel now, did he? So what exactly was Sisi 'reversing'?

Well for one the civil disturbances that broke out across the country and were rejected by the pro Sisi silent revolutionaries that backed the military leadership as in Syria who want nothing to do with the sectarianism of the Saudi Kingdom.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well for one the civil disturbances that broke out across the country and were rejected by the pro Sisi silent revolutionaries that backed the military leadership as in Syria who want nothing to do with the sectarianism of the Saudi Kingdom.

I'm struggling to make any sense of the above.

Nope.

You do understand that The Saudi Kingdom has banned the Muslim Brotherhood for years now? That none of the above has anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian talks?

El_Duderino 09

Billy86 wrote:

... - if, or more likely when, he fails to deliver 'the jobs' and prosperity back to these people, and fails to deliver on his claim that he would be able to reinvigorate possibly up to tens of thousands of towns and small cities in a short time frame, he is going to face a massive backlash.

What makes you think he won't bring the jobs to America? The Irish made an outrageously corrupt deal with the corporations to allow them to pay little tax in exchange for them setting up here. Why wouldn't he just make a more corrupt deal? Do you doubt his potential for corruption?

Billy86 wrote:

That's the main area where he has set himself up for failure, because as we have already seen on the Trump/presidential threads here, the other wing of his base will praise him if he says/does one thing... and will equally praise him if he says/does the complete and utter opposite. The rust belters just looking to better their lot on the other hand, will be expecting results, and they make up a huge portion of those who voted for him.

He already said he'll get rid of the environmental protections and get people producing 'clean' coal - whatever gat is. That's jobs straight away. He also said he's going to rebuild the infrastructure. People won't kick up a fuss when he borrows money for infrastructure because the republicans didn't care about that in the first place. They'll talk about the job creation. If he brings some jobs to those places, that'll be enough.

We're all missing the point anyway. He isn't interested in a proper examination of his claims against the results. He'll just try to control the narrative like he did in the campaign.

One thing that Americans definitely want is cruelty towards groups like illegals and foreigners who they don't think give them enough respect (read fear). I think once he starts being cruel to illegals by breaking up families, mocking black lads who are shot by police, and throwing his weight around on the international stage, they won't care what else he does or doesn't do.

He's a 2 term President and what he calls himself after that is up to him. I'd give even odds that he starts wearing a military uniform by the end of his second term (partly joking).

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

I'm struggling to make any sense of the above.

Nope.

You do understand that The Saudi Kingdom has banned the Muslim Brotherhood for years now? That none of the above has anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian talks?

The Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for terrorism something you deny and deny time and time again. One of multiple terrorist organizations that have whipped up sectarian passions and have inflicted bloodshed in many Muslim countries. The same MB that don't want a secular Palestinian state and hate Shi'a Islam more than westerners. The same MB that had prominent personalities involved in Al Qaeda, Hamas & Egyptian Jihad and you consider to be a party of democracy.

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What makes you think he won't bring the jobs to America? The Irish made an outrageously corrupt deal with the corporations to allow them to pay little tax in exchange for them setting up here. Why wouldn't he just make a more corrupt deal? Do you doubt his potential for corruption?

OK, let's use Ireland as an example. First, how does he get the jobs to come home? It's not as if he can just click his fingers and make it happen, and a 15% tax rate isn't going to do it for most either. Added to that if he tries to impose harsh penalties (which he won't, it will impact his own foreign based businesses too much).

But let's say he does, let's say he manages it. What kind of jobs does he bring home? How many of these jobs are in the fields that the rust belt workers are looking for? Call me nuts, but I don't see a whole lot of blue collar work coming back from Ireland from the likes of Apple, Google, Intel, Boston Scientific, Dell, Pfizer, LinkedIn, Hewlett Packard, Facebook and Johnson and Johnson - do you?

Where would those companies be most likely to locate these jobs, which are largely in financial and science sectors? The coastal (read: non rust belt) cities. So what does he achieve for the rust belters who voted for him in that scenario?

He already said he'll get rid of the environmental protections and get people producing 'clean' coal - whatever gat is. That's jobs straight away. He also said he's going to rebuild the infrastructure. People won't kick up a fuss when he borrows money for infrastructure because the republicans didn't care about that in the first place. They'll talk about the job creation. If he brings some jobs to those places, that'll be enough.

Where does he get the money to rebuild the infrastructure for up to tens of thousands of towns/cities, though? The US is still recovering from Bush's economic madness, and Trump's other policies regarding walls, immigrants and a seriously ramped up military are going to make things even tougher in this regard. While he could borrow and the setup of congress works in his favour here, there is only so much that can be taken from the proverbial well and they're already in a what, $20 trillion dollar deficit or thereabouts?

He had 62 miillion votes, a hell of a lot of which were rust belters frustrated endlessly about their situation - 'some' jobs alone are not going to cut it for them.

We're all missing the point anyway. He isn't interested in a proper examination of his claims against the results. He'll just try to control the narrative like he did in the campaign.

This is true, but the problem is that people notice not having jobs or money regardless, and when you are in power it is a lot harder than just claiming everything is awful all of the time as he has spent the last 18 months doing.

One thing that Americans definitely want is cruelty towards groups like illegals and foreigners who they don't think give them enough respect (read fear). I think once he starts being cruel to illegals by breaking up families, mocking black lads who are shot by police, and throwing his weight around on the international stage, they won't care what else he does or doesn't do.

That's the alt right section of his fanbase for the most part. Kicking out illegals could help with some rust belters who feel their jobs are under threat, but they won't be happy with it unless their potential for work and income improves in the process. Having a go at minorities will only play into his alt right fanbase, who would praise him if he said he was putting $10 trillion dollars into cancer research, and would praise him equally if he said cancer is a myth that doesn't actually exist.

He's a 2 term President and what he calls himself after that is up to him. I'd give even odds that he starts wearing a military uniform by the end of his second term (partly joking).

He's two months away from his first day in office and we're not even sure if he'll survive his first term without being impeached yet, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves on the two term talk just yet.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for terrorism something you deny and deny time and time again. One of multiple terrorist organizations that have whipped up sectarian passions and have inflicted bloodshed in many Muslim countries. The same MB that don't want a secular Palestinian state and hate Shi'a Islam more than westerners. The same MB that had prominent personalities involved in Al Qaeda, Hamas & Egyptian Jihad and you consider to be a party of democracy.

I'll continue to point out the reality of the Muslim Brotherhood, that you don't seem to grasp. That they're not a proscribed terrorist group in the EU, in the US, in the UK, in Israel, nor in pretty much any countries beyond your pals in Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and that military junta in Egypt. Cameron's investigation concluded that there was no reason to change their designation to a terrorist group only last year. What makes you think that they've missed some vital information that you're party to? So, yeah, I'll deny it, and I'll be in good company. You enjoy your bedfellows.

Jan_de_Bakker

I heard Brian Cox on Ray Darcy today, he was supposed to be talking about cosmology and science but at least twice had a dig at Brexit and Trump.

He thinks the problem is people aren't educated - because of all this "fake news"
:rolleyes:

Yeah in your OPINION Brian!!
Would it be that way had Hillary/remainers had won ?

How arrogant of him to think "we know best, these poor peasants don't know what they are voting for" - Yes they ****ing do know what they are voting for, - they just aren't voting for it for the stupid cheap reasons you think they are voting for it.


I've lost a little respect for him since that.

alastair

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I heard Brian Cox on Ray Darcy today, he was supposed to be talking about cosmology and science but at least twice had a dig at Brexit and Trump.

He thinks the problem is people aren't educated - because of all this "fake news"
:rolleyes:

Yeah in your OPINION Brian!!
Would it be that way had Hillary/remainers had won ?

How arrogant of him to think "we know best, these poor peasants don't know what they are voting for" - Yes they ****ing do know what they are voting for, - they just aren't voting for it for the stupid cheap reasons you think they are voting for it.


I've lost a little respect for him since that.

Just to be clear... What's your special non-arrogant insight that suggests your opinion is any more informed than Cox's as to why people voted the way they did? Clearly ignorance played a significant role in both the pro-Brexit campaign and the Trump platform. So he might well be right.

RobertKK

Seems Mitt Romney has been asked to be secretary of state and Mitt Romney is seriously considering it.


Tim Allen has spoken about Hollywood people saying Trump is a bully, rather ignoring they are some of the biggest bullies around towards Trump supporters.

El_Duderino 09

Billy86 wrote:

OK, let's use Ireland as an example. First, how does he get the jobs to come home? It's not as if he can just click his fingers and make it happen, and a 15% tax rate isn't going to do it for most either. Added to that if he tries to impose harsh penalties (which he won't, it will impact his own foreign based businesses too much).

The very same way Ireland for those companies to relocate to Ireland, by incentivising the move with tax breaks for relocation, tax breaks for hiring new employees, tax breaks for farting and before you know it, they don't have to pay any tax for a decade. He's not weird about the long term viability

Billy86 wrote:

But let's say he does, let's say he manages it. What kind of jobs does he bring home? How many of these jobs are in the fields that the rust belt workers are looking for? Call me nuts, but I don't see a whole lot of blue collar work coming back from Ireland from the likes of Apple, Google, Intel, Boston Scientific, Dell, Pfizer, LinkedIn, Hewlett Packard, Facebook and Johnson and Johnson - do you?

Some of those jobs are highly skilled research jobs but lots are unskilled jobs like sales and customer service, warehousing, custodial, catering. The skilled jobs are likely to be filled by people from outside the area anyway. Then there's new accommodation, and services. Look at the affect Dell had on the economy of Limerick. It's not just the research jobs. It's the whole local economy.

Billy86 wrote:

Where would those companies be most likely to locate these jobs, which are largely in financial and science sectors? The coastal (read: non rust belt) cities. So what does he achieve for the rust belters who voted for him in that scenario?

Wherever the incentives make it most beneficial to go.

Billy86 wrote:

Where does he get the money to rebuild the infrastructure for up to tens of thousands of towns/cities, though? The US is still recovering from Bush's economic madness, and Trump's other policies regarding walls, immigrants and a seriously ramped up military are going to make things even tougher in this regard. While he could borrow and the setup of congress works in his favour here, there is only so much that can be taken from the proverbial well and they're already in a what, $20 trillion dollar deficit or thereabouts?

Where will the 'king of debt' get the money? By borrowing. The republicans blocked Obama's 'stimulus' packages but they won't bock Trump's plan to get the common man back working. Debt wasn't he problem. The brown fella and democrat in the oval office was their problem.

Billy86 wrote:

He had 62 miillion votes, a hell of a lot of which were rust belters frustrated endlessly about their situation - 'some' jobs alone are not going to cut it for them.

He won an election with spin. Some jobs would be plenty to spin into 'tremendous success'. He could even start to berate those without jobs and the rest will go along.

Billy86 wrote:

This is true, but the problem is that people notice not having jobs or money regardless, and when you are in power it is a lot harder than just claiming everything is awful all of the time as he has spent the last 18 months doing.

That depends. If he borrows and spreads the wealth around as Obama wanted to do, then there could be a huge feel good factor in 4 years.

Billy86 wrote:

That's the alt right section of his fanbase for the most part. Kicking out illegals could help with some rust belters who feel their jobs are under threat, but they won't be happy with it unless their potential for work and income improves in the process. Having a go at minorities will only play into his alt right fanbase, who would praise him if he said he was putting $10 trillion dollars into cancer research, and would praise him equally if he said cancer is a myth that doesn't actually exist.

You underestimate the alt right. 62m people voted for him after his entire campaign. It's the alt right is very much in the mainstream right now. The white supremacists are still at the fringe but I think there's a real appetite for harshness like he was doing during he campaign.

Building a wall and bullying Mexico into paying for it, bullying China, deportation squads, old school misogyny, torturing enemies, locking up his political rival spreading the Paris agreement and repealing Obama care. Those are campaign pledges he made and has gone back on them immediately. Hr never intended to do them, he just knew that's was what the people wanted to hear right now. He used them to control the narrative.

You can't follow a speech like that by discussing education policy and expect the media to cover it. Time to stop calling these people alt. They're just the mainstream right for now.

Billy86 wrote:

He's two months away from his first day in office and we're not even sure if he'll survive his first term without being impeached yet, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves on the two term talk just yet.

As above he figured out what the people wanted to hear and gave it to them. He'll keep controlling the narrative with whatever he needs to say and do. As president he will actually have to do some of the things he promises.

The most surprising thing about his presidency will be his outrageous popularity.

Elmer Blooker

alastair wrote: »

I'll continue to point out the reality of the Muslim Brotherhood, that you don't seem to grasp. That they're not a proscribed terrorist group in the EU, in the US, in the UK, in Israel, nor in pretty much any countries beyond your pals in Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and that military junta in Egypt. Cameron's investigation concluded that there was no reason to change their designation to a terrorist group only last year.

Stop trying to turn the MB into the "good" guys. The western media are covering up the true nature of the terrorists in Syria by reinventing them as "moderate" under different names. What are al-Qaeda known as these days?
The MB's goal is sectarian warfare and the imposition of Sharia law. The Egyptian Christians are familiar with the MB, would Syrian Christians fare any better?

The Muslim Brotherhood is showing the world its true colors.
The group that “renounced violence” in an effort to gain political power is engaged in a full-scale campaign of terror against Egypt’s Christian minority.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/the-muslim-brotherhood-s-war-on-coptic-christians.html

alastair

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He won an election with spin. Some jobs would be plenty to spin into 'tremendous success'. He could even start to berate those without jobs and the rest will go along.

You underestimate the alt right. 62m people voted for him after his entire campaign. It's the alt right is very much in the mainstream right now. The white supremacists are still at the fringe but I think there's a real appetite for harshness like he was doing during he campaign.

As above he figured out what the people wanted to hear and gave it to them. He'll keep controlling the narrative with whatever he needs to say and do. As president he will actually have to do some of the things he promises.

The most surprising thing about his presidency will be his outrageous popularity.

Lots of poor analysis there.

He didn't win then election with 62 million. The core GOP vote, that goes to pretty much any GOP candidate makes up the bulk of that - probably in the 60 million territory. He won the election on the back of a relatively small number of voters who don't normally vote GOP, and were swayed by his platform. Many of these people have a real and existant problem that they now expect to have sorted by this administration. They're not going to be spun or bullied into voting for the guy a second time if their problem isn't sorted. He'll lose those votes. The alt-right are far from any mainstream. There's nothing to support that theory. They're what they appear to be - a fringe tendency, who've garnered more attention than they deserve. Trump is not popular by any measure, and it's more than a stretch to think that he's going to become popular now on the back of the expectations he's raised, and what his capacity for delivery actually is.

alastair

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Stop trying to turn the MB into the "good" guys.

Stop making up narratives. I never said they were 'good guys'. They're not a terrorist group though. That's just the reality.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The western media are covering up the true nature of the terrorists in Syria by reinventing them as "moderate" under different names. What are al-Qaeda known as these days?

The western media have nothing to do with whether the MB are terrorists. The determination that they are not predates the entire Syrian civil war. They were not terrorist beforehand, and they're not terrorists now.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The MB's goal is sectarian warfare and the imposition of Sharia law. The Egyptian Christians are familiar with the MB, would Syrian Christians fare any better?

The MB's goal is sectarian in the sense that they're an Islamist organisation, but you need to acknowledge what they did, and didn't do in governance in Egypt; they didn't introduce/impose sharia law, they did introduce a constitution that protected the rights of various religions, including Coptic Christians, and they didn't have any sectarian warfare.

Elmer Blooker

alastair wrote: »

Stop making up narratives. I never said they were 'good guys'. They're not a terrorist group though. That's just the reality.

The "reality" ..... You mean Cameron's "investigation" concluded that they are not terrorists. The people who have to live among and in fear of these Islamists might think differently. This is last sentence from my link in case you haven't seen it.

The problem is the Muslim Brotherhood, full stop. When will the Obama administration realize it?

El_Duderino 09

alastair wrote:

He didn't win then election with 62 million. The core GOP vote, that goes to pretty much any GOP candidate makes up the bulk of that - probably in the 60 million territory. He won the election on the back of a relatively small number of voters who don't normally vote GOP, and were swayed by his platform. Many of these people have a real and existant problem that they now expect to have sorted by this administration. They're not going to be spun or bullied into voting for the guy a second time if their problem isn't sorted. He'll lose those votes. The alt-right are far from any mainstream. There's nothing to support that theory. They're what they appear to be - a fringe tendency, who've garnered more attention than they deserve. Trump is not popular by any measure, and it's more than a stretch to think that he's going to become popular now on the back of the expectations he's raised, and what his capacity for delivery actually is.

alastair wrote:

He didn't win then election with 62 million. The core GOP vote, that goes to pretty much any GOP candidate makes up the bulk of that - probably in the 60 million territory. He won the election on the back of a relatively small number of voters who don't normally vote GOP, and were swayed by his platform. Many of these people have a real and existant problem that they now expect to have sorted by this administration. They're not going to be spun or bullied into voting for the guy a second time if their problem isn't sorted. He'll lose those votes. The alt-right are far from any mainstream. There's nothing to support that theory. They're what they appear to be - a fringe tendency, who've garnered more attention than they deserve. Trump is not popular by any measure, and it's more than a stretch to think that he's going to become popular now on the back of the expectations he's raised, and what his capacity for delivery actually is.

Whatever way you slice it, 62. People voted for him. They saw he type of campaign he ran and they still voted for him. I think a lot of that was due to he harsh things he was willing to say. I think the 'alt right' in the normal person is closer to the surface then ever.

I looked up the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania and it's probably lower than you'd think at 5.4%. he didn't win Pennsylvania because of the unemployed vote. He won so many employed people's votes because he created a perception and made promises.

Now, Trump has never been one for keeping promises. Chances are that he will get done new jobs and spin it into success. By the time all the builders move into town to build factories, buying breakfast rolls, pints, petrol, hookers and drugs (they all contribute to the local economy), clothes, food and using local day to day service like plumbers etc. The local economy WILL experience a boost.

It will all he fuelled by debt but that's not the point over the short/meduim term

alastair

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The "reality" ..... You mean Cameron's "investigation" concluded that they are not terrorists. The people who have to live among and in fear of these Islamists might think differently. This is last sentence from my link in case you haven't seen it.

No, not just Cameron's investigation. The determination of the EU, of the U.S., of Israel, etc, etc. I read your link btw, but the reality is that the Coptics problems didn't start or end with the Morsi government - their problems aren't the MB, or Islamists, but long-standing sectarianism, which continues to this day: https://www.ft.com/content/e2b991c8-53e6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.