Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

ELM327

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Any chance you might be able to flesh out your theory about this so called "anti-male society", or like so much else in your post, is it just hot air?

Come on now, the rest of the posters in this thread to their credit have posed respectable questions without resorting to derogation.
Surely you are capable of an adult debate without resorting to namecalling and insults?

Christy42

ELM327 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I notice that we always get the burden of proof calls when making rape accusations but they disappear when calling the accuser a liar (and accusing them of a crime, perjury in this case). Remember there is never likely to be much evidence of an attack like this so not sure where you are going with balance of probability.

Can you not see how the POTUS' remarks can be seen as mocking all sexual abuse victims who don't have proof against their attacker? After all they may have no more evidence than Ford. It is one thing to not have a conviction. It is quite another to go over the top to insult someone who has been attacked.

He has not apologised. Anyone supporting him for taxes or abortions needs to admit to themselves they are ok with him mocking sexual abuse victims so they can get these things.

This is a slight grey area legally, as all allegations are assumed to be true unless proven otherwise, but all accused are innocent until proven otherwise. The latter part was forgotten by the angry mob who already decided Kavanaugh was guilty, so I guess in turn the POTUS and his supporters have adopted a similar stance to the former.


If you notice, Trump's position changed from "let's see what she has to say, but Kavanaugh is a good man", to attacking her, based on his assessment of what the voter base wanted.



FYI - Trump would not and will not apologise. I, along with a lot of his supporters, would lose a lot of respect for him if he did.

Edited to add: I actually don't support his/GOP stance on abortion, but it's better than another 8 years of Obama2 aka hillary.

I gave them as examples. Different people have different gop policies they are willing to turn their noses up to push.

I get a lot of his supporters would lose respect but why would you lose respect if he apologised? The man mocked victims of sexual assault. It was horrific. It is absolutely something a decent human being should apologise for. Yeah I get he went on what the people who were listening wanted. That does excuse it in the slightest.

I get some of his supporters want the alpha male who never admits he is wrong. No matter how wrong he is but is there a different reason you don't want him to apologise?

Leroy42

ELM327 wrote: »

Speaking of agendas, there's an agenda online perpetuated by the left/anti Trump media that all Trump supporters are unintelligent barely intelligible braindead unemployable morons. It is common here too.
I don't fit any of these stereotypes, I was on the school debate team, even the chess team for a while. I played rugby at my secondary school for 6 years. I work in fintech and while I'm no where near the 1%, I'm well paid for what I do. I'm a member of the diversity group at work which aims to promote rights for minority groups and LGBTQ. I'm by no means the only trump supporter that doesn't fit this media perpetuated stereotype.

The reason for this stereotype is that the alternative is far worse.

it is far easier to accept that many of the people that voted for Trump did so out of a lack of facts, they got caught up in the momentum an taken in by the slogans and the style rather than looking at the substance (of lack of it).

Taking you at your word, it means that you possessed the necessary intelligence and critical thinking to enable you to see through the obvious dog-whistles and lack of substance. That you, and plenty of others, didn't can only mean that you accept racism, misogyny, false accusations, tax fraud, lies, support for neo-nazis, lack of respect for the office or indeed the institutions of the US.

So it is actually out of a certain level of not wanting to label people with such things that many have taken the view that the people must simply be confused.

But, as you say in your case, you are clearly more than happy to be all of those things. You are saying you work in diversity groups but actively support a person that goes out of his way to create division and has tried to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community and has stated many times his desire to take away the rights of women to control their own bodies.

I am totally confused how you have been able to square that circle. How you can walk into a room of minority groups and say you are there to help, yet cheer on a man that actively seeks to reduce their rights.

Igotadose

ELM327 wrote: »

He is not wrong about the trade war.
My respect is based on his ability to stand up to political correctness nonsense. The children in cages was not a Trump initiative, indeed some of the photos used in the Democrat propaganda were taken during the Obama administration.
He is indeed wrong about climate change. The mexican paying for the wall is unlikely to happen to be far.


Above all else, Trump is a perfect juxtaposition to the liberal changes of the Obama administration. They went too far left, Trump is now bringing it back in line, similar to Reagan.

Not wrong about the trade war, I'd submit it's WAY too early to tell. It's not even been a year, and it took 15+ years till Nafta was viewed as a problem, for example.

Remember that the most 'progressive' thing done in the Obama administration, The ACA, brought a medicaid expansion and mandatory health insurance. How liberal, really, are those? Obama even said it, in Reagan's day, Obama's policies would've been classified as Moderate republican. It's the perversion of libertarianism by the moronic teabaggers ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare!") that's ruined the GOP for generations.

Reagan wouldn't get in the door in today's Republican party. He signed off on the Brady Bill, imagine that.

Oh, and trickle down was a failure. Next few months should show what the Trump Tax Cut accomplishes once the new debt offering (1.5bn) is launched by US treasury.

Leroy42

ELM327 wrote: »

He is not wrong about the trade war.
My respect is based on his ability to stand up to political correctness nonsense. The children in cages was not a Trump initiative, indeed some of the photos used in the Democrat propaganda were taken during the Obama administration.
He is indeed wrong about climate change. The mexican paying for the wall is unlikely to happen to be far.


Above all else, Trump is a perfect juxtaposition to the liberal changes of the Obama administration. They went too far left, Trump is now bringing it back in line, similar to Reagan.

What changes in particular?

ELM327

Christy42 wrote: »

I gave them as examples. Different people have different gop policies they are willing to turn their noses up to push.

I get a lot of his supporters would lose respect but why would you lose respect if he apologised? The man mocked victims of sexual assault. It was horrific. It is absolutely something a decent human being should apologise for. Yeah I get he went on what the people who were listening wanted. That does excuse it in the slightest.

I get some of his supporters want the alpha male who never admits he is wrong. No matter how wrong he is but is there a different reason you don't want him to apologise?

Leroy42 wrote: »

The reason for this stereotype is that the alternative is far worse.

it is far easier to accept that many of the people that voted for Trump did so out of a lack of facts, they got caught up in the momentum an taken in by the slogans and the style rather than looking at the substance (of lack of it).

Taken you at your word, it means that you possessed the necessary intelligence and critical thinking to enable you to see through the obvious dog-whistles and lack of substance. That you, and plenty of others didn't, can only mean that you accept racism, misogyny, false accusations, tax fraud, lies, support for neo-nazis, lack of respect for the office of indeed the institutions of the US.

So it is actually out of a certain level of not wanting to label people with such things that many have taken the view that the people must simply be confused.

But, as you say in your case, you are clearly more than happy to be all of those things. You are saying you work in diversity groups but actively support a person that goes out of his way to create division and has tried to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community and has stated many times his desire to take away the rights of women to control their own bodies.

I am totally confused how you have been able to square that circle. How you can walk into a room of minority groups and say you are their to help, yet cheer on a man that actively seeks to reduce their rights.

You cannot equate Trump supporters with neo-nazis.

Sure, some Trump supporters are neo-nazis but some supporters of Sinn Fein are/were IRA members, some supporters of the DUP are/were UVF/UDA members etc. You can't tag everyone with the same brush.


I'm here, consistently (when the opposing posts are like they are this morning, reasoned, respectful and debating) posting coherently and explaining my stance. I have this issue with my partner too (we have opposing stances but have to agree to always discuss respectfully).



I'm not anti LGBT rights, I was a yes voter in the SSM referendum and a staunch repeal voter (I donated to the movement)



Trump is clearly anti LGBT rights:

hill16bhoy

ELM327 wrote: »

Come on now, the rest of the posters in this thread to their credit have posed respectable questions without resorting to derogation.
Surely you are capable of an adult debate without resorting to namecalling and insults?

It is a respectable question.

You've made a big assertion, I'm asking you to back it up.

How is the US an "anti-male" society?

When somebody makes such an assertion that appears to fly completely in the face of reality, it makes me extremely suspicious about their bona fides.

BabyCheeses

ELM327 wrote: »

It was indeed Trump's place. They attacked his nominee to the SCOTUS, a key tenet of his manifesto and an important part of the first term to ensure a second. Unless they overturn Roe vs Wade, this will be the most important change of the Trump administration.


I do not accept your stance on the MeToo movement. I'm all for victim support but the metoo movement attempts to instantly convict the accused.


This was around even before metoo came to the fore, here's a link from a random case found by google search from 2016.



https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/man-killed-himself-after-false-rape-claim-despite-texts-that-proved-his-innocence/





He is not wrong about the trade war.
My respect is based on his ability to stand up to political correctness nonsense. The children in cages was not a Trump initiative, indeed some of the photos used in the Democrat propaganda were taken during the Obama administration.
He is indeed wrong about climate change. The mexican paying for the wall is unlikely to happen to be far.


Above all else, Trump is a perfect juxtaposition to the liberal changes of the Obama administration. They went too far left, Trump is now bringing it back in line, similar to Reagan.

This is the fun thing about Trump supporters, too far left and bring it back into line? Make it vague enough that it can mean whatever they want. America is further to the right than a lot of first world countries. In line means electing people that are against climate change and agree with conversion therapy for gay people? What is it you are hoping to do once Trump gets rid of that politically correct nonsense?

They will fall back to the economy is improving and unemployment dropping but that happened under Obama and yet he's still the worst. You can be specific, it's not like you'll stand by it once it becomes inconvenient for you.

ELM327

Leroy42 wrote: »

What changes in particular?

There's been a marked dis-improvement in race relations since the beginning of the obama administration for one.


There's an interesting article here actually
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/203123/america-changed-during-obama-years.aspx


But essentially the problem was a shift to the left by Obama's america after the GW years.

B0jangles

I keep remembering the famous scene in The Dead Zone, where the evil politician is revealed to be a monster when he grabs a baby to use as a human shield to protect himself from being shot, and thinking how that simply wouldn't be believable these days - people would pause in shock for a minute, then Fox et al would just go into overdrive about how it was totally fake, the baby was a midget crisis actor, and was also an Antifa supersoldier, and the audience would fall back into comfortably, apathetically voting for the monster because 'he tells it like it is!'

ELM327

BabyCheeses wrote: »

This is the fun thing about Trump supporters, too far left and bring it back into line? Make it vague enough that it can mean whatever they want. America is further to the right than a lot of first world countries. In line means electing people that are against climate change and agree with conversion therapy for gay people? What is it you are hoping to do once Trump gets rid of that politically correct nonsense?

They will fall back to the economy is improving and unemployment dropping but that happened under Obama and yet he's still the worst. You can be specific, it's not like you'll stand by it once it becomes inconvenient for you.

Again... look a couple of posts above you.

Quin_Dub

ELM327 wrote: »

Considering the GOP vote in the last election for Trump was boosted by a large number of evangelicals in key states who voted solely based on the SCOTUS, it is a key achievement of the administration and will likely ensure his reelection.


If the GOP manage to overturn Roe V Wade, it will be a huge achievement in the eyes of most GOP voters as this is something that no GOP president has managed in the last 40 years.

Here's the thing though - Most GOP voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned. So , who exactly are they delivering this for??

A recent WSJ poll showed 71% support for it , and that included 52% of GOP voters.

The survey shows that 71 percent of Americans believe that Roe should not be overturned, while only 23 percent want the ruling reversed. Supporters of the ruling include 88 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.

The other key thing from that survey is that support for Abortion rights is more of a vote getter than not.

The NBC-WSJ poll also showed that more voters are likely to support a political candidate who backs abortion rights rather than one who opposes them. Forty-four percent of voters said they are more likely to vote for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, while 26 percent said they are more likely to support a candidate who backs restrictions on abortions. Twenty-nine percent said a candidate’s views on abortion makes no difference to them.

From here

hill16bhoy

ELM327 wrote: »

Above all else, Trump is a perfect juxtaposition to the liberal changes of the Obama administration. They went too far left, Trump is now bringing it back in line, similar to Reagan.

Please explain how the Obama administration "went too far left".

If you think the Obama administration "went too far left", do you think, for comparative purposes, that Irish society gone too far left, and if so, how?

B0jangles

ELM327 wrote: »

Again... look a couple of posts above you.

So he waved a flag at a rally to get a few cheers?

What policies has he enacted to advance gay rights?

What has he done to protect gay people from the extremists in the party he is theoretically a part of?

Leroy42

Elm, posting a picture of Trump holding a flag! Really. Even the most hardcore of Trump supporters accept that the man is a complete liar. I could easily post a picture of him smiling with the Clintons. What does that prove?

What is not up for debate is that Trump tried to stop LGBTQ rights in the military, despite the Generals saying that is wasn't needed. So why did he try to do it?

You voted for Repeal, yet he has stated that he wants to repeal Roe v Wade. You position makes no sense. So there must be something else that is mroe important to you than those things, since you are willing to lose them.

What liberal changes in particular are you looking for Trump to reverse that Obama did so that the potential reversal of the things you claim are important to you will be worth giving up on?

Quin_Dub

RIGOLO wrote: »

When Trump made the promise to deliver a conservative SCOTUS, it was in 2015 before he got elected.

So yep its a major accomplishment, as he first had to get himself elected and then manouver thru everything the Democrats could throw at them in the last 3 weeks, and get the GOP leaders Grassley and McConnell to fight his case... and you think thats not a major accomplishment.

Cementing and consolidating the First Conservative Scotus in over 50 years with reprecussions for a generation.

Only an anti-Trumper could refer to that a basic procedure and not consider it a major accomplishment.

The current make-up of the SCOTUS is not a Trump achievement in any way shape or form , it's 100% A Mitch McConnell achievement.

McConnell brazened out the delay around Garland and whilst yes , Trump picked Kavanaugh , it was McConnell and Grassley that got the job done. Trump had zero involvement in working through the Senate procedures , cloture etc. etc. that got Kavanaugh confirmed.

ELM327

hill16bhoy wrote: »

When somebody makes such an assertion that appears to fly completely in the face of reality, it makes me extremely sucipcious about their bona fides.

It may have been a respectable question, but it most certainly was not posed in a respectable manner. And this section above is nonsense.
I have separated the wheat from the chaff and dealt with the actual part of your post below

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It is a respectable question.

You've made a big assertion, I'm asking you to back it up.

How is the US an "anti-male" society?

The US is an anti male society as demonstrably shown by the angry mobs of women against Kavanaugh. The fact that straight white males are discriminated against now as women and minorities are given quotas so even if the best person for the job is a straight white male they have to give it to the minority.


If there was nothing wrong, a protest candidate like Trump would not have been elected. Do you think the US is not an anti-male society??

BabyCheeses

ELM327 wrote: »

Again... look a couple of posts above you.

The one where you posted a picture? Surely there's a list of policies you could have used. Ted Cruz thinks you should be allowed to deny a gay person business, why would Trump support him?

Is that your role in the committee? You hold a flag and pretend that you are the most pro LGBT person their while proposing that trans people don't get hired and gay people shouldn't be allowed to buy from the company.

Billy Mays

Trump isn't anti LGBTQ rights because he held up a flag once

ELM327

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's the thing though - Most GOP voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned. So , who exactly are they delivering this for??

A recent WSJ poll showed 71% support for it , and that included 52% of GOP voters.



The other key thing from that survey is that support for Abortion rights is more of a vote getter than not.



From here

Ah the polls. Which gave Trump and Brexit as a "NO".
Notwithstanding, Trump needs to do something on Roe V Wade as he is relying on the evangelicals for a part of his vote base. Even if he doesn't overturn it... he needs to be seen to be - same as the Kavanaugh nomination was directly aimed at the evangelicals

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Please explain how the Obama administration "went too far left".

Really...

If it's not self explanatory that for a right wing supporter that a left wing administration moved too far left then I can't see the merit in spending time explaining again.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

If you think the Obama administration "went too far left", do you think, for comparative purposes, that Irish society gone too far left, and if so, how?

Yes. Ireland and most of the non-US western world is way too far left. We give lifetime welfare, free healthcare, free this and free that, welfare card for this and allowance for that. We interfere in the market everywhere (latest being the RPZ) and we fund everything from the squeezed middle. Loudmouths like AAA/PBP and the ilk of margaret cash get everything for free.

That is too far fiscally left wing.

Trent Houseboat

ELM327 wrote:

The US is an anti male society as demonstrably shown by the angry mobs of women against Kavanaugh. The fact that straight white males are discriminated against now as women and minorities are given quotas so even if the best person for the job is a straight white male they have to give it to the minority.

Do you think they were protesting because he was male?

This reminds me of the reframe around the time the pussy grabbing tape leaked. People were up in arms about his admission that he routinely sexually assaults people, and the Trump supporters tried to paint those upset as being merely outraged by the use of the word "pussy".
People aren't angry about Kavanaugh because he has several credible claims of sexual assault that the GOP refuse to investigate, they're angry because he's a straight white man.

BabyCheeses

Billy Mays wrote: »

Trump isn't anti LGBTQ rights because he held up a flag once

It's not like they have anything else to use. At best he doesn't care and is a member of the party that resisted every single right that gay people have gotten with a Vice President that supports conversion therapy.

ELM327

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The one where you posted a picture? Surely there's a list of policies you could have used. Ted Cruz thinks you should be allowed to deny a gay person business, why would Trump support him?

Is that your role in the committee? You hold a flag and pretend that you are the most pro LGBT person their while proposing that trans people don't get hired and gay people shouldn't be allowed to buy from the company.

No.
If you're going to resort to personal insults and denigration of my work then I don't see the point in continuing.


I have marched in the pride parades, I am all for gay rights, trans rights, and so on. I have worked under numerous LGBT managers and directors, there are at least 2 trans people on the committee with me.

ELM327

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Do you think they were protesting because he was male?

This reminds me of the reframe around the time the pussy grabbing tape leaked. People were up in arms about his admission that he routinely sexually assaults people, and the Trump supporters tried to paint those upset as being merely outraged by the use of the word "pussy".
People aren't angry about Kavanaugh because he has several credible claims of sexual assault that the GOP refuse to investigate, they're angry because he's a straight white man.

I will admit I cringed when I heard the "pussy grabbing" quote for the first time.
But it's only words, and is by no means as bad as anything actually perpetuated by Bill (and supported by Hillary).
Trump's response to that coming out was a masterstroke, the table of women assaulted by Bill.

ELM327

B0jangles wrote: »

So he waved a flag at a rally to get a few cheers?

What policies has he enacted to advance gay rights?

What has he done to protect gay people from the extremists in the party he is theoretically a part of?

I wouldn't wave an ISIS flag for any reason.
Flags are symbolic.

BabyCheeses

ELM327 wrote: »

No.
If you're going to resort to personal insults and denigration of my work then I don't see the point in continuing.


I have marched in the pride parades, I am all for gay rights, trans rights, and so on. I have worked under numerous LGBT managers and directors, there are at least 2 trans people on the committee with me.

Sorry, I'll be more politically correct with you. You think that they should be fired for being trans or gay right? How does the committee respond to that? Or do you only defend that online.

And now you can give the list of pro LGBT things Trump has done. I'll start for you.

1. Held up a flag.


Now your turn.

hill16bhoy

ELM327 wrote: »

It may have been a respectable question, but it most certainly was not posed in a respectable manner. And this section above is nonsense.
I have separated the wheat from the chaff and dealt with the actual part of your post below




The US is an anti male society as demonstrably shown by the angry mobs of women against Kavanaugh. The fact that straight white males are discriminated against now as women and minorities are given quotas so even if the best person for the job is a straight white male they have to give it to the minority.


If there was nothing wrong, a protest candidate like Trump would not have been elected. Do you think the US is not an anti-male society??

You haven't demonstrated in any way there that the US is an anti-male society.

In fact you've demonstrated the opposite. People rightly protested because they see justice being denied in an effort to railroad through the nomination of somebody clearly not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

And they were completely correct in the assertion that justice was being denied - first of all in the refusal to investigate, then as regards the sham investigtion which followed, as well the public attempt from the Republican party and the entire pro-Republican media to publicly attempt to shame Christine Blasey Ford.

That you describe them as an "angry mob" gives a huge clue as to your bona fides.

Now you're telling us that "straight white males" are discriminated against, and are citing the existence of any sort of affirmative action programme as evidence of this.

That's laughable.

You have completely failed to back up your assertion with any evidence.

You need to read Peter Beinart's recent piece in The Atlantic,and particualrly this passage.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/has-american-politics-hit-rock-bottom/572452/

The struggle over Kavanaugh was, at its core, a struggle between people who want gender relations to change and people who want them to remain the same. And throughout American history, whenever oppressed groups and their supporters have agitated for change, respectable moderates have warned that they were fomenting incivility and division. In April 1963, seven white Alabama ministers and one rabbi wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr.. The letter articulated no position on segregation and the right to vote. It assumed, instead, a moral equivalence between blacks who wanted race relations to change and whites who wanted them to remain the same. Both sides held “honest convictions in racial matters.” Both “our white and Negro citizenry” should “observe the principles of law and order and common sense.”

The real danger, the authors claimed, was “friction and unrest.” Averting it required “forbearance” and “restraint” on both sides. King, whose Birmingham campaign was titled “Project C”—for confrontation—was purposefully fomenting such friction and unrest through marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. While “technically peaceful,” the ministers and rabbi warned, the “extreme measures” adopted by King and his supporters “incite to hatred and violence.”

In his response, written from jail, King argued that the white clergymen were mistaking symptom for disease. The problem wasn’t “friction and unrest” between Birmingham’s two tribes. It was centuries of oppression, which there was no frictionless way to overcome. “I am not afraid of the word ‘tension,’” King explained. “We must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

Even as Bull Connor’s men savagely beat black protesters in the streets, King recognized that Birmingham was not hitting “rock bottom.” It was rising from an almost century-long nadir in which white supremacy—no matter how murderous—was barely even a subject of political controversy, in which black powerlessness was the foundation on which comity between two of America’s white-dominated political parties rested.

The problem that the Kavanaugh struggle laid bare is not “unvarnished tribalism.” The problem is that women who allege abuse by men still often face male-dominated institutions that do not thoroughly and honestly investigate their claims. That problem is not new; it is very old. What is new is that this injustice now sparks bitter partisan conflict and upends long-standing courtesies. Rape survivors yell at politicians in the Senate halls. The varnish—the attractive, glossy coating that protected male oppression of women—is coming off. Brooks, Collins, and Flake may decry the “tension” this exposes. But, as King understood, the “dark depths of prejudice” can’t be overcome any other way.

Because your claim that US society is anti-male is about as legitimate as a claim that US society in 1963 was anti-white.

ELM327

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sorry, I'll be more politically correct with you. You think that they should be fired for being trans or gay right? How does the committee respond to that? Or do you only defend that online.

And now you can give the list of pro LGBT things Trump has done. I'll start for you.

1. Held up a flag.


Now your turn.

Now it's your turn to find anywhere I have ever stated or advocated that online or offline.

Trent Houseboat

ELM327 wrote:

I will admit I cringed when I heard the "pussy grabbing" quote for the first time.
But it's only words, and is by no means as bad as anything actually perpetuated by Bill (and supported by Hillary).
Trump's response to that coming out was a masterstroke, the table of women assaulted by Bill.

So for the record you're still clinging to the pretence of people being upset about the language and not the admission of sexual assault part of that scandal and refuse to clarify if you think people are angry about Kavanaugh's assault allegations or the fact that he's a man.

Did you even read what I had posted? I was calling out disingenuous re-framings like the one you had posted earlier and then you reposted my example of disingenuous re-framing of Trumps own admission of sexual assault. Are you a parody of a Trump supporter?

Look you also somehow managed shoe-horned in a Clinton reference for no apparent reason.

Duck Soup

Why would Nikki Haley resign 4 weeks out from the mid-terms when she's leaving Dec 31st? Why not announce it after the mid-terms are over?