No I didn't - I said that it wasn't making them rush to the right. Quite different. Which is what this diversion is about - migrant/refugee crisis = inevitable ascendancy of Trumpalikes across Europe. it's not inevitable.
Well that is completely stupid. I would also predict that Barcelona would beat Watford at football, but that doesn't mean I want to be proved right, does it? You are also wrong about me lacking empathy or that I don't care. I resent that, and would ask you to produce some evidence of it, before saying such things. I fully understand and empathise with people who want to move somewhere to improve their lifestyle. I have done the same in the past, and I would encourage anyone else to do the same, and have done frequently. If we need nurses etc, and can't recruit at home, then get them in. I have no issue with that. But what I object to is those that sneak or lie to get in - against the law and regulations. If they want to live here then they should darn well have the decency to respect our laws and regulations as they arrive, whatever those laws are. It should be properly controlled and should be sustainable and should not adversely affect those here already (as I also have empathy for, and care for, those that already live here), by putting strain on the housing, jobs, or health and education system. If we took your concept to an extreme, then this country would eventually be no better than the country they are escaping from. I wonder how you would feel if Trump brought a load of Americans or Poles with him on minimum wages here over to carry out all the work he was paying for! Would you feel the same way then? Do you consider empathising with those in communities that are affected by an immigration influx? If real lives are important to you, then you should understand why ordinary people directly affected will not have political left/right dogma to cling to as they try to get through it. They will just be hurting, and they will react. It is human nature, it is inevitable, and it is not me hoping for trouble. Then, when you say this.. "If societal breakdown occurs it will be down to those who didn't care enough to prevent it rather than those who tackle the issues of integration to improve relations that are outwith our natural (white, Christian,Brittish) comfort zones" then, for me, you are demonstrating your dogmatic attitude and lack of empathy. You seem to think that the only way to solve the potential problem is to change everyone's attitude that may otherwise be directly affected by immigration. they must learn to accept and integrate. If they we don't agree with your method, then we "don't care". Whereas I believe we should tackle the problem from at least two fronts, and the first one is that immigration should be controlled in the way I have suggested. In that way integration, the second, will be easier and less problematic.
The apparent rise of far right fascism/extreme nationalism worldwide is simply the impact of the internet and social media being felt. Crazy fringe elements have been traditionally isolated by the more level headed members of society, but they can now organise, gather and reinforce each other's views with ease. The traditional method of rejecting extreme political views has been via social ostracism, which is now mostly impossible. Society is going to have to finally deal with these issues rather than sweep them under the rug, and I expect things to get far worse before they get any better.
Mass media thoroughly exposes too - Which rock is Nick Griffin hiding under now? It's each generation's vanity to think it's all going to hell in a handcart. It looked pretty grim in 1945 - atomic bomb just used, genocide exposed, Europe in ruins divided. And yet now each country watches the same talent shows. It must have looked pretty rough too when the plague was rife. There are very tricky challenges ahead - ZZ will tell you I'm just a blithe lefty and would wish them away - but they need determined cooperation across the world to work through and patience because no one is going to get their right wing or socialist utopia. But thing don't have to get worse, but we do have to stick to our values in the face of the Trumps of this world.
Enjoying yourselves, fellahs?! It's been quite overcast outside today, but it's still surprisingly mild for the time of year. Carry on.
I don't think you should ban someone just for being a muppet. Only if they are actually a dangerous muppet. You may think Trump is, personally I don't. Unless you can prove that he is it's just a subjective opinion & I don't think you can ban someone based on that. Even if he is an objectionable twhat.
Let's hope last night's Iowa poll result is a sign that the world may be spared the terrifying prospect of 'The Donald' in the White House
I would always back my team to overcome any challengers, attempting to do it with style and confidence. In this case my confidence is in our shared humanity. My evidence for your lack of empathy for some comes from your statement above "If we need...." And I assume we is everyone who is here (UK) rather than humanity as a whole. Be warned: nationalism has many pitfalls. I would be equally as upset if Americans and poles were being taken advantage of at a world class resort in Scotland, receiving a pittance for highly demanding and respectable jobs. This discrimination you speak of is engrained in so many levels of society and the previous owners tended to employ a seasonal, foreign, cheap workforce and the business suffered, hence trumps buyout. One of the many complaints "where's all the funny talking jocks in kilts". I do lack empathy sometimes and I have to catch myself. I am not trying to change attitudes just highlighting that some are unable to see their own failings. Surely if you have been an immigrant that has put strain on that country, as you state others will put a strain on here, you must apologies for your greed and detrimental effect on said economy, housing and jobs. Or is this another example of your hypocrisy. Are you claiming as an immigrant you had a positive effect on said region yet immigration to the uk is negative? I have faith in everyone including those who oppose my opinion yet you come across as only having faith in yourself. I hope in my old age I can maintain my views to remain consistent. At least we agree on integration being the way forward and can work together to achieve a compromise.
I frequently make the mistake of playing the man not the ball. As usual it has distracted from the effectiveness of the points raised. I apologise if you were offended. I thought you were thicker skinned. I personally don't care where someone has come from, I only care about where we are headed together. During my time in Glasgow I was able to walk on both sides of the pavement where I lived because I was an outsider, young local lads would have to stick to their own side as an infringement could result in death in extreme cases. Protecting your self interest is the main problem that you share with the "weegie young team". Would you accept limitation on your freedom of movement? Or is it just free speech you uphold? On that point, you never answered if hate preachers should have their bans lifted as you have clearly defended their (and Donald's) freedom of speech? If you weren't a drain on the society that you emigrated to, why do you feel that immigrants coming here are? With first hand experience of the reality you should be less susceptible to scaremongering. At the very least, less likely to peddle "the fear".
I wasn't offended, but I resent accusations with nothing to back it up. Back it up with some proper evidence and you can call me anything you like! Also, I don't think that any of your points are effective. The rest of your post is equally weird as the previous effort. I think I know where you are coming from, but the points you are trying to make are daft and not up to your usual standard, and don't deserve a proper response. Have you been on the sauce?
Not sure Trump's latest campaign video is going to get him back on track... [video=youtube;RRMJ3ftUtnw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRMJ3ftUtnw&feature=youtu.be[/video]
In fairness Caesar does raise a valid point...which paradoxically in this case I don't agree with. The right to free speech if it is against us is wrong but for us is right. As a maxim no but in practise...I am more at ease with Trump's rhetoric than Chandry's for example.
He said he thought we should have a "...total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we figure out what is happening". That was in response to several terrorist attacks in the USA. I don't agree with what he said, but it is hardly in the same league as what the hate preachers are spouting. I presume you are referring to Choudry rather than Chandry? If so, if he had restricted himself to "I think that Western nations should not be allowed to enter Islamic states" or something similar, then I would certainly not think it was wrong for him to express that opinion. He would be more moderate than Moose! It is the degree of "hate" that matters. It would never be a black and white decision on whether free speech should be allowed.
Drivel. Even by your standards. You gloss over Trump's intention and impact and then make stuff up about what you think I would say. Some people should be ashamed of themselves.
So what was Trump's intention then? I dont know that it was anything more than to win some support for his campaign. Enlighten me. Do you think he was trying to start some sort of race war, or something? As for my mention of you, it was just a little tongue in cheek comment and wasn't meant to be any sort of dig at you. Sorry. But you accuse me of making up what I think you would say, and hopefully you are now going to tell me what was in Trump's mind when he said what he did. Should be interesting.
I see that the Republicans are starting their anti Trump onslaught. Currently Mitt Romney is really laying into him, professionally and personally. If anyone thinks the Conservatives are currently "split" ought to watch this lot.
They have been laying into him for a bit. It seems like the new plan is to have everyone win as many delegates as possible, and aim for a contested convention.
Thing is at the first GOP debate, Trump openly said he if he didn't win the nomination he would not support the candidate and would stand as an independent. Which begs the question, why not stand as an independent anyway? He's going to run regardless and doesn't need the financial assistance from the GOP...as he keeps telling us he's that wealthy. If he did declare himself independent then the nomination is between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, most likely Cruz would win - but I think they'd spend more time going after Trump than Sanders or Clinton because Trump would be siphoning the conservative vote. Personally I hope Bernie Sanders wins, I like him and his integrity and I think an independent Trump would help him win the White House.
I sense, no more than that, that Trump wouldn't go as an independent. I am not keen on Clinton, and I am not keen on a lot of Sanders policies, but I agree with you. I like him as a person. Sadly, Clinton will win, I think.
Apperently some staffer just accepted a immunity plea to testify in her email scandal, so we shall see what comes of that.
It's about he use of a private email account, separate from her govt one while Sectary of state, and what she was hiding, and the fact it was just on a public server, that could easy be hacked into
Because the path to winning is hard to the point of being impossible. Generally speaking, about 90% of the US voting population only vote for their "team". The 10-ish percent of independents who may vote either way are the ones who decide the outcome of the election (coupled with how many people are motivated to come out and actually vote for the party they support - US voter engagement is quite low). Since a certain percentage of people are going to vote Republican or Democrat regardless, the chances of an independent winning is close to nil. A candidate might siphon off a large percentage if really popular, but they're never going to win. If Trump goes independent, he hands victory to the Democrats. The same applies to the reverse situation if Sanders ran as an independent. Some of the US battleground state races are incredibly tight, and can and have been thrown by a 1% vote for an independent in the past.
ZZ - What do you think of his assertion that he'll order US troops to commit war crimes? He says he'll send them 'after the families' of terrorists. He wants to target and murder innocent women and children. That's a bit shocking isn't it? How about if a 'hate preacher' said that the families of British troops should be targeted for murder? That'd be the same thing wouldn't it? Can one be allowed and the other not?
I think it is absolutely shocking. He has no place as head of any country. There may be one or two sentiments of his that I agree with, as I tend to agree with one or two of most politicians thoughts (from all sides)- but I don't know what they are.
Have a look at this from John Oliver. Perhaps you'll be able to identify which of his sentiments you agree with? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGc2nN9OguQ
I agree with the occasional thing Trump says. For example, he's a somewhat unique Republican in that he thinks the Iraq war was a mistake and all we did was destabilise the middle east. In general though, he's a racist, misogynist, braying, boasting playground bully.
I dont like Trump, so there is no need to keep targeting me as if I am a supporter. I am not. I am not keen on this sort of satirical monologue where the comedian can just spout away for as long as he likes, slyly taking quotes out of context, or exaggerating, without any requirement to be accurate, as he can rarely be challenged and there is normally no right of reply. I am not saying it shouldn't happen and they are often very funny (as this one was) but they feel somewhat 'cowardly' to me - but understandable, as they get very highly paid to do it. Fortunately Trumps current popularity (which is largely based on falsehoods) will wane before he actually gets anywhere near the White House - I certainly hope so. He really is a despicable man who would do considerable damage. The whole spectacle is embarrassing for the USA. But you shouldn't feel too smug, Clive. What is happening in the USA you are able to watch because it is mostly done in public. In other countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Zimbabwe, the leaders normally emerge without any democratic process whatsoever, and power is maintained suppressing the population and by killing their opponents. Trump is probably no worse than Putin.
I like him. He's a smart guy. Go to 7:50. 'I went to an Ivy League School; I'm very highly educated; I know words, I have the best words.' [video=youtube;TGc2nN9OguQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGc2nN9OguQ[/video]
Not a Trump supporter but uncomfortable with him being lampooned and keen to remind the left not to feel smug. You get targeted for the same reason you target me with Corbyn. You won't have to stand for the entire right if you don't make others do so for the left.
