ey_tony
Established Member
Are you really suggesting that Trump is like Hitler?....I'm really disappointed in you, I thought you better than that but sadly it appears not!
President Elect's 'top team'
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
ey_tony
Established Member
I'm only responding to cranks...what else do you expect me to do?
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
As just noted; his own VP did, so it's not like Chris is the first: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/kfile-jd-vance-comments-trump/index.html
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Well as you’ve asked … act like a grown up by not resorting to name calling, be respectful of other people’s opinions and provide validated facts to support your own views.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
danst96
Established Member
oof be careful Terry. Common sense has no place here.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I don't recall anyone in these threads saying that Trump should stand down, be removed from office or forced to adopt policies.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
Happy to be proved wrong.
I'll stick with H L Mencken, who said "Democracy is the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard".
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Good luck with that.
You are missing the point John, everyone should agree with the outcome and suck it up and agree with the winners. Just like they've done with the current Labour government after their landslide victory.
That wasn't my point, Tony. You wrote: 'I don't accuse 80 million people of having got it wrong just because their reasons for voting for a certain person didn't fit with my own views!' I asked if the same applied to those who voted the National Socialists to power in 1933 - do you feel unable to state that they 'got it wrong'? (I'm working on the assumption that you feel what happened in Germany was wrong.)
My point is that if you identify something as 'wrong', you have every right to say so. In fact, I'd say you have a moral obligation to do so, if you see that many people will be adversely affected. That's how I see things with Trump; you seem not to, which is fine and you have every right to say so.
I think the real problem democracy faces is that much of humanity has entered a kind of Orwellian phase of history, in which truth, and with it integrity, honesty etc have largely gone out the window, being replaced by (digital) media-speak which, in the end, eviscerates the notion of truth and leaves everyone generally confused or misinformed. Malign actors exploit that to the full, and nobody knows wtf is going on.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
In such a world, the voice of the people amounts to little more than an echo of the deceit and confusion of the internet. The irony is that our democracy has become 'the people' being manipulated and exploited by those who own or control the media - so we've already lost democracy and are subject to a ruling elite, an oligarchy.
Jaco
Established Member
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Sorry, but I find it interesting trying to follow the arguments (UK too) for not having a proper health service, and other public services, and not raising taxation. They always seem so speculative, vague and disconnected.
The idea that we could afford them if only the economy grew, is unconvincing. I don't think the better off would be any happier to pay taxes after a period of growth, than they are now. Just kicking it into the long grass!
The idea that this future wealth would "leach" down sounds very much like the good old "trickle" down theory.
In fact wealth "leaches" upwards and always has, trickles, drips, dribbles, drifts, rolls, slides, floats etc. Choose your simile!People need better public services now - not years down the line after a hypothetical period of economic growth.
Labour party is saying the same sort of thing; deferring action until we have growth. It's dishonest nonsense. It's the old empty promise of jam tomorrow.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
You seem to be saying that everybody should simply shut up until the next election.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
Why aren't you setting us an example?
ey_tony
Established Member
Depending upon one's perspective be it the aggressor or victim , one can always look back and say if only we/they hadn't voted for so and so then this or that might not have happened but to associate Trump or his supporters with Hitler and his Nazi party is simply ludicrous extremism by left wingers in its lowest knuckle dragging form intended to vilify people with a different opinion of the man to theirs.
I already see lots of people who will be adversely affected by Starmer and his troupe who have made either false promises or concealed their true intentions from the electorate in order to get elected which I find it is my duty to point out but should Starmer et al and those who were fooled by him be held up to be the equivalent of Nazis?
As much as I dislike the man I wouldn't equate him with such as Hitler, I simply don't have that irrational mindset!
I often hear people who aren't left wing denigrate Trump but I've never heard one of them other than politicians refer or liken him to Hitler et al. Personally I don't particularly like Trump or admire some of his traits and I won't be living under his administration but he's no Hitler and anyone who thinks so arguably has serious mental health issues.
I've always held the view that when left wingers are struggling to win an argument they inevitably attack their opponent personally and resort to Godwin's Law rather than debate the issues rationally and this is a prime example of attacking anyone who fails to subscribe to their extremist left wing bigotry.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Terry, I will politely call that out as............rank BS, because it is.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
The only people that have denied the outcome of the USA are Trump and his supporters in 2020.
Nobody has said or implied that Trump has no right to be president nor should he implement his policies
You are being very dishonest: please refrain from making false conflations
We all have the right to debate Trumps policies, we are free to analyse and criticise his policies as much as we like...it doesnt mean we think Trump should not stand as president or have the right implement his policies
Terry if you would like to debate any points regarding Trumps plans for tariffs, Project 2025, his intention to dismantle the state etc, you are welcome to make your contribution
Agent_zed
Established Member
It is somewhat strange that you are 'assuming' that any of us have called for the winner to stand down when as far as i recall no one on this forum has said anything to that effect.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
In fact the only people I recall calling for election results to be overturned and the elected president to stand down is Trump and his followers, who as I'm sure you know have for 4 years claimed the 2020 election was 'rigged' whilst at the same time trying to coerce officials into 'finding votes'. In addition to calling for the constitution of the USA to be overthrown.
Even idiots like Joe Rogan finally realised the rhetoric about rigged elections was nonsense. He just laughed off the fact that he had been lied to for 4 years by someone happy to risk the very fabric of American democracy to save his own behind.
I'm struggling to find a way to put it more simply, Tony. It's not comparing Trump to Hitler; it's asserting the right to say that a group of people - however big - have 'got it wrong' on account of one's values. 30s Germany is just the clearest example I have to mind.
You seem to be saying one can't take issue with people's values, particularly large numbers of people, when those values are fundamentally different from your own. I'm saying one not only can, but in some circumstances you have a moral obligation to do so.
Eta - to argue that you can't criticise others' values as you seem to be doing is to subscribe to the weakest form of relativism, a pluralistic worldview in which nothing is more right or wrong than any other, just because 'they're different', leading to a world in which there is no right or wrong, and everything is permitted. I'm quite sympathetic to that way of thinking (tho it is rather 'woke') but there are certain points at which we have to draw a line.
Last edited:
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Where did you get that idea - the whole point is that endless debate is futile - there are two options:You seem to be saying that everybody should simply shut up until the next election.
Why aren't you setting us an example?
- campaign for a different outcome at the next election
- vive la revolution
ey_tony
Established Member
I too am struggling to put in a way more simply.
The difference between you and I is that I don't superimpose my values on others which seems to be a judgemental trait of left wingers. Personally I don't care what Trump is alleged to have done as most of what he's supposed to have done just doesn't hold water but that's how people like yourself view him so I won't try to change that.
It all comes down to choice...I would never have chosen the left wing dipstick in charge of the UK right now but unfortunately the way the electoral system is, he and his party were first past the post.
At least the American voters had a choice in that they had experienced Trump as president previously so knew what he stood for and what they were getting and it wasn't even a close run thing, he even won the popular vote and house.
They clearly didn't believe all the wretched left wing propaganda and abuse he faced otherwise he wouldn't have won!
I knew what Starmer stood for based on his lacklustre performance as an opposition leader but the general electorate didn't get the message they were so focussed on the terrible Tories...you go ask the voters now only months after they voted for him if they are still happy with their voting choice and even rank and file left wingers are not happy with him so that tells you how bad he is.
Many voted for Trump based on his previous term in office so it sort of sticks two fingers up to the condescending left wingers who think they're all wrong. I wonder if we'll see Starmer return for another term as PM further down the line after the voters throw him out?
