Trumpy

[iNewbie]

If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?

a) They're stupid
b) They swallowed that line about Hilary's emails.
c) both the above.

 

[Jacob]

.. Trump. Can he really do much worse than some of his predecessors?

Yes . He's well on the way and it's only week one.

 

[Jacob]

http://www.theonion.com/article/fbi-unc ... d-en-35788

 

[gregmcateer]

If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?

Hitler was quite popular in his day.
History repeats itself - people under stresses and strains of ordinary life lose faith in civilisation and start going tribal - building barriers, blaming and persecuting minorities, falling for crude simplistic solutions offered by megalomaniacs, reinforced by hysterical right wing media, voting conservative, and so on.
People certainly have been let down by the promises of neo liberalism and the lefty 'elitists' have failed to make an alternative case. Sanders probably would have done better than Clinton, if he had had full support from the left and centre.

Hysterical right wing media? You clearly don't watch the BBC or Sky.

Just possible that Jacob was referring to Fox News or several other in the good ole U S of A, rather than our slightly more restrained and balanced news media

 

[Jacob]

.........
Hitler was quite popular in his day.
History repeats itself - people under stresses and strains of ordinary life lose faith in civilisation and start going tribal - building barriers, blaming and persecuting minorities, falling for crude simplistic solutions offered by megalomaniacs, reinforced by hysterical right wing media, voting conservative, and so on.
People certainly have been let down by the promises of neo liberalism and the lefty 'elitists' have failed to make an alternative case. Sanders probably would have done better than Clinton, if he had had full support from the left and centre.

Hysterical right wing media? You clearly don't watch the BBC or Sky.

Just possible that Jacob was referring to Fox News or several other in the good ole U S of A, rather than our slightly more restrained and balanced news media

Them, but as far as we are concerned we have the Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun. Hateful rags, divisive, dishonest, owned by non dom tax dodging mega-millionaires with no interest in civilisation as such.

 

[RobinBHM]

Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:

'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'

'hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years'

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wi ... angements/

 

[Jacob]

Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:

'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'

'hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years'

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wi ... angements/

Gaurdian is a not for profit trust: read all about it https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust
https://www.theguardian.com/gmg/2015/jul/23/faqs
"The Trust forms part of a unique ownership structure for the Guardian that ensure editorial interests remain free of commercial pressures"
As compared to say the Telegraph which is owned by a pair of eccentric non-dom billionaires with a strong right wing agenda http://www.private-eye.co.uk/street-of-shame

 

[El Barto]

Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:

'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'

'hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years'

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wi ... angements/

Very interesting points there - I wasn't aware of them. But, and without mitigating these claims if true, the whole thing would carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written by someone quite so biased by such a biased magazine. Know what I mean? Again, not defending the GMG, but it'd be more interesting and pertinent to read it from the view of a neutral.

 

[Jacob]

The Spectator is a weekly British conservative magazine. It was first published on 6 July 1828, making it the oldest continuously published magazine in the English language. It is currently owned by David and Frederick Barclay who also own The Daily Telegraph newspaper, via Press Holdings.

The Guardian is not perfect - many think it is too poncey lefty London elitist. It's certainly got a down on poor old Corbyn.

Whatever your point of view in USA or UK I think they both have a serious problem with the media - so much controlled by so few, with a huge influence over Brexit and Trump results.

Viz is pretty safe.

 

[RobinBHM]

The Guardian isnt a trust it is a Ltd company called The Scott Trust Ltd.

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015- ... ott-trust/

 

[Jacob]

The Guardian isnt a trust it is a Ltd company called The Scott Trust Ltd.

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015- ... ott-trust/

Jonathan Cook writes for the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathancook
Shows how unbiased they can be!!

 

[Inoffthered]

Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:

'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'

'hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years'

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wi ... angements/

Very interesting points there - I wasn't aware of them. But, and without mitigating these claims if true, the whole thing would carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written by someone quite so biased by such a biased magazine. Know what I mean? Again, not defending the GMG, but it'd be more interesting and pertinent to read it from the view of a neutral.[/quote


Thats right, you dont like the message so you choose not to believe it. Any independent research would open your eyes but brace yourself for the realisation that the Grauniad is funded by the sort of rapacious city slickers that you so love to criticise. Jacobs attempt to justify it using the myth of non profit making trust is also another (typical) sleight of hand in a vain attempt to avoid the truth. If the Grauniads intention was indeed to be a not for profit organisation, they could operate as such in the UK and pay tax on their investment earnings, not hide in the Caymans. Of course, being based in a tax haven doesn't stop the Guardian from slagging off anyone and everyone else that hides their wealth off shore and avoids tax, because the investment funds associated with the Scott Trust do not pay tax.


In some respects it is similar to the criticism of Trump and his wall. You didn't seem to have much a problem when Clinton erected his fence (a project continued by Obama) but the minute Trump does anything similar there are howls of outrage.

Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers. If anyone right of centre called for the assasination of Corbyn or junker there would be squeals of outrage and attempts to forge a link with the nazis but it appears to be ok for Guardian and Times journalists to send such tweets. So much for Hope not Hate eh,,just saying......

There is a word that fits ...hypocrisy. I 'd give you a definition but you probably wouldn't accept it so i suggest you use a dictionary of your own choice.

 

[El Barto]

Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:

'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'

'hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years'

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wi ... angements/

Very interesting points there - I wasn't aware of them. But, and without mitigating these claims if true, the whole thing would carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written by someone quite so biased by such a biased magazine. Know what I mean? Again, not defending the GMG, but it'd be more interesting and pertinent to read it from the view of a neutral.[/quote


Thats right, you dont like the message so you choose not to believe it. Any independent research would open your eyes but brace yourself for the realisation that the Grauniad is funded by the sort of rapacious city slickers that you so love to criticise. Jacobs attempt to justify it using the myth of non profit making trust is also another (typical) sleight of hand in a vain attempt to avoid the truth. If the Grauniads intention was indeed to be a not for profit organisation, they could operate as such in the UK and pay tax on their investment earnings, not hide in the Caymans. Of course, being based in a tax haven doesn't stop the Guardian from slagging off anyone and everyone else that hides their wealth off shore and avoids tax, because the investment funds associated with the Scott Trust do not pay tax.


In some respects it is similar to the criticism of Trump and his wall. You didn't seem to have much a problem when Clinton erected his fence (a project continued by Obama) but the minute Trump does anything similar there are howls of outrage.

Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers. If anyone right of centre called for the assasination of Corbyn or junker there would be squeals of outrage and attempts to forge a link with the nazis but it appears to be ok for Guardian and Times journalists to send such tweets. So much for Hope not Hate eh,,just saying......

There is a word that fits ...hypocrisy. I 'd give you a definition but you probably wouldn't accept it so i suggest you use a dictionary of your own choice.

Who said anything about not believing it? I was saying it'd be more palatable if the whole thing wasn't so heavily, almost spitefully, biased. It's not a criticism of the story but the writer and how it's written. It's an argument that could be made about certain journalists and publications no matter which way they lean.

The fences erected under Clinton/Bush and Donald's 2000 mile wall aren't particularly similar. It's also a pretty flawed argument that "I didn't seem to have a problem with them then" (though I like how you suggest that you know me by stating that).

 

[jnw010]

One things for sure, Trump is going to do things differently!
The extreme liberal reaction is bit of an eye opener though. Much like anyone who voted Brexit must be stupid and racist, so Trump supporters must be women hating nazis, or summat.
I can't help thinking that the harder these extreme liberals screech their hate, the further they'll push the middle ground to the right.

 

[Jacob]

"Extreme liberals" - that's a new one! :lol: What about "extreme supporters of civilisation" ?

You might not have noticed, but Trump is showing distinct signs of being stupid and racist.

 

[BearTricks]

If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?

They didn't. Clinton got more individual votes, but the electoral college system means that the person with the most votes doesn't necessarily win.

That said, historically there have been more than a few occasions where large groups of people have happily voted for someone 'odious'. I think it's probably best to be careful about assuming that just because someone has a large following, that following must be right.

 

[Jake]

Thats right, you dont like the message so you choose not to believe it. Any independent research would open your eyes but brace yourself for the realisation that the Grauniad is funded by the sort of rapacious city slickers that you so love to criticise. Jacobs attempt to justify it using the myth of non profit making trust is also another (typical) sleight of hand in a vain attempt to avoid the truth.

Are you claiming it is for profit? Please state who benefits from dividends sent outside the GMG structure, how, and who benefits.

If the Grauniads intention was indeed to be a not for profit organisation, they could operate as such in the UK and pay tax on their investment earnings, not hide in the Caymans.

Now you are just ranting. There is no logical connection between (a) whether they are not for profit and (b) whether (like every other media organisation and indeed most financial structures) they are based off shore.

Of course, being based in a tax haven doesn't stop the Guardian from slagging off anyone and everyone else that hides their wealth off shore and avoids tax, because the investment funds associated with the Scott Trust do not pay tax.

Half a logical point here. But given the conservative right wing press is all off-shore it would be suicidal for GMG to put itself vulnerable to taxation which none of the conservative press would face. The rules on tax avoidance have to be changed, and at least the Guardian speaks against its owners interests in saying so.

In some respects it is similar to the criticism of Trump and his wall. You didn't seem to have much a problem when Clinton erected his fence (a project continued by Obama) but the minute Trump does anything similar there are howls of outrage.

I think you are referring to a GW Bush project,

Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers.

Unfair, but the politics of resentment and division sustain fuel and (in their own minds) self-legitimise the extremists. Same to equally vile effect on the other side of political spectrum (Baader, IRA)

If anyone right of centre called for the assasination of Corbyn or junker there would be squeals of outrage and attempts to forge a link with the nazis but it appears to be ok for Guardian and Times journalists to send such tweets. So much for Hope not Hate eh,,just saying......[

Are you suggesting Murdoch/Times is left wing?

 

[Jacob]

...

Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers.

...Leotard? You mean libtard? :lol: I'm a libtard (I think) I'm not a leotard.
Cox's murderer was a Britain First supporter. At least that's what he shouted. Maybe he was an undercover leotard trying to discredit Britain First?
Libtards arise!! Proud to be libtard.

 

[Jacob]

What's particularly scary about the Trumptards is that there are a lot of them who would say that they are 'just obeying orders'.


__________________________
Libtards of the world unite

 

[RobinBHM]

I see Trumps immigration ban is causing an uproar.

I wonder if he wont last long but will blame everybody else for his failure