TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?
- Thread starter crazyheart
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
This conversation has evolved from what trump is about , to how Graeme knowd more about world events than kimmio
Graeme is caught up with his hatred for the usa and his various conspiracy theroies. We are all reading and no one is challenging. Odd. Is graeme so reverred that no one disputes his usa hatred?
That isn't the issue
The issue is who will be a better president
In a better time we would have better choices
But we are where we are. World issues aside, trump is a divisive person in the usa. Now when your politics basically is one against one then it is always going to be almost 50/50. At least that gives you the majority of the population voting for you, those that chooose to vote
With us, and multiple parties we get a majority goverrnment with 39 %
Graeme is caught up with his hatred for the usa and his various conspiracy theroies. We are all reading and no one is challenging. Odd. Is graeme so reverred that no one disputes his usa hatred?
That isn't the issue
The issue is who will be a better president
In a better time we would have better choices
But we are where we are. World issues aside, trump is a divisive person in the usa. Now when your politics basically is one against one then it is always going to be almost 50/50. At least that gives you the majority of the population voting for you, those that chooose to vote
With us, and multiple parties we get a majority goverrnment with 39 %
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
No, you don't. Baby boomers and older voted leave. what does that tell us? Oh. Baby boomers support Trump, too? Wow! Sure proof that baby boomers are are racists. And young people in poor areas who are less educated voted Brexit. Gee! And were their parents smart and educated in voting for Brexit?
So you must think rich people who are well educated make better decision that poor ones who aren't. No. They don't. Each group makes the decision that benefits it
Right wing parties of today are ultra-nationalist and racist? Did you know that by world standards the Democrats in the U.S. are right wing. And they are certainly ultra-nationalist. I don't know of any party in any election since the civil war that was not ultra-nationalist.
The communist party of Mao was ultranationalist.
People fear multiculturalism. Yes, they do. Almost all people fear multi culturalism. Quebecers of the separatist period feared multiculturalism. PM Harper feared it enough to limit immigration and to persecute a woman who wanted to wear strict, Muslim garb. CAnada severely limited immigration, fearing an influx from India, China, European Jews, Ukrainians - you name it. And the majority of Canadians did that. Do you think Hilary is going to open the gates to Syrians ? and Mexicans? and Latin Americans?
Many of those people are not racists, a nd will change their minds. To fear is not the same as being racist.
Would you embrace new neighbours who are Taliban extremists from Afghanistan? What we often call racism is not racism. It is fear of change. I wouldn't want a loud drunk living in the next apartment. That has nothing to do with racism.
Almost every misuses right wing, left wing, racist, nazi - even conservative and liberal. Conservative does not mean sticking to old ways or being careful with money. Liberal does not mean generous or left wing. and, in fact, the Conservative party is not conservative, and the Liberals are not liberal. They are just two political machines that do what they have to to win power.
Correctly a conservative is one who sees society as a unit, as a whole. A liberal is one who sees it as individuals. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives do that. The NDP sees society as both as a whole and as individuals. And that is, or was, reflected in its policies.
One can be right wing or left wing only in comparison to others. in the U.S. democrats are commonly seen as left wing - but that's only in comparison with Republicans. In world terms, both those parties are right wing. Harper was certainly right wing. But to call Trudeau left wing would give a false impression. He is left of Harper. But very, very little left of him.
We also get into the habit of letting some words take on too much meaning. So Americans speak of Castro as evil - and they take that as part of the meaning of dictator. It's not. Castro had to radically change a whole society while a powerul neighbour waited to invade. To sustain that as a democracy might have been very, very difficult. And, as we're seeing (or should see) in the middle east, dictatorish methods are often necessary to hold divided societies together. That's why Iraq was better off under Hussein than under a government elected (with a heavy American hand). That's why the alternative to an Assad will almost certainly be chaos.
Then, we associate racism with evil. Christians should be careful about that. Christian missionaries, for all the good they want to do, have been known to believe that the people they minister to are racially inferior to them. In fact, it's been quite common in history. One of the most compassionate, devoted and gifted of missionaries was a man name Albert Schweitzer - and he is widely considered a racist.
So you must think rich people who are well educated make better decision that poor ones who aren't. No. They don't. Each group makes the decision that benefits it
Right wing parties of today are ultra-nationalist and racist? Did you know that by world standards the Democrats in the U.S. are right wing. And they are certainly ultra-nationalist. I don't know of any party in any election since the civil war that was not ultra-nationalist.
The communist party of Mao was ultranationalist.
People fear multiculturalism. Yes, they do. Almost all people fear multi culturalism. Quebecers of the separatist period feared multiculturalism. PM Harper feared it enough to limit immigration and to persecute a woman who wanted to wear strict, Muslim garb. CAnada severely limited immigration, fearing an influx from India, China, European Jews, Ukrainians - you name it. And the majority of Canadians did that. Do you think Hilary is going to open the gates to Syrians ? and Mexicans? and Latin Americans?
Many of those people are not racists, a nd will change their minds. To fear is not the same as being racist.
Would you embrace new neighbours who are Taliban extremists from Afghanistan? What we often call racism is not racism. It is fear of change. I wouldn't want a loud drunk living in the next apartment. That has nothing to do with racism.
Almost every misuses right wing, left wing, racist, nazi - even conservative and liberal. Conservative does not mean sticking to old ways or being careful with money. Liberal does not mean generous or left wing. and, in fact, the Conservative party is not conservative, and the Liberals are not liberal. They are just two political machines that do what they have to to win power.
Correctly a conservative is one who sees society as a unit, as a whole. A liberal is one who sees it as individuals. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives do that. The NDP sees society as both as a whole and as individuals. And that is, or was, reflected in its policies.
One can be right wing or left wing only in comparison to others. in the U.S. democrats are commonly seen as left wing - but that's only in comparison with Republicans. In world terms, both those parties are right wing. Harper was certainly right wing. But to call Trudeau left wing would give a false impression. He is left of Harper. But very, very little left of him.
We also get into the habit of letting some words take on too much meaning. So Americans speak of Castro as evil - and they take that as part of the meaning of dictator. It's not. Castro had to radically change a whole society while a powerul neighbour waited to invade. To sustain that as a democracy might have been very, very difficult. And, as we're seeing (or should see) in the middle east, dictatorish methods are often necessary to hold divided societies together. That's why Iraq was better off under Hussein than under a government elected (with a heavy American hand). That's why the alternative to an Assad will almost certainly be chaos.
Then, we associate racism with evil. Christians should be careful about that. Christian missionaries, for all the good they want to do, have been known to believe that the people they minister to are racially inferior to them. In fact, it's been quite common in history. One of the most compassionate, devoted and gifted of missionaries was a man name Albert Schweitzer - and he is widely considered a racist.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Oh, last pointe, a president does not need 50%. In fact, a vote of 50% is rare. Quite apart from the large numbers who don't vote, there can be a split in the U.S. system - as this election will probably show. There are at least two other people running for president. Both will attract votes. I'll be suprised if either Trump or Clinton gets a clear majority.
You also need to understand words. I don't detest Americans. For the most part these are people who have to live with a lying press (like most Canadians), who are fed ultra-patriotism almost from birth, propagandized..... It's not their fault.
I do detest American governments. I detest American imperialism. In the same way, I detested Hitler, but I don't detest Germans.
Learn what words mean, lastpointe.
It's so important to know what you're saying.
You also need to understand words. I don't detest Americans. For the most part these are people who have to live with a lying press (like most Canadians), who are fed ultra-patriotism almost from birth, propagandized..... It's not their fault.
I do detest American governments. I detest American imperialism. In the same way, I detested Hitler, but I don't detest Germans.
Learn what words mean, lastpointe.
It's so important to know what you're saying.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Telling the truth is hate speech? What has Graeme said that you would challenge as conspiracy 'theory' not conspiracy 'fact'?
Everybody seems to 'know' more about world events than Kimmio.
The issue is the POTUS is irrelevant.
It is the best of times and the worst of times - all the time.
Where we are at is the necessity of critical mass to realize that they can govern themselves.
If you choose to participate in 'voting' process you are voting for War (mass murder) and Taxation (theft).
Nothing about the "divine right of kings, the "will of the people," or the "rule of law" has the power to justify these immoral acts.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Not disputing his views does not constitute an endorsement of them. I, and likely others, have given up on arguing with Graeme. He's a hoot to hang with in Last Post but very set in his ways politically and not worth aggravating my RSI over.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Okay. A quick word on the election. There really is no choice. The U.S. has hit rock bottom. Neither of those two is going to do any good. The party system itself has hit rock bottom. So it's not an issue of who would be the best. It's a question of who would be the least destructive.
Trump has nothing to offer. And, in fact, there's no possibility he would be able lead any congress.
Hillary is the servant of big money. She always will be.
So let's look at destruction.
Big money wants war with Russia and China. It has to have a war because both, especially China, are gaining on it fast.
Bush and Obama both gave it war. Obama has been especially provocative recently along the Russian border. No-one has ever before built nuclear missile sites on another nation's border. To do so is so dangerous that the U.S. committed itself to war if necessary at the threat of russian missiles in Cuba.
Obama also carried out a massive programme of rebuilding nuclear stocks with modern improvements. We are within inches of a world war.
We are also close to it as an offshoot of tensions in Syria.
Hillary is in the same pattern as Obama. If anything, she is even closer to big money.
Trump is incompetent in every respect. All the criticisms of him are true.
Both of them scare the hell out of me. I think of my children and grandchildren....
I would vote against Hillary because she is the more likely to look for war.
Trump is a racist, an unbalanced egoist, a man with nothing to offer. And a war is quite likely under him.
But it "might " be slightly less likely than in a nation under Hillary,
It's not a queston of who is better. It's a question of who is most likely to let us survive. And neither is a great choice even for that.
Trump has nothing to offer. And, in fact, there's no possibility he would be able lead any congress.
Hillary is the servant of big money. She always will be.
So let's look at destruction.
Big money wants war with Russia and China. It has to have a war because both, especially China, are gaining on it fast.
Bush and Obama both gave it war. Obama has been especially provocative recently along the Russian border. No-one has ever before built nuclear missile sites on another nation's border. To do so is so dangerous that the U.S. committed itself to war if necessary at the threat of russian missiles in Cuba.
Obama also carried out a massive programme of rebuilding nuclear stocks with modern improvements. We are within inches of a world war.
We are also close to it as an offshoot of tensions in Syria.
Hillary is in the same pattern as Obama. If anything, she is even closer to big money.
Trump is incompetent in every respect. All the criticisms of him are true.
Both of them scare the hell out of me. I think of my children and grandchildren....
I would vote against Hillary because she is the more likely to look for war.
Trump is a racist, an unbalanced egoist, a man with nothing to offer. And a war is quite likely under him.
But it "might " be slightly less likely than in a nation under Hillary,
It's not a queston of who is better. It's a question of who is most likely to let us survive. And neither is a great choice even for that.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Pr.Jae - They aren't the only choices. But votes for the others don't matter because they won't win.
MOnk - I wasn't suggesting anyone should vote. I was asked which would be a better one to vote for. I'm sorry the choice is so hopeless. But I didn't do that.
As well as the leadership, the whole American political system is rotten - corrupt. As result, there is no hope of congress playing any useful role.
I think we all agree that Trump is a stinker. But so is Clinton and, for the reasons I gave, possibly more dangerous.
MOnk - I wasn't suggesting anyone should vote. I was asked which would be a better one to vote for. I'm sorry the choice is so hopeless. But I didn't do that.
As well as the leadership, the whole American political system is rotten - corrupt. As result, there is no hope of congress playing any useful role.
I think we all agree that Trump is a stinker. But so is Clinton and, for the reasons I gave, possibly more dangerous.
That's what people like to say Graeme, and I myself have been predicting a Trump victory since the days of the primaries. However, we don't truly know that the others can't win. The only important poll is the one voters cast on election day. There are, of course, sound reasons to vote for someone even if you don't think they'll win - to show them your support, to send a message, to exercise your conscience, etc.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Oh, I wasn't arguing for a limited government.
Trump is the typical product of an unhappy and angry electorate. So was Hitler. The American political system has been sinking for a long time.
Trump is the typical product of an unhappy and angry electorate. So was Hitler. The American political system has been sinking for a long time.
And I think the opposite about who is most likely to let us survive. I think the brain-drain and the flourishing racism under Trump - together with the racist/ nationalism in the rest of the world could do us in. Trump is way too divisive nationally to be effective internationally. He will weaken the unity and cooperation of people of all ethnicities who want to live in peace at home - more - and that spells more chaos everywhere.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Pr. Jae - would you care to risk a bet on one of the 'others' winning?
Most of the American public doesn't even know they exist.
Monk, I quite agree that limited government simply means limited injustice - and I don't advocate it. But, in practical terms, those are the only two to vote for. There really is no choice. As well,in much of the democratic world, we have a poorly informed public. Us humans also have a tendency to follow the crowd. We often act on emotion rather than reason. All sorts of things keepp us from being effective.
Most of the American public doesn't even know they exist.
Monk, I quite agree that limited government simply means limited injustice - and I don't advocate it. But, in practical terms, those are the only two to vote for. There really is no choice. As well,in much of the democratic world, we have a poorly informed public. Us humans also have a tendency to follow the crowd. We often act on emotion rather than reason. All sorts of things keepp us from being effective.
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
Kimmio -I agree with all you say about Trump. But note that Clinton, as a weak candidate, will be at least as divisve as Trump. And nobody has to look far to see the racism that prevades almost all American society - particularly against blacks and Muslims. Both parties are deep into the racist game. So are the news media.
We, in the west, live in world almost without religious principles in our lives as members of a society. The lack is showing.
We, in the west, live in world almost without religious principles in our lives as members of a society. The lack is showing.