Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on December 09, 2015, 08:52:34 AM
-
I see that Labour and the SNP are calling oin a ban on Mr Trump entering the UK. Is this the best way to indicate that we, as a nation, regard his views (and probably not merely on Muslims) - or anyone's opinions - as obnoxious?
-
I see that Labour and the SNP are calling oin a ban on Mr Trump entering the UK. Is this the best way to indicate that we, as a nation, regard his views (and probably not merely on Muslims) - or anyone's opinions - as obnoxious?
Trump is a nasty bigot and should be shunned by all right minded people! >:( He would probably start WW3, and drop a nuclear bomb or two, if he ever became President. >:( Surely only far right nutters would ever vote for him? >:(
-
It's a good example of turnabout is fair play, I guess.
He ought to be barred from the country on acount of his ridiculous comb-over let alone his foul opinions.
-
I understand the desire to ban him, I understand the desire to call him out for his stupidity, but ultimately I think it's counterproductive.
Making him visibly objectionable to the mainstream is feeding into his attempt to woo the morons who might elect him. The best thing we can do is just stop talking about him - starve him of the oxygen of publicity and he'll disappear because ultimately he has nothing useful to say.
He has no actual policies, no real capacity to make good on any of the shit he spouts - he's a joke to garner attention. He's in it to garner attention for himself, and the Republican party are in it to show how 'moderate' they are compared to utter lunatic dingbats (and, from their point of view, he's paying his own way which is even better).
I'm a believer in free speech. If all he's doing is talking he should be allowed to go wherever he likes a say it, and we're perfectly free to just ignore him because he's demonstrating that he's an idiot.
O.
-
What scares me is some of the Americans on various groups I belong to believe he is right, mind you an awful lot don't, but the ones who obviously follow him are scary people all round.
His followers have some very strange ideas, IMO.
-
Making him visibly objectionable to the mainstream is feeding into his attempt to woo the morons who might elect him. The best thing we can do is just stop talking about him - starve him of the oxygen of publicity
Could we not starve him of the oxygen of oxygen while we're at it?
-
Could we not starve him of the oxygen of oxygen while we're at it?
One of the late great Linda Smith's, I believe?
-
Could we not starve him of the oxygen of oxygen while we're at it?
I wasn't advocating a method, just a goal - removing the atmosphere from a region in his immediate vicinity would stop the sound carrying to the microphone.... :)
O.
-
One of the late great Linda Smith's, I believe?
Yes, bless her :(
-
Yes, bless her :(
How dare you use a phrase like "Bless her" you hypocritcal Antitheist. Just stop it now - you have no right to use that phrase. It belongs only to Christians. You should be ashamed of your stance on this. Please only use atheist language in future - otherwise your rampant stupidity will be on display for all to see.
I do apologise I seem to have been temporarily possessed by a hybrid of BA and Vlodka
-
Trump is rich enough to act the goat on such a high profile stage & he is loving every moment of it. A bit like a nastier version of Kenny Everett & his "Let's Bomb Russia" speech from 1983.
No don't ban him, there are far more dangerous idiots than him & I don't want them being considered to be a joke.
-
He comes across to me as an American version of a Boris Johnson-like buffoon: the thing is that Boris is no buffoon, although he acts the part, and I suspect Trump is in the same mould - outright idiots don't usually have their own private jet.
It seems to me that his strategy mainly involves notoriety over viable politics, and it is certainly getting him noticed (since here we are posting about him).
-
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
I have signed this petition banning Trump from entry to the UK.
-
How dare you use a phrase like "Bless her" you hypocritcal Antitheist. Just stop it now - you have no right to use that phrase. It belongs only to Christians. You should be ashamed of your stance on this. Please only use atheist language in future - otherwise your rampant stupidity will be on display for all to see.
I do apologise I seem to have been temporarily possessed by a hybrid of BA and Vlodka
Trent, I think it might be exclusive to those of faith, but not merely to Christians. ;)
-
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
I have signed this petition banning Trump from entry to the UK.
I won't be because I hold to the principle that I might not agree with someone's opinions, but I will fight for their right to express it.
-
I won't be because I hold to the principle that I might not agree with someone's opinions, but I will fight for their right to express it.
There are certain opinions like those of Trump which could lead to acts of terror!
-
There are certain opinions like those of Trump which could lead to acts of terror!
And there are certain opinions that are expressed on this board that 'could' lead to acts of terror. Are we going to stop people expressing them?
-
And there are certain opinions that are expressed on this board that 'could' lead to acts of terror. Are we going to stop people expressing them?
It depends what they are.
-
There are certain opinions like those of Trump which could lead to acts of terror!
Perhaps they could encourage acts of terror, but denying people the right to speak can equally encourage acts of terror - when ideas or concepts become unchallengable they are given free reign, and that's far, far worse.
You have to allow people the right to say what they will, and trust that the people who are listening are decent people and will recognise batshit-crazy stupidity when they come across it.
O.
-
And there are certain opinions that are expressed on this board that 'could' lead to acts of terror.
Which ones?
-
And there are certain opinions that are expressed on this board that 'could' lead to acts of terror. Are we going to stop people expressing them?
Such as?
-
Wonder if we'll ever find out, big G?
Bit remiss of you not to have picked up on these potentially terrorism-causing statements, I have to say.
-
Wonder if we'll ever find out, big G?
Bit remiss of you not to have picked up on these potentially terrorism-causing statements, I have to say.
It's certainly a worry - I mean if MI5 (or is it 6) find out about this then, if Hope is right, collars here may yet be felt!
If 'they' are monitoring us, again assuming Hope is right, then any careless posting here could well mean spending Christmas in pokey.
-
A reaction from our First Minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35054360
-
How dare you use a phrase like "Bless her" you hypocritcal Antitheist. Just stop it now - you have no right to use that phrase. It belongs only to Christians. You should be ashamed of your stance on this. Please only use atheist language in future - otherwise your rampant stupidity will be on display for all to see.
I do apologise I seem to have been temporarily possessed by a hybrid of BA and Vlodka
Perhaps he can confine himself to such descriptions of Jesus as "the zombie on a stick, " which he has used on occasions. Nice people you mix with, eh, Trent?
-
Trump is now threatening to quit GOP and run as an independent......and many of his supporters are likely to continue to support him I understand!
And the KKK is now joining in the anti muslim rhetoric, I think.
-
Such as?
Sorry, Gordon, have been out at the gym, getting some instructions in what I can and what I can't do as I recover.
Over the years, some of the comment on the Muslim thread have been pretty contentious if one was a radical Islamist. Even some of the more general denials of the existence of a deity - such as some of Floo's.
-
A reaction from our First Minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35054360
What made anyone in the SNP or any other party ever think that he was someone fit to be an ambassador for anyone or anything other than himself? Will Nicola nationalise Turnberry and/or Donald's own course in Aberdeenshire?
-
Over the years, some of the comment on the Muslim thread have been pretty contentious if one was a radical Islamist.
Nothing specific, then. Nothing we can actually see for ourselves.
Even some of the more general denials of the existence of a deity - such as some of Floo's.
How "could" (your words) these "lead to acts of terror"?
-
An interesting point that Trump's ideas, if put into practice, would lead to much greater radicalization of young Muslims, both in the US and in other countries. Of course, this might still happen, even if not elected.
-
Transparency is the best method. Allow him in and then rip his viewpoint apart and make him look like a real Trump, and all his supporters.
-
Nothing specific, then. Nothing we can actually see for ourselves.
Well, the Muslim board (sorry, not thread) has had some pretty contentious threads - if you look at them from a Muslim perspective - Gabriella has not been happy with some of the comments.
How "could" (your words) these "lead to acts of terror"?
Shaker, I used the term 'could lead to acts of terror' because Floo had used them and I was responding to her post. I also emphasised the word 'could' so that people didn't assume that I was saying 'would'. However, if you read stuff that explains why people have become radicalised, one of the reasons is that of disrespecting a person's faith. Over the yers, there have been a number of posts which could have been read as disrespecting a person's beliefs - think of how vocal Matt has been over what he believes to have been the disrespecting of his beliefs.
Remember, as with so much now, it isn't what the speaker/poster intended that is important; it is what the reader/hearer interprets something as that matters in law.
-
Mild irritation on an internet forum is hardly the first step toward 9/11 pt. 2 though is it?
-
Presumably a decision to ban somebody should be made on non-political grounds.
He might be considered a genuine threat to public order. On the other hand, Labour would say that when the real reason was different.
I'd sooner these things were decided by judges.
-
Mild irritation on an internet forum is hardly the first step toward 9/11 pt. 2 though is it?
It could be, if the reader of posts was mentally unstable in the first place.
In which case anything could set them off.
You never know what furies exist in other people's minds.
However, deliberately courting and setting out to make people angry and widen divisions is a good enough reason to ban something.
Spreading hatred has to be stopped, or it spreads like a disease.
Donald trump is stupid enough to wind people up or spread anger against a section of the community.
-
Presumably a decision to ban somebody should be made on non-political grounds.
He might be considered a genuine threat to public order. On the other hand, Labour would say that when the real reason was different.
I'd sooner these things were decided by judges.
I'm not sure judges have a more balanced view than anyone else.
-
There are certain opinions like those of Trump which could lead to acts of terror!
Nothing leads to acts of terror quite so effectively as suppressing free speech.
-
Nothing leads to acts of terror quite so effectively as suppressing free speech.
So we permit all the hate preachers, who encourage people to join ISIS to shout their evil from the rooftops do we? ::)
-
Nothing leads to acts of terror quite so effectively as suppressing free speech.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of this argument. Many acts of terrorism are carried out in countries where free speech exists. The perpetrators may or may not come from countries where it doesn't exist. So how does this proposition work?
-
I tend to agree with Jeremy.
If nonsense peddled by the likes of Trump is aired in the public mainstream, such as being a part of democratic political campaigning, then it can be forcefully rebutted in public - but drive it underground, by trying to suppress it, then such nonsense may still circulate among the hard of thinking or easily influenced without them also being exposed to any contrasting rebuttals.
-
Mild irritation on an internet forum is hardly the first step toward 9/11 pt. 2 though is it?
What is mild irritation to you and I may be far more for someone else, Shakes. You can't base your judgements of people's responses to things on your own responses.
-
Perhaps he can confine himself to such descriptions of Jesus as "the zombie on a stick, " which he has used on occasions. Nice people you mix with, eh, Trent?
Well that's just blatantly wrong, he was an avatar whilst he was on the stick, he wasn't a zombie until he got up in the cave.
You'd think that would obvious to even the most casual observer...
O.
-
Trump is now threatening to quit GOP and run as an independent......and many of his supporters are likely to continue to support him I understand!
And the KKK is now joining in the anti muslim rhetoric, I think.
Excellent. If he stands as an independent he splits the nutbag vote between himself and the Republicans, improving the chances of the Democrat nominee being elected as some sort of defence against the rabid Christian extremist GOP right that currently controls both houses.
O.
-
So we permit all the hate preachers, who encourage people to join ISIS to shout their evil from the rooftops do we? ::)
Yes. Let them in, let their bile be spouted in public, and then address those words in public. If you have people who feel they are being pushed to the fringes of society, then banning their idols from speaking just pushes them further because their needs aren't being addressed.
If their idols are permitted to speak and then those people are thoroughly hosed in a public forum, those followers see the weaknesses in the argument. Otherwise all they do is look up uncontested speeches on the internet, only get one side, ramped up by a sense of persecution and isolation.
Words can only hurt you if you let them, but silence leads to ignorance, and ignorance can hurt any number of people.
O.
-
Perhaps he can confine himself to such descriptions of Jesus as "the zombie on a stick, " which he has used on occasions. Nice people you mix with, eh, Trent?
As far as I know I've only ever mixed with him in the same way you have which is on Message Boards. As to the insult you quote - so what? You aren't beyond using insults yourself. Glass houses and all that.
PS would you like to pop over to the football thread and admonish Ad-o for his language. Thanks ever so.
-
As regards Mr Trump his remarks about no go areas in London has been confirmed by the police as correct.Also when I drove a cab in London there were no go areas that the police would not enter in those days,so he is not all wrong.
~TW~
-
As regards Mr Trump his remarks about no go areas in London has been confirmed by the police as correct.Also when I drove a cab in London there were no go areas that the police would not enter in those days,so he is not all wrong.
~TW~
Yet, the other day the Met Police denied this story - again. When did that change, ~TW~?
-
Excellent. If he stands as an independent he splits the nutbag vote between himself and the Republicans, improving the chances of the Democrat nominee being elected as some sort of defence against the rabid Christian extremist GOP right that currently controls both houses.
O.
I suppose it depends on who is the Democrat nominee. Some of them are pretty horrendous. I would certainly fear for the future of the USA if either Trump or Clinton were to get into the White House.
-
Yet, the other day the Met Police denied this story - again. When did that change, ~TW~?
Yes I'd be interested in that too Hope.
I think that we do not have No Go areas in the way that Americans understand them. I think we have areas we feel uneasy in - and that is due to perception more than anything else.
There are parts of Nottingham I do not particularly want to go into at night - but they are without exception some of the white working class areas. I have no problem with wandering around the supposedly notorious Hyson Green - which is a very ethnically diverse area. That is all down to my personal experiences and I expect others would come to different judgements based on their particular experiences.
-
I suppose it depends on who is the Democrat nominee. Some of them are pretty horrendous. I would certainly fear for the future of the USA if either Trump or Clinton were to get into the White House.
Three Democrat candidates - Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley - at the moment, with a few other (even) less known names on the fringes, though it seems unlikely they'll have a run this late.
Of the three, none are of the calibre of Obama as far as their prestige on the international stage. Sanders appears too left wing to win the actual election, which I think will lead most Democrat voters to hedge their bets and nominate Clinton - whilst she's far from perfect, she's a hell of a site better than Trump, Carson or indeed any of the other Republican candidates.
In terms of international economics and politics any of the Democrat candidates are a vast improvement on the Republicans, especially with the Republican control of the Senate and the lower House.
O.
O.
-
Yet, the other day the Met Police denied this story - again. When did that change, ~TW~?
What may the other day be,also why would politicians admit parts of London are no go areas,keep em in the dark and they will be happy.
~TW~
-
I see that Labour and the SNP are calling oin a ban on Mr Trump entering the UK. Is this the best way to indicate that we, as a nation, regard his views (and probably not merely on Muslims) - or anyone's opinions - as obnoxious?
It might be better to allow him to enter then throw eggs at him.
-
http://tinyurl.com/hsv7j5q
-
It might be better to allow him to enter then throw eggs at him.
What a wicked waste of eggs! >:( Dog turds possibly. ;D Seriously though, chucking anything at that very nasty piece of the proverbial would make the person carrying out that act as bad as him!
-
Yes, I agree with you Floo. No point in stooping to such measures, better to ignore him. He's a prat.
-
Donald Trump: 'UK politicians should be thanking me'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35060868
Heaven forbid the bloke should have to acknowledge he got it wrong.
::)
Mr Trump responded: "The UK politicians should be thanking me."
And he added in a tweet: "The United Kingdom is trying hard to disguise their massive Muslim problem. Everybody is wise to what is happening. Very sad. Be honest."
Apparently the petition to ban him has reached 400,000 sigs and the ones not to 10,000.
:D
-
Donald Trump: 'UK politicians should be thanking me'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35060868
Heaven forbid the bloke should have to acknowledge he got it wrong.
::)
Apparently the petition to ban him has reached 400,000 sigs and the ones not to 10,000.
:D
And if he became President Trump and if you and your silly petition which is a waste of time and also our politicians reject it out of hand,what would you do with President Trump ignore him.Somehow once again none of you seem to be thinking straight.
~TW~
-
I'm not bothered if he comes or not. You don't have to take any notice of him. All this furore is the very thing he wants: publicity. Can't you see that? I didn't hear all this righteous indignation when the Chinese Premier came recently; and he is a severe abuser of human rights - but of course we want his money and business, so that's alright.
-
And if he became President Trump and if you and your silly petition which is a waste of time and also our politicians reject it out of hand,what would you do with President Trump ignore him.Somehow once again none of you seem to be thinking straight.
~TW~
It not us!
It's not my petition and I haven't signed it.
If he became President I think it would be a total disaster, and I still wouldn't want him.
-
I'm not sure I follow the logic of this argument. Many acts of terrorism are carried out in countries where free speech exists.
My impression is that the terrorism is far worse in countries without proper free speech. Not allowing people to express themselves causes resentment which leads to hate and in extreme cases a desire to overthrow the status quo.
-
As regards Mr Trump his remarks about no go areas in London has been confirmed by the police as correct.Also when I drove a cab in London there were no go areas that the police would not enter in those days,so he is not all wrong.
~TW~
Total bollocks.
-
My impression is that the terrorism is far worse in countries without proper free speech. Not allowing people to express themselves causes resentment which leads to hate and in extreme cases a desire to overthrow the status quo.
Not giving people a fair bite at the cherry and loading the dice against them is what really pisses them off. What is the point of free speech if the status quo of keeping them surreptitiously subjugated isn't changed?
-
This made me laugh this morning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35059128P
Harrison Ford has told US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that his role as the US president in Air Force One was just "a movie".
Speaking to The New York Times recently, Trump praised Ford's role as a heroic president in the film.
He told the newspaper: "My favourite was Harrison Ford on the plane. I love Harrison Ford. He stood up for America".
:o ::)
-
As regards Mr Trump his remarks about no go areas in London has been confirmed by the police as correct.Also when I drove a cab in London there were no go areas that the police would not enter in those days,so he is not all wrong.
~TW~
Remember Trump's remarks were in the context of terror threat and 'radicalised no go areas'. So TW can you tell me exactly where these 'radicalised no-go' areas are in London.
-
They had a discussion on this issue on BBC Breakfast earlier - I only caught the last couple of minutes - but one speaker seemed to be suggesting that the Americans needed the UK (or some other nation) to refuse Trump entry in order to get Republicans to understand that he isn't a viable candidate. I realise that most Americans, of whatever political persuausion, are pretty dumb ( ;)), but this seems to be the one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard from an American.
-
Remember Trump's remarks were in the context of terror threat and 'radicalised no go areas'. So TW can you tell me exactly where these 'radicalised no-go' areas are in London.
PD, were his comments about no-go areas, etc. in London in the context of terrorist attacks - he originally made them 3 or 4 years ago, iirc.
-
PD, were his comments about no-go areas, etc. in London in the context of terrorist attacks - he originally made them 3 or 4 years ago, iirc.
I'm asking where these supposed radicalised no-go areas are. And in particular to get TW to tell us where they are, as he seems to think they exist.
-
I'm asking where these supposed radicalised no-go areas are. And in particular to get TW to tell us where they are, as he seems to think they exist.
I realise that, I did the same back in my post #47.
-
I realise that, I did the same back in my post #47.
Perhaps by us both asking we might get an answer.
And I am genuinely interested, because I spend a lot of my time in parts of London which might be high on that (mythical) list and I just want to check whether I'm not allowed to enter those areas ;)
-
Perhaps by us both asking we might get an answer.
And I am genuinely interested, because I spend a lot of my time in parts of London which might be high on that (mythical) list and I just want to check whether I'm not allowed to enter those areas ;)
Aren't these no go areas just no go for the police. As long as you or I wear a burqa, there would be no problem.
-
Perhaps by us both asking we might get an answer.
And I am genuinely interested, because I spend a lot of my time in parts of London which might be high on that (mythical) list and I just want to check whether I'm not allowed to enter those areas ;)
I suppose I'm interested for much the same reason; my brother has lived in London for 30-odd years now and moved around the place a lot with the work he was doing. I'm not aware that, as a white man, he ever found that he couldn't enter this or that area, or that the police could or couldn't. OK, I suspect that there were areas that he would have felt wary of going into on his own after dark, but then there are places I'd be wary of in this context in Cardiff or Barry.
-
Aren't these no go areas just no go for the police. As long as you or I wear a burqa, there would be no problem.
And where are these areas - because on my travels through areas that might be on this (mythical list) I often see police around - which clearly couldn't be the case were these no-go areas.
I'm usually in lycra and a fluorescent cycling jacket or in a suit, so clearly I wouldn't be welcome ;)
-
Some of these are completely and utterly brilliant.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/trump-facts#.smEwqVdzk
-
And where are these areas - because on my travels through areas that might be on this (mythical list) I often see police around - which clearly couldn't be the case were these no-go areas.
I'm usually in lycra and a fluorescent cycling jacket or in a suit, so clearly I wouldn't be welcome ;)
As I understand it, from reading the report the police are saying that there are areas where it is unwise to travel to work alone and in uniform. The Anglican Church issued a similar statement years ago warning priests about travelling in dog collars. But that doesn't mean the police don't go into these areas, or priests for that matter; nor does it mean that the threat only comes from radicalised Muslims.
-
As I understand it, from reading the report the police are saying that there are areas where it is unwise to travel to work alone and in uniform. The Anglican Church issued a similar statement years ago warning priests about travelling in dog collars. But that doesn't mean the police don't go into these areas, or priests for that matter; nor does it mean that the threat only comes from radicalised Muslims.
And has that anything to do with islamic radicalisation, or rather really 'tough' areas where there is long-standing hostility towards the police - for example parts of Tottenham, which I don't think has a large muslim population at all.
-
And has that anything to do with islamic radicalisation, or rather really 'tough' areas where there is long-standing hostility towards the police - for example parts of Tottenham, which I don't think has a large muslim population at all.
Exactly, hence my last sentence. There are places where it isn't safe to be any kind of 'establishment' figure. I don't think we can pretend that there aren't pockets of radicalisation involved in this in some places, but there's a much, much bigger picture.
-
https://newsthump.com/2015/12/09/native-americans-call-for-ban-on-christians-entering-the-us/
-
Interesting article
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-demagogues/419514/?utm_source=atl-daily-newsletter
-
No Jp you are a pratt and if you are prattish enough to drive a cab into the mozart estate at night you really are a big pratt.I drove a cab for 30 years around London so give your arse a rest JP your all wind and fart.
~TW~
And is that because the area is 'radicalised' or because (as I pointed out to Rhiannon) it is a particularly rough area with a lot of crime - both organised and ad-hoc.
It is of course obvious why you have picked the example of the Mozart estate, but actually this area (Queen's Park) has a pretty low proportion of muslims - massively lower than the areas of East London I know very well.
So the Mozart estate might be a no-go area because of high levels of crime etc (as there are in most big cities) - but that isn't what we are talking about - rather the discussion was about so called 'radicalised' no go areas - so areas where the population have become radicalised due to extreme religious ideologies and that makes it no-go. I am not aware of any such area in London.
-
Apparently that nasty piece of work Nigel Farage is backing Trump, now there's a surprise! >:(
-
https://newsthump.com/2015/12/09/native-americans-call-for-ban-on-christians-entering-the-us/
That one's been done already, Rhi. It would be interesting, as I previously said, how they would have proposed to deal with any of their own who had already become believers ;)
-
That one's been done already, Rhi. It would be interesting, as I previously said, how they would have proposed to deal with any of their own who had already become believers ;)
As they haven't started too many world wars, not doing very much would be my guess.
-
Apparently that nasty piece of work Nigel Farage is backing Trump, now there's a surprise! >:(
As with any septic tank, you generally find the biggest turds sticking together.
-
And is that because the area is 'radicalised' or because (as I pointed out to Rhiannon) it is a particularly rough area with a lot of crime - both organised and ad-hoc.
It is of course obvious why you have picked the example of the Mozart estate, but actually this area (Queen's Park) has a pretty low proportion of muslims - massively lower than the areas of East London I know very well.
So the Mozart estate might be a no-go area because of high levels of crime etc (as there are in most big cities) - but that isn't what we are talking about - rather the discussion was about so called 'radicalised' no go areas - so areas where the population have become radicalised due to extreme religious ideologies and that makes it no-go. I am not aware of any such area in London.
Why dont you pay attention I retired before muslims were invented it was a no go area in the seventies and eighties and is the same to day nothing to do with muslims but a no go area and there are other no go areas in London not just that one.You dont seem to be aware of much try taking a cab out at night.Mind you the knowledge would probably kill you.
~TW~
-
Why dont you pay attention I retired before muslims were invented
Blimey TW I didn't realise they had cabs back in the 7thC, and you must be very old if you retired before 'muslims were invested' ;)
it was a no go area in the seventies and eighties and is the same to day nothing to do with muslims
In which case why is this relevant to a discussion of Donald Trump's comments about 'radicalised no-go areas' - the key point being that the reason the areas (in his mind) are no-go is because of the religious radicalisation.
but a no go area and there are other no go areas in London not just that one.You dont seem to be aware of much try taking a cab out at night.Mind you the knowledge would probably kill you.
~TW~
Sure - very big city has areas with high crime rates (often associated with organised crime, drugs and gangs) that you may be well advised to avoid, particularly if, as in the case of a cad driver, you are likely to be known to be carrying money. I'm well aware of that - but why is that relevant to a discussion on 'radicalised no-go areas' - it isn't.
-
Why dont you pay attention I retired before muslims were invented
Islam is to Christianity as Muslims are to Christians - Islam and Christianity are invented, Muslims and Christians are indoctrinated or taught. And they merit an initial capital, too.
You dont seem to be aware of much try taking a cab out at night.Mind you the knowledge would probably kill you.
Having cycled round London, what's most likely to kill you in my experience is cab and bus drivers.
O.
-
Blimey TW I didn't realise they had cabs back in the 7thC, and you must be very old if you retired before 'muslims were invested' ;)
In which case why is this relevant to a discussion of Donald Trump's comments about 'radicalised no-go areas' - the key point being that the reason the areas (in his mind) are no-go is because of the religious radicalisation.
Sure - very big city has areas with high crime rates (often associated with organised crime, drugs and gangs) that you may be well advised to avoid, particularly if, as in the case of a cad driver, you are likely to be known to be carrying money. I'm well aware of that - but why is that relevant to a discussion on 'radicalised no-go areas' - it isn't.
Well it is Mr Trump stated that no go areas in London existed,you and your cohorts said no.Well you are wrong and Mr Trump is right.
Because they {no go areas} have always existed.Just to add I am of the opinion that we may well be attacked just before Christmas by our friends ::) .I hope not also in today's papers Mr Trump says that more muslims join isis in this country ,then join the British Army,but whatever the truth is.This country is in a mess.
~TW~
-
Having cycled round London, what's most likely to kill you in my experience is cab and bus drivers.
O.
Agreed - but are they 'radicalised' cab and bus drivers ;)
-
Well it is Mr Trump stated that no go areas in London existed,you and your cohorts said no.Well you are wrong and Mr Trump is right.
No, the Trumpeter suggested that there were areas the Police were afraid to go because of radicalised elements there, which is not the case.
Because they {no go areas} have always existed.Just to add I am of the opinion that we may well be attacked just before Christmas by our friends ::) .I hope not also in today's papers Mr Trump says that more muslims join isis in this country ,then join the British Army,but whatever the truth is.This country is in a mess.
And, on a similar note, whatever the truth, Santa and his alien cyborg reindeer missile launchers are poised to strike, only the stockings can save us now...
If you're going to qualify something you say with the proviso 'whatever the truth is' you might as well pretend there was a creator deity who loved us, killed himself for us so that he could forgive us for something we hadn't done and would love us for eternity whilst we suffered in hell because we couldn't find an omnipotent being trying to hide from us'...
O.
-
No, the Trumpeter suggested that there were areas the Police were afraid to go because of radicalised elements there, which is not the case.
And, on a similar note, whatever the truth, Santa and his alien cyborg reindeer missile launchers are poised to strike, only the stockings can save us now...
If you're going to qualify something you say with the proviso 'whatever the truth is' you might as well pretend there was a creator deity who loved us, killed himself for us so that he could forgive us for something we hadn't done and would love us for eternity whilst we suffered in hell because we couldn't find an omnipotent being trying to hide from us'...
O.
Another lolly pop devoid of brains enters the fray.Wrong again Mr Trump is correct the mozart estate was a no go area in the seventies along with another estate in Peckham which I have now forgotten another estate was Broadwater Farm,so try again :)
~TW~
-
Another lolly pop devoid of brains enters the fray.Wrong again Mr Trump is correct the mozart estate was a no go area in the seventies along with another estate in Peckham which I have now forgotten another estate was Broadwater Farm,so try again :)
~TW~
Nope because Mr Trump was talking about 'radicalised no go areas' - I don't believe that the Mozart or Broadwater Farm estates (or Peckham) were no-go because their populace had become religiously radicalised - so Mr Trump isn't correct, but then he very rarely is.
-
Another lolly pop devoid of brains enters the fray.Wrong again Mr Trump is correct the mozart estate was a no go area in the seventies along with another estate in Peckham which I have now forgotten another estate was Broadwater Farm,so try again :)
Nobody is saying that isn't the case - we're entirely in agreement that there have been no-go regions in London. It's the CAUSE that Trump suggested that we're arguing with, not the EFFECT.
You do understand the concept of CAUSE and EFFECT, right?
O.
-
Now come on, you guys, you can't expect TW to actually follow an argument. At least, he is grasping fragments of it, so hosannah in the highest.
-
Another lolly pop devoid of brains enters the fray.Wrong again Mr Trump is correct the mozart estate was a no go area in the seventies along with another estate in Peckham which I have now forgotten another estate was Broadwater Farm,so try again :)
~TW~
Once again TW - can you tell me of an area of London which is no-go because of religious radicalisation please.
You've been quite clear that none of your examples are no-go for that reason, so please give me an example of a no-go area that is due to radicalisation.
-
Mr Trump was correct about no go areas these are areas where the police will only go in Mob handed next you will be telling me Sharia law is not practiced in this country,tell me are you all brain dead.
~TW~
-
Mr Trump was correct about no go areas these are areas where the police will only go in Mob handed next you will be telling me Sharia law is not practiced in this country,tell me are you all brain dead.
~TW~
Again - tell me an area of London that is no-go because of radicalisation.
-
Mr Trump was correct about no go areas these are areas where the police will only go in Mob handed
No he wasn't, as has previously been explained.
next you will be telling me Sharia law is not practiced in this country,tell me are you all brain dead.
Why would someone tell you that - people can voluntarily enter into any form of arbitration they like so long as all parties do so without duress. Sharia law is only one of these, but such agreements do not supersede UK law or legislation.
O.
-
Again - tell me an area of London that is no-go because of radicalisation.
Not Yet,but in secret yes.
~TW~
-
Not Yet,but in secret yes.
So no, then. So Donald Trump, as was repeatedly pointed out to you, was wrong.
O.
-
Not Yet,but in secret yes.
~TW~
What does that mean - is it your secret? - where is this place? Please tell me TW, because it might well be somewhere I know very well and perhaps I shouldn't be going there because apparently it is 'no-go'.
-
What does that mean - is it your secret? - where is this place? Please tell me TW, because it might well be somewhere I know very well and perhaps I shouldn't be going there because apparently it is 'no-go'.
You need to be careful
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/sharia-controlled-zones-in-britain-are-not-welcome/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html
You really are fast asleep prof :)
~TW~
-
You need to be careful
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/sharia-controlled-zones-in-britain-are-not-welcome/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html
You really are fast asleep prof :)
~TW~
Even if there were sharia courts operating outside civil law (I don't think there are, as Outrider points out) why would that make any area 'no-go'? I'm sure in the areas of London that I know very well that there are probably people using voluntary Sharia arbitration. Why does that have any affect on me, and why would it make that area 'no-go'.
-
Even if there were sharia courts operating outside civil law (I don't think there are, as Outrider points out) why would that make any area 'no-go'? I'm sure in the areas of London that I know very well that there are probably people using voluntary Sharia arbitration. Why does that have any affect on me, and why would it make that area 'no-go'.
Dont change the subject and dont twist the facts on the first link you can sign a petition and talking of petitions I know you like them :)
no one has mentioned the one started a couple of years ago,please dont ask me to point it to you
Just keep your head in the sand.
-
Dont change the subject and dont twist the facts on the first link you can sign a petition and talking of petitions I know you like them :)
no one has mentioned the one started a couple of years ago,please dont ask me to point it to you
Just keep your head in the sand.
I'm not changing the subject, which if you are prepared to keep up, is about radicalised no-go areas.
And I am still waiting for you to tell me where in London I am not allowed to go, because it is a radicalised no-go area.
-
Nope because Mr Trump was talking about 'radicalised no go areas' - I don't believe that the Mozart or Broadwater Farm estates (or Peckham) were no-go because their populace had become religiously radicalised - so Mr Trump isn't correct, but then he very rarely is.
I agree with you Prof. I have lived in London all my life. To me, a no go area is somewhere you do not feel safe when it is dark because of high crime rates, ie muggings, car crimes and sometimes violence. They are usually OK during the day but it makes sense to avoid certain areas at night, especially if you are on your own. Indeed, it isn't always safe in 'nice' or rural areas if you are out late and the place is isolated. I haven't been anywhere like that for years but used to. None of it has, or ever has had, anything to do with religion. That's ridiculous. Areas with a high proportion of genuine Muslims are usually fairly quiet and decent.
-
... I retired before muslims were invented ...
So that puts you at about 1400 years old, ~TW~ :o What's the secret of your longevity?
... it was a no go area in the seventies and eighties and is the same to day nothing to do with muslims but a no go area and there are other no go areas in London not just that one.You dont seem to be aware of much try taking a cab out at night.Mind you the knowledge would probably kill you.
By the way, as someone else pointed out, Trump's original comment about London's no-go areas was specifically in the context of Muslim terrorist action.
-
Maybe the police and Trump know where they are, but we are not allowed to, in case we all rush over there and get radicalized? ;D ;D
-
So, to repeat the question, ~TW~, could you please name these areas of London that you believe to be no-go areas for the police on account of the radicalisation of the Muslim populations therein.
Rather than accusing PD and others of avoiding the question, admit that you are doing exactly that and give us the information that you seem to want to keep secret.
-
I agree with you Prof. I have lived in London all my life. To me, a no go area is somewhere you do not feel safe when it is dark because of high crime rates, ie muggings, car crimes and sometimes violence. They are usually OK during the day but it makes sense to avoid certain areas at night, especially if you are on your own. Indeed, it isn't always safe in 'nice' or rural areas if you are out late and the place is isolated. I haven't been anywhere like that for years but used to. None of it has, or ever has had, anything to do with religion. That's ridiculous. Areas with a high proportion of genuine Muslims are usually fairly quiet and decent.
Trump said there were no go areas for the police. That is a different kettle of fish to the publics' fears say in certain areas at night. Though the veracity of his comments are another nothing thing.
-
So that puts you at about 1400 years old, ~TW~ :o What's the secret of your longevity?
That would explain the pertinence and quality of his posts.!!! ;D
When he says cab he probably means rickshaw. ;)
-
Trump said there were no go areas for the police. That is a different kettle of fish to the publics' fears say in certain areas at night. Though the veracity of his comments are another nothing thing.
Which he specifically linked to radicalisation.
So where are those areas of London that are no-go for either the public or for the police, or presumably both.
-
Which he specifically linked to radicalisation.
So where are those areas of London that are no-go for either the public or for the police, or presumably both.
My point was to Brownie that Trump was referring to the police not to the no go area idea associated with the publics' fears. I was not backing Trumps claims. I don't know either way but I doubt if there are any areas implied by his claim which would presuppose that firearms was the primary threat by radicalised Muslims. If it was I'm sure the D. Mail would have splash it all over their front page by now - not that I would have seen it.
-
You need to be careful
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/sharia-controlled-zones-in-britain-are-not-welcome/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html
You really are fast asleep prof :)
~TW~
Whilst you are apparently awake and reading drivel - a poster campaign by a small group of Islamists doesn't mean that Sharia law is suddenly above UK law.
As the Daily Mail article points out, people are permitted to enter into arbitration under Sharia juristiction if they wish - they report 'rumours' of the courts being used for other things, but no actual evidence of the practice happening.
The Telegraph article lays out what the boundaries of arbitration are, but again doesn't contain anything other than a few assertions that they have been transgressed.
Essentially, then, right-wing rags and organisations with borderline racist fear-mongering...
O.
-
They had a discussion on this issue on BBC Breakfast earlier - I only caught the last couple of minutes - but one speaker seemed to be suggesting that the Americans needed the UK (or some other nation) to refuse Trump entry in order to get Republicans to understand that he isn't a viable candidate.
I think you'll find that, when it comes to the actual voting, you'll find they already realise that.
I realise that most Americans, of whatever political persuausion, are pretty dumb ( ;)), but this seems to be the one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard from an American.
Well it is a dumb argument, but your assertion that most Americans are dumb is way off base.
-
There is a report today that Hillary is actually becoming a little insecure and changing her campaign strategy because of Trump's new 'stop muslims' call. She is now taking him more seriously apparently.
Maybe he has touched a cord somewhere after all!
-
Trump said there were no go areas for the police. That is a different kettle of fish to the publics' fears say in certain areas at night. Though the veracity of his comments are another nothing thing.
No go areas for police do exist:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-London
-
No go areas for police do exist:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-London
Thanks for that Spud,but these frothy clowns on these boards will not accept they are wrong they prefer sleepwalking.
~TW~
-
There is a report today that Hillary is actually becoming a little insecure and changing her campaign strategy because of Trump's new 'stop muslims' call. She is now taking him more seriously apparently.
Maybe he has touched a cord somewhere after all!
What he has touched on is the same thing people here in the UK and Europe feel and that is that the present political and economic system is not working for them at all. He is just playing on their discontentment and fears in a similar way a cat plays with a mouse. When he runs out of new things to jab the people with he will fade.
-
No go areas for police do exist:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-London
Not no go areas according to to that but areas where extra vigilance and care is needed - which is not a surprise but is certainly something not to be taken lightly either.
-
M, if a cop can't drive to work in his uniform it's a no go area, I would have thought?
-
Just to be the Devil's Advocate....what's wrong in Trump saying that terrorists should be stopped from entering the country? All countries would want that.
The fact is that, given the way terrorism has evolved and become naturalized among certain groups of muslims, it is near impossible to identify who is a terrorist and who is not. So, all muslims become potential suspects even while admitting that all muslims are not terrorists. That is the irony.
So....can terrorists be prevented from entering the country by filtering muslims in some other way?
-
Just to be the Devil's Advocate....what's wrong in Trump saying that terrorists should be stopped from entering the country? All countries would want that.
The fact is that, given the way terrorism has evolved and become naturalized among certain groups of muslims, it is near impossible to identify who is a terrorist and who is not. So, all muslims become potential suspects even while admitting that all muslims are not terrorists. That is the irony.
So....can terrorists be prevented from entering the country by filtering muslims in some other way?
Trump said Muslims should be prevented from entering the US, only a small minority of Muslims are terrorists!
-
Thanks for that Spud,but these frothy clowns on these boards will not accept they are wrong they prefer sleepwalking.
~TW~
A few points. Did Trump actually use the term "no-go-areas" because that has a technical implication.
The article said nothing about no-go-areas in this technical sense. Being precautious is something else and something police have done for decades, long before the Muslim problem cropped up. I see nothing unusual here, as such, but I do sense that it has the potential for getting out of hand as it is not concerned with gangs and their areas (i.e. small, specific groups), as it may have done in the 60's, say, but to do with ethnic groups, whole communities, that are controlling large neighbourhoods.
I would need to hear more from various sources before I would take this more fully on board.
-
Just to be the Devil's Advocate....what's wrong in Trump saying that terrorists should be stopped from entering the country? All countries would want that.
Trump didn't say that.
He said Muslims should be barred from entering the country.
Clearer now?
-
Trump didn't say that.
He said Muslims should be barred from entering the country.
Clearer now?
Yes...I know that. Just read my post. If we cannot filter out the terrorists from the other muslims...then it means one and the same thing.
-
M, if a cop can't drive to work in his uniform it's a no go area, I would have thought?
A No-Go-Area is where they can't go at all and would only enter it fully armed, all guns blazing!!! Think NI.
-
Yes...I know that.
You didn't seem to.
Just read my post.
I did, I'm afraid.
If we cannot filter out the terrorists from the other muslims...then it means one and the same thing.
What exactly does it mean? That a sizable subset of the population are prevented from moving freely through being tarred with guilt by association by this combed-over cretin?
-
The question is very simple, Shaker. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the muslim migrants?
-
The question is very simple, Shaker. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the muslim migrants?
I don't know. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the Muslim migrants? Not by tarring an entire section of the population on the basis of the actions of a minuscule minority of that section.
-
I don't know. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the Muslim migrants? Not by tarring an entire section of the population on the basis of the actions of a minuscule minority of that section.
You don't know for a fact that it is a minuscule minority. It appears to be growing. And are you willing to face the dangers of letting in potential terrorists just to be nice to the others...when you don't know for certain which is which?!
-
Just to be the Devil's Advocate....what's wrong in Trump saying that terrorists should be stopped from entering the country? All countries would want that.
The fact is that, given the way terrorism has evolved and become naturalized among certain groups of muslims, it is near impossible to identify who is a terrorist and who is not. So, all muslims become potential suspects even while admitting that all muslims are not terrorists. That is the irony.
So....can terrorists be prevented from entering the country by filtering muslims in some other way?
One of Trumps salient points was, until our leaders understand what the hell is going on. Instead of finding out what is going on in all dimensions and aspects they just come up with the 'management speak' kind of crap based on their own little wet dream idea of what is going on based on their politically philosophically biased views of how the world should work and function..... >:(
-
You don't know for a fact that it is a minuscule minority.
Actually yes, I do. See if you can guess how I know. You can have thirty minutes and more paper if you need it.
It appears to be growing.
Does it?
And are you willing to face the dangers of letting in potential terrorists just to be nice to the others...when you don't know for certain which is which?!
Certainly. I don't suppose you've heard of Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczinski by any chance, have you?
-
You don't know for a fact that it is a minuscule minority. It appears to be growing. And are you willing to face the dangers of letting in potential terrorists just to be nice to the others...when you don't know for certain which is which?!
It's not a case of 'being nice', it's a case of doing what is right. And for any country with a Muslim population - which the US has - the potential for an attack from radicalised Muslims already exists. Add to that the fact many radicalised Muslims are converts and the idea that barring entry to all Muslims would achieve anything looks more and more idiotic.
-
You didn't seem to.
I did, I'm afraid.What exactly does it mean? That a sizable subset of the population are prevented from moving freely through being tarred with guilt by association by this combed-over cretin?
But how do you judge friend from foe if they all look the same?
This kind of thing is what I refer to as the Vietnam war problem.
And this is why I get annoyed at the Muslim community for not pulling out all the stops in dealing with this. If their faith is so precious to them then why aren't they going mad, pulling their beards out, to sort all this out in their own backyard and give themselves a good and honest name? They moan at us when we seem to pick on them but they have done very little to dig out these radicalists in their communities, which tar them all with this dangerous brush.
-
Actually, you can't always filter out Muslims from non-Muslims. Terrorists could just say they are not Muslim and carry on as before.
And as Rhi suggests, Discrimination against Muslims would boost radicalization of American Muslims.
-
It's not a case of 'being nice', it's a case of doing what is right. And for any country with a Muslim population - which the US has - the potential for an attack from radicalised Muslims already exists. Add to that the fact many radicalised Muslims are converts and the idea that barring entry to all Muslims would achieve anything looks more and more idiotic.
The issue is still about identifying potential terrorists from the others..... and about the risks inherent in admitting migrants freely in large numbers when you are unable to filter the dangerous ones out.
-
But Sriram, we know there's a risk. It's still the right thing to do.
If Trump really wanted to eliminate risk he'd be talking about banning gun ownership and the internal combustion engine.
-
The issue is still about identifying potential terrorists from the others..... and about the risks inherent in admitting migrants freely in large numbers when you are unable to filter the dangerous ones out.
Going by this hot mess you would also have us bar Irish and Eastern European immigrants to the USA on the basis of McVeigh and Kaczynski.
Think you'd better think this one over a bit more.
-
I don't know. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the Muslim migrants? Not by tarring an entire section of the population on the basis of the actions of a minuscule minority of that section.
You do if your life is in danger because a section of them is trying to blow you up!!!
-
You do if your life is in danger because a section of them is trying to blow you up!!!
And that's a just, sane, rational response to a vanishingly small threat, is it?
-
You do if your life is in danger because a section of them is trying to blow you up!!!
Better ban those bastard car drivers then...they're much more of a threat to you than some bloke from Syria.
-
Better ban those bastard car drivers then...they're much more of a threat to you than some bloke from Syria.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818
-
Actually, you can't always filter out Muslims from non-Muslims. Terrorists could just say they are not Muslim and carry on as before.
And as Rhi suggests, Discrimination against Muslims would boost radicalization of American Muslims.
What about fenced off ghettos? ;)
-
What about fenced off ghettos?
Been tried a while back.
Didn't end well.
-
But Sriram, we know there's a risk. It's still the right thing to do.
If Trump really wanted to eliminate risk he'd be talking about banning gun ownership and the internal combustion engine.
That was one thing I noticed that Trump's focus was on the Muslim status of the killers not that they had easy access to high powered weaponry.
-
That was one thing I noticed that Trump's focus was on the Muslim status of the killers not that they had easy access to high powered weaponry.
That's because in the USA it's easier to pin blame for anything you like on the predominantly dusky of skin than it is to introduce proper gun laws.
-
That's because in the USA it's easier to pin blame for anything you like on the predominantly dusky of skin than it is to introduce proper gun laws.
Especially given the demographic that Trump is attempting to appeal to.
-
And that's a just, sane, rational response to a vanishingly small threat, is it?
It's not small if you get blown up or a loved one does. And who knows how large this problem will get in the future. About a quarter of British Muslims understood and sympathized with the 7/7 bombings, and other acts in the world, mainly because of Western actions and policy. If things get even more polarized in the ME who knows what will follow on from that...
-
It's not small if you get blown up or a loved one does. And who knows how large this problem will get in the future. About a quarter of British Muslims understood and sympathized with the 7/7 bombings, and other acts in the world, mainly because of Western actions and policy. If things get even more polarized in the ME who knows what will follow on from that...
No, the risk is the same for all. For those who die in terrorist attacks, it really is a case of being incredibly unlucky. That doesn't make it any less appalling or upsetting, but I take a bigger risk every time I go on the school run.
Yes, things could get worse. But as my crystal ball gazing skills aren't up to much I suggest crossing that bridge as and when.
-
Better ban those bastard car drivers then...they're much more of a threat to you than some bloke from Syria.
I know and understand the threat from cars, which I can see and therefore make judgements about, and can be alert to them. But bombs in bags or suddenly some nutter with a AK spraying bullets all over the place isn't something I can readily see the signs of prior to the event. Nor is it a common occurrence which one can then acquire an instinct for.
-
Been tried a while back.
Didn't end well.
That's no reason for trying again. This is different circumstances.
-
That's no reason for trying again. This is different circumstances.
No, it's exactly the same circumstances - fearful and hard-of-thinking dipshits suggesting monstrous things be done to innocent people and jerking their knees because that's about the only part of them that functions more or less properly.
-
No, the risk is the same for all. For those who die in terrorist attacks, it really is a case of being incredibly unlucky. That doesn't make it any less appalling or upsetting, but I take a bigger risk every time I go on the school run.
Yes, things could get worse. But as my crystal ball gazing skills aren't up to much I suggest crossing that bridge as and when.
You mean closing the stable doors after the all the horses have bolted?
-
You mean closing the stable doors after the all the horses have bolted?
The problem is that our attempts to take preemptive action has led in part to where we are now. We don't contain the problem so much as create a whole load of new ones. So yes, things might get worse, but they also might not, and recent experience would suggest that the latter is more likely the less we interfere.
-
M, if a cop can't drive to work in his uniform it's a no go area, I would have thought?
Don't agree. No go area suggests something more than that to me.
-
Don't agree. No go area suggests something more than that to me.
...and me.
-
The problem is that our attempts to take preemptive action has led in part to where we are now. We don't contain the problem so much as create a whole load of new ones. So yes, things might get worse, but they also might not, and recent experience would suggest that the latter is more likely the less we interfere.
So we are like someone in shock? Too scared to move but too afraid to stand still. We've been stupefied by our own hubris and our arrogant sense of self-worth and capabilities.
-
So we are like someone in shock? Too scared to move but too afraid to stand still. We've been stupefied by our own hubris and our arrogant sense of self-worth and capabilities.
9/11 was the shocker. It's our response to that that has got us here, partly. Its not fear that prevents us from acting, but the realisation that the bulk of what we've done so far has been stupid.
-
9/11 was the shocker. It's our response to that that has got us here, partly. Its not fear that prevents us from acting, but the realisation that the bulk of what we've done so far has been stupid.
We're dammed if we do and we're dammed if we don't.
-
We're dammed if we do and we're dammed if we don't.
We don't actually know that...
-
We don't actually know that...
If we do nothing then the jihadist will preach that the West doesn't care as the ME goes into melt down and allow them to preach their evil over the internet thereby recruiting more killers. And as we allow all Muslims into our country these killers will come in and also leave to be trained up to return to kill us.
Or we be proactive and they say look the West have invaded our ME lands killing us without restraint, they oppress us in their homelands and treat us like dogs and those already here will then be more incensed to kill us.
Can you think of a third scenario?
-
Your fortune-telling skills are better than mine, Jack.
-
Trump's ideas amount to a white racist programme, with hints of fascism as well. If the US were to make these its official policy, the effects would likely be disastrous, not just for the US, but around the world. Hopefully, enough US citizens will realize this.
-
Trump's ideas amount to a white racist programme, with hints of fascism as well. If the US were to make these its official policy, the effects would likely be disastrous, not just for the US, but around the world. Hopefully, enough US citizens will realize this.
Agreed. :-\
-
Trump said Muslims should be prevented from entering the US, only a small minority of Muslims are terrorists!
No. Trump wants to prevent terrorists from entering his country. The only way he thinks that is possible is by preventing all muslims from entering the country.
The emphasis is entirely different.
-
No. Trump wants to prevent terrorists from entering his country. The only way he thinks that is possible is by preventing all muslims from entering the country.
The emphasis is entirely different.
You may be correct about what Trump wants - although I think his motives are far more calculated than this - but it's a catastrophically stupid idea.
-
No. Trump wants to prevent terrorists from entering his country. The only way he thinks that is possible is by preventing all muslims from entering the country.
The emphasis is entirely different.
Out of interest, Sri, of the various terrorist attacks that have occurred in the US over, say, the last 30 years how many have been committed by Muslims, let alone extremist Muslims? A percentage will do.
I appreciate that in terms of death toll, the latter have caused the highest figure, but ...
-
Out of interest, Sri, of the various terrorist attacks that have occurred in the US over, say, the last 30 years how many have been committed by Muslims, let alone extremist Muslims? A percentage will do.
I appreciate that in terms of death toll, the latter have caused the highest figure, but ...
I remember 9/11 and the recent one. Possibly some more I don't recall. I think almost all terrorist attacks have been by muslims (Al-Qaida or ISIS).
The racist attacks and the mad cap attacks of school children etc...they do on their own internally...no muslim migrants required!
-
It's only semantics that labels mass shootings by white men not terrorism. Also, it means you don't have to tackle the gun problem in the US. How many have there been? About 1000 in the last 3 years, I suppose about one per day. Still, let's focus on the Muslims, then white racist views have a sort of respectable facade.
-
Not no go areas according to to that but areas where extra vigilance and care is needed - which is not a surprise but is certainly something not to be taken lightly either.
Yes there is a difference.
If Europe isn't careful it could head down the holocaust route, again.
-
M, if a cop can't drive to work in his uniform it's a no go area, I would have thought?
Vicars and soldiers both are advised not to wear their uniforms because they may get picked on ( not by Muslims, incidentally) is your local shop in a no go area?
Lots of people are advised not to wear identifying clothing outside of their profession, it doesn't mean it's a no go area.
Anyway what relevance is the police uniform in their patrol car when they have flashing lights and POLICE emblasoned down the side of their patrol car?
It doesn't make sense, does it? It just might give it away ;)
It only makes sense if they are off duty and in their own car, well that warning has been around a lot longer than Muslim terrorists.
-
It's only semantics that labels mass shootings by white men not terrorism. Also, it means you don't have to tackle the gun problem in the US. How many have there been? About 1000 in the last 3 years, I suppose about one per day. Still, let's focus on the Muslims, then white racist views have a sort of respectable facade.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence
It's not just in the States either. Was the recent stabbing in Leytonstone a true terror attack? I don't think it was, but it makes a better headline, especially when there are voters to be won over.
-
Yes there is a difference.
If Europe isn't careful it could head down the holocaust route, again.
See #142.
-
I think in the US white killers tend not to be labelled terrorists, partly because they are often not as ideologically driven, but also there is a kind of not subtle racism at work. Brown people are terrorists, and white people are just mass killers, then we know who the real enemy is, and we can ignore the access to guns. But Sandy Hook has been called domestic terrorism, although the motives are unknown. (But quite a lot of white killers seem to have an anti-government agenda).
But there is a push to use the label 'white terrorist', for example, the killings recently at the abortion centre (Planned Parenthood).
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-anti-isis-march-not-covered-by-mainstream-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html
We don't hear about it.
-
See #142.
Did u mean #151?
:)
-
Did u mean #151?
:)
That was a response to #142 :)
-
That was a response to #142 :)
Ah!
You made a good point 🌹
-
The result of YouGov's poll on Trump's 'ban Muslims' call - http://bit.ly/1lWiY9L
-
I remember 9/11 and the recent one. Possibly some more I don't recall. I think almost all terrorist attacks have been by muslims (Al-Qaida or ISIS).
The racist attacks and the mad cap attacks of school children etc...they do on their own internally...no muslim migrants required!
I can remember the (white) terrorist attack in Oklahoma City in 1995; then there were the Unabomber attacks between 1978 and 1995 (mind u, they weren't deemed to be terrorist attacks at the time).
I suppose it depends on how one defines 'terrorism'; is it political; religious; both; ...?
Not sure quite how many attacks there have been in schools, universities, military establisments, city centres, etc. over the last 30 years, but not all the 'minor' ones have been as a result of unbalanced minds.
-
In the last 3 years, about a 1000 mass shootings in the US, most (I think) by white men. I suppose these are accepted as normal, whereas a shooting by a Muslim is abnormal, and white terrorism is not a category considered by many Americans to exist.
355 so far this year.
-
I can remember the (white) terrorist attack in Oklahoma City in 1995; then there were the Unabomber attacks between 1978 and 1995 (mind u, they weren't deemed to be terrorist attacks at the time).
I suppose it depends on how one defines 'terrorism'; is it political; religious; both; ...?
Not sure quite how many attacks there have been in schools, universities, military establisments, city centres, etc. over the last 30 years, but not all the 'minor' ones have been as a result of unbalanced minds.
OK...what you say may be true. So...what's your point?
Allow many more ISIS fanatics into the country because... 'what difference does it make...there have been so many killings by local whites and blacks and mad caps anyway'??!!
-
You have to declare if you have terroist intentions before entering the country, so that is already sorted! :)
-
Flattering pic of Trump.
http://tinyurl.com/putze4d
-
The result of YouGov's poll on Trump's 'ban Muslims' call - http://bit.ly/1lWiY9L
I think about 60% against in the US, but then it's probably unconstitutional. But Trump's overall programme is based on white racism, which will get some votes, of course, but nationally, is a loser, I would think. For one thing, most non-whites are going to run scared of Trump, e.g. Latinos, black people, and so on. I bet Hillary is hugging herself every night at the moment.
-
OK...what you say may be true. So...what's your point?
My point is that terrorists aren't only Muslims, and there are possibly more home-grown terrorists than incoming terrorists.
-
No go areas for police do exist:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-London
No they don't. Read the article.
One police officer has claimed he is not allowed to wear his uniform to or from work.
-
M, if a cop can't drive to work in his uniform it's a no go area, I would have thought?
No.
-
Well, at least the French equivalent of D Trump hasn't done well in the 2nd round of voting!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35088276
-
My point is that terrorists aren't only Muslims, and there are possibly more home-grown terrorists than incoming terrorists.
Even the local thug entering your home can cause terror. That is not how we use the word 'terrorism' nowadays!
Yes...there are many domestic problems in every country. Racism, police atrocities, mad cap killings and so on. Even possibly home grown religious fanatics. These obviously need to be tackled at their level.
But how do these problems justify allowing more and more ISIS fanatics into the country, knowing their agenda and ideology?
The issue is ...how do we identify such fanatics and isolate them from normal muslims?
Until we have some clear way of doing that....all muslims migrating into any country would have to be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunately, unlike earlier times...gender, age, education, race, nationality or any other category cannot be ruled out automatically as beyond suspicion! That is the problem.
-
Sriram, three of the 7/7 bombers were UK-born and the fourth was born in Jamaica. Prior to that we had the Soho bombings which were carried out by a white supremacist.
Stopping Muslim migration will not stop terrorism because it's mostly home-grown; instead it's likely to fuel the discontent that leads to it.
-
The vast majority of Muslims wanting to come here want to escape terrorism.
They want to know their children are safe when they go out to play, and that they have a future.
I'm not overly keen on huge numbers of Muslims coming in, but most of them just want a decent life.
It's what we all want.
The shame is, it can't be got in their home country.
One day, maybe it will.
That's my hope anyway.
-
Trump was talking about entry generally, not only immigration. The idea is essentially unworkable, but I suspect has had the political effect he was after.
-
But how do these problems justify allowing more and more ISIS fanatics into the country, knowing their agenda and ideology?
Clearly you have more information than most of the police seem to have, Sri. In the last year, how many ISIS fanatics were allowed into the USA? How many were allowed in the UK? How many were allowed into the EU?
The issue is ...how do we identify such fanatics ... ?
Your previous paragraph implied that we already had the answer to this question - why else would you refer to 'allowing more and more ISIS fanatics'?
Until we have some clear way of doing that....all muslims migrating into any country would have to be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunately, unlike earlier times...gender, age, education, race, nationality or any other category cannot be ruled out automatically as beyond suspicion! That is the problem.
How would you stop an American citizen who has converted to Islam entering the US?
-
Your fortune-telling skills are better than mine, Jack.
If they were I'd be rich...
-
The Trump's a balloon
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/the-ballooning-of-donald-trump?utm_term=.ps0xgEaBA#.ivjJr4oLM
-
Trump's ideas amount to a white racist programme, with hints of fascism as well. If the US were to make these its official policy, the effects would likely be disastrous, not just for the US, but around the world. Hopefully, enough US citizens will realize this.
Kennedy got shot for his political position, though it wasn't an official whacking.
-
See #142.
That one was mine. :) Nice to see you are taking notes of the person who counts here!!! ;D
What about fenced off ghettos? ;)
-
Did u mean #151?
:)
NO HE DID NOT !!!
-
Even the local thug entering your home can cause terror. That is not how we use the word 'terrorism' nowadays!
Yes...there are many domestic problems in every country. Racism, police atrocities, mad cap killings and so on. Even possibly home grown religious fanatics. These obviously need to be tackled at their level.
But how do these problems justify allowing more and more ISIS fanatics into the country, knowing their agenda and ideology?
The issue is ...how do we identify such fanatics and isolate them from normal muslims?
Until we have some clear way of doing that....all muslims migrating into any country would have to be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunately, unlike earlier times...gender, age, education, race, nationality or any other category cannot be ruled out automatically as beyond suspicion! That is the problem.
So that includes all those being suspect of being haters of the West?!?
-
NO HE DID NOT !!!
:-[
My apologies!
-
Trump with a British accent:
http://us.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/12/22/donald-trump-accent-daily-hit-newday.cnn
-
It seems there are some people in official positions of authority in the US who can ban British Muslims from flying to the US without providing any reason for the ban.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35167511
If the Muslims involved had been about to sign a deal with a US company, rather than a family visiting Disneyland, the Muslim factor would no doubt have been overlooked.
Which is why the suggestion to ban Muslims from the US is a publicity stunt that would only appeal to the terminally stupid. The use of petro-dollars to fund militant groups would seem to be a far bigger threat to US homeland security than a few Muslims tourists.
It seems a bit odd for certain sectors of the US to keep repeating the mantra that "they hate us for our freedoms" while arbitrarily preventing law-abiding people from having freedom of movement.
-
It seems there are some people in official positions of authority in the US who can ban British Muslims from flying to the US without providing any reason for the ban.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35167511
If the Muslims involved had been about to sign a deal with a US company, rather than a family visiting Disneyland, the Muslim factor would no doubt have been overlooked.
Which is why the suggestion to ban Muslims from the US is a publicity stunt that would only appeal to the terminally stupid. The use of petro-dollars to fund militant groups would seem to be a far bigger threat to US homeland security than a few Muslims tourists.
It seems a bit odd for certain sectors of the US to keep repeating the mantra that "they hate us for our freedoms" while arbitrarily preventing law-abiding people from having freedom of movement.
Those chanting this are the stupid ones who can't see that their freedoms were lost long ago.
-
I se that Trump is threatening to pull £700m of investment out of Scotland!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35246991
Should the Scots be worried? How many jobs would that effect?
-
I se that Trump is threatening to pull £700m of investment out of Scotland!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35246991
Should the Scots be worried? How many jobs would that effect?
Knowing Trump's kind of investment with respect to golf courses, I would think the locals are probably hoping he does get banned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1943873/
-
If Trump becomes President, America will become a pariah state and no better than Russia, imo.
-
A trump follower
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/22/california-man-arrested-for-building-a-pipe-bomb-and-threats-to-muslims
He's pushed this individual over the edge.
-
I suppose it's no surprise given his comments on Muslims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35791008
-
If Trump becomes president the Klu Klux Klan will think all its birthdays have come at once. :o
-
Look on the bright side-if Trump becomes POTUS at least we will start Armageddon with smiles on our faces.
If Hillums wins we will start Armageddon worrying about quotas.
-
If Trump becomes president the Klu Klux Klan will think all its birthdays have come at once. :o
I didn't know he was pro-Klan, in fact I'm sure he isn't. I dislike Trump's pollytix but we must get our facts straight (even if he doesn't).
Still can't believe Trump will get in, despite his apparent popularity at the moment.
-
A trump follower
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/22/california-man-arrested-for-building-a-pipe-bomb-and-threats-to-muslims
He's pushed this individual over the edge.
Rose, from the look of the posts that are viewable in the article, I'm not sure that one can suggest that Trump has pushed him over the edge. I'd suggest that he likely had the tendency prior to Trump's appearance on the scene.
-
If Trump becomes president the Klu Klux Klan will think all its birthdays have come at once. :o
Didn't they when Obama got elected? Seem to remember a spate of what would appear to have been racially-motivated incidents shortly after his original election.
-
You are right there Hope, I remember that too.
-
Here is Floo's UK and without the KKK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJaiJ_maUEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOUafDnUPU
-
Here is Floo's UK and without the KKK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJaiJ_maUEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOUafDnUPU
OMW, note that the rally/ies shown here was organised by a far-right, European political group called 'Pigeda', which started in Germany in 2014. Also note the UK have had its own extreme right-wing groups (see http://bit.ly/1nFgqNY for a list of them since 1945)
-
Well Hope, Floo is a USA hater, and she seems to be able to channel the thoughts of the KKK. That is disturbing to me. You are an Island, the southwestern USA is not. What would your reaction be to over 10 million illegal immigrants pouring into the UK every year. These are NOT refugees, they are not fleeing persecution and death. Each one is a criminal because they refuse to immigrate like their next door neighbour did. That is, honestly, filling out the forms and waiting in line and not using Mexican criminal gangs to get them over the border.
http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/the-8-most-dangerous-border-towns-in-america.html
Floo's UK without the KKK!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znvKGblcUmA
-
What I find amazing is this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35758156
I don't think he is anything like a Hindu deity :-\
But hey, I don't know much about Hindu deities ???
But I can't see how someone can confuse the two :o
-
He isn't very popular in Europe, according to this.
J K Rowling has apparently tweeted that he is worse than Voldemort.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35702584
-
22 things he apparently stands for
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34903577
He thinks he will get on better with President Putin than did President Obama.
Worryingly he talks about forcing China to do things...... How much force would he apply?
Plus he thinks climate change is an expensive hoax and companies in the USA shouldn't have to make concessions for it.
He also says he is strongly Christian.
Hmmm!
That's just a few.
-
When it comes to politics he is a Prat. He should stick to what he is good at.
OLW, Hope is right that we in the UK have had and do have our share of far right fascist groups. The British National Party, the National Front and, currently in vogue, the English Defence League. There are also some groups that do not make any headlines, they are well hidden from most people but they wear Nazi uniforms and have secret gettogethers. Plus we mustn't forget the acceptable, slightly better class face of the BNP - UKIP. It's all frightening though the British tend to go for moderates in the end.
We also have criminal immigrants, some of whom are extremely rich and Mafia-like, drug barons, running prostitution rackets and owning slaves.
-
OMW, note that the rally/ies shown here was organised by a far-right, European political group called 'Pigeda', which started in Germany in 2014. Also note the UK have had its own extreme right-wing groups (see http://bit.ly/1nFgqNY for a list of them since 1945)
I believe the Alternative for Germany party got kick out of the EP group they were in because they suggested using guns on the migrants....?
-
When it comes to politics he is a Prat. He should stick to what he is good at.
OLW, Hope is right that we in the UK have had and do have our share of far right fascist groups. The British National Party, the National Front and, currently in vogue, the English Defence League. There are also some groups that do not make any headlines, they are well hidden from most people but they wear Nazi uniforms and have secret gettogethers. Plus we mustn't forget the acceptable, slightly better class face of the BNP - UKIP. It's all frightening though the British tend to go for moderates in the end.
We also have criminal immigrants, some of whom are extremely rich and Mafia-like, drug barons, running prostitution rackets and owning slaves.
And there speaks a Leftie. Now they haven't done any harm have they? Oh, what about Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge........nice lot them Lefties!!!
-
"strongly Christian"
That's a hoot, in reality he is but a Christian for Christian votes. There are millions upon millions of people that claim to be Christians. Like the women on Mob Wives!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGa5sD2S9Pg
-
And there speaks a Leftie. Now they haven't done any harm have they? Oh, what about Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge........nice lot them Lefties!!!
Not sure I understand. What do you mean, "them lefties"? Are you saying I am a 'leftie'? I certainly wasn't defending anyone like the people or group you mention above, who were totalitarian rather than socialist, merely pointing out that the USA are not alone in having fascist organisations, nor some immigrants with criminal intent; we have them too.
-
"strongly Christian"
That's a hoot, in reality he is but a Christian for Christian votes. There are millions upon millions of people that claim to be Christians. Like the women on Mob Wives!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGa5sD2S9Pg
It seems to be quite a thing in the USA for would-be politicians to nail their colours to the Christian flag. I honestly don't know whether or not Donald Trump is a Christian, he is probably nominally so and would consider himself to be Christian as opposed to adhering to any non-Christian religion but why would he think it important to say so? Religious beliefs are a personal matter, over here the general public is suspicious when politicians start airing them publicly.
-
And I'm not sure that's s good thing; for all I'm in favour of secularism I don't want to see a political landscape where having a faith is treated like a dirty little secret; belief is not a matter of choice. And if I am going to give somebody my vote it is actually an important thing to know. if as aconsequence they are likely to oppose abortion rights or assisted dying, for example.
In the US not being a Christian is viewed as suspicious. I have no doubt at all as to Trump's sincere adherence to that particular brand of right-wing prosperity theology-supporting Christianity that exists across the pond.
-
Christianity in the USofA seems to be equated with extreme right-wing hatefulness. It seems you are not considered patriotic if you aren't a flipping Christian. All the more reason for not being one as patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel. >:(
-
And I'm not sure that's s good thing; for all I'm in favour of secularism I don't want to see a political landscape where having a faith is treated like a dirty little secret
In the USA it's exactly the opposite, though - you've zero chance of getting anywhere politically if you're an openly declared atheist, since atheists are the most distrusted group in American society. Even more so than Muslims - it seems that any religious belief of any kind will do, just as long as you're not an atheist. There have been a couple (no more) of political figures who have come out about being non-believers but only recently and well into (or even at the end of) a career in public life - Pete Stark, for example - when there's nothing left to lose.
That situation will not persist - the religious profile of the nation is already undergoing a sea change - but it'll be a while yet before you see a professed atheist in high office, and longer still before you see one in the highest office of all.
-
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make in my last paragraph. Patriotism and Christianity are still the most valued things in the States and are regarded by many as indivisible.
-
Christianity in the USofA seems to be equated with extreme right-wing hatefulness. It seems you are not considered patriotic if you aren't a flipping Christian. All the more reason for not being one as patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel. >:(
That is an oversimplification. Catholicism is seen as an important part of Hispanic heritage, regardless of whether one goes to Mass or not.
-
That is an oversimplification. Catholicism is seen as an important part of Hispanic heritage, regardless of whether one goes to Mass or not.
All religions are past there sell-by dates, and should be discarded.
-
All religions are past there sell-by dates, and should be discarded.
But religion is often an integral part of culture. When the religion is lost, the culture undergoes radical transformation - not always for the better.
-
But religion is often an integral part of culture. When the religion is lost, the culture undergoes radical transformation - not always for the better.
We have evolved the intelligence to replace religion with a moral code.
-
But religion is often an integral part of culture. When the religion is lost, the culture undergoes radical transformation - not always for the better.
Religion doesn't always mean people are good, decent and have morals. A lot of the 'born again' mob I wouldn't trust any farther than I could throw them! >:(
-
All religions are past there sell-by dates, and should be discarded.
Some people have thought so for centuries. Religions still exist. You have no idea how popular religions are in some countries especially among the young.
-
Some people have thought so for centuries. Religions still exist.
Religions purport to provide what a lot of people want and tell a lot of people what they want to hear. That ensures their survival.
You have no idea how popular religions are in some countries especially among the young.
... meanwhile in the rest of the world it's the young who are the least religious.
-
One thing Trump and Boris Johnson have in common is horrible hair! ;D
-
One thing Trump and Boris Johnson have in common is horrible hair! ;D
Boris Johnsons hair is ok, if a bit wayward.
I think Donald Trumps problem is that he has a badly fitting toupee.
Or perhaps not....... Seems to be some speculation on it
http://uk.businessinsider.com/is-donald-trump-bald-2015-12
-
You can blow it with a trumpet ;)
http://trumpdonald.org
(Tap the screen from a variety of angles)
Weird!
;D ;D
-
We have evolve the intelligence to replace religion with a moral code.
If only Leonard . . . if only that were the case!
G.K.Chesterton wrote:
"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything"
And I suspect that he may have had a point. If someone loses their faith, you can't just assume that they will 'default' to altuistic humanism.
-
If only Leonard . . . if only that were the case!
G.K.Chesterton wrote:
"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything"
And I suspect that he may have had a point. If someone loses their faith, you can't just assume that they will 'default' to altuistic humanism.
I've always thought that believing in gods is already tantamount to believing in anything as it is.
-
If you believe that nasty nutter Donald Trump would make a good president, you would believe in anything! >:(
-
No that's not true at all, in the rest of the world it's the young that are growing the Christian church. Like in China, India , Africa and S America. The developing world is developing to Christianity not away from it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,156277,00.html
Decades ago we knew that Europe and N America was becoming dark. We send missionaries to Europe, there was a time when you sent them to us.
-
Decades ago we knew that Europe and N America was becoming dark.
Eh?
What does that even mean?
-
I have changed my position on what might be the results. Thanks to the left being what they are and silencing free speech the other night, we will either have Trump as President or in a casket. I had a bad feeling watching those repressive lefties shutting down free speech. Now we saw yesterday a lefty trying to rush at Donald. I may not like Mr. Trump but I would rather have him as president over a shifty snake like Clinton. And Nobody here wants Donald in a casket, am I right? I hope so.
-
The light of the world is Jesus. And you know that Mr. Marxist.
-
Eh?
What does that even mean?
It means we are all turning away from the light ( which is presumably Christianity )
At least that's what I took it as.
:)
-
The light of the world is Jesus. And you know that Mr. Marxist.
Nope. My light is provided by the local electricity company.
Not cheap, but it does actually exist and that's always a bonus.
-
Lefties just seems to mean people who stand up for other people's rights or at least point out a billionaire probably doesn't know what life is like for most people who have to budget.
I guess some put it more forcefully than others.
I've been watching some of his interviews, he's very narcissistic.
Constantly saying how clever he is and how lucky everyone is for having him around etc etc.
Over there he seems to be in a programme, where he takes on the role of Lord Sugar.
Can't remember what ours is called.
You're fired!
Or something like that.
-
I have changed my position on what might be the results. Thanks to the left being what they are and silencing free speech the other night, we will either have Trump as President or in a casket.
Can I phone a friend please Chris?
I had a bad feeling watching those repressive lefties shutting down free speech. Now we saw yesterday a lefty trying to rush at Donald.
This refers to what and/or to whom?
I may not like Mr. Trump
You do surprise me.
Nobody here wants Donald in a casket, am I right? I hope so.
It's the only guaranteed way I can think of that he'll never say anything stupid, ignorant, offensive and boorish again. Otherwise ...
http://goo.gl/oL2p9f
-
If only Leonard . . . if only that were the case!
G.K.Chesterton wrote:
"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything"
And I suspect that he may have had a point. If someone loses their faith, you can't just assume that they will 'default' to altuistic humanism.
No, you can't ... but there are sufficient of us in the majority to ensure that a moral code encompasses the Golden Rule.
-
Nope. My light is provided by the local electricity company.
Not cheap, but it does actually exist and that's always a bonus.
We have British Gas as our light of the world! ;D
-
Floo,
You should ask your daughters if they think the light of the world is Jesus. Not when they are in your home of course, but you ask them.
-
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12
Walk in the Light!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNaKjULjoOM
-
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12
Walk in the Light!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNaKjULjoOM
He sure had an inflated ego!
-
No, lefties are Bernie and Black lives Matter thugs who go around shutting down the right to free speech. This is exactly what those repressive socialists did the other night at the Trump rally. Their intent was to shut it down and they did it. You ask them. I regard them as fascists resorting to mob violence and threats of mob violence. The left that goes around spouting freedom and rights always seems to be the biggest violators once in power.
So Shaker is surprised that I don't like trump. What a joke, of course I don't and here is why,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-he-would-be-a-much-different-person-as-president/
Don't tell me you will be a much different person when president. I always vote for what a person presents now. However he is not the criminal that goes by his own rules like Clinton does.
-
No, lefties are Bernie and Black lives Matter thugs who go around shutting down the right to free speech. This is exactly what those repressive socialists did the other night at the Trump rally. Their intent was to shut it down and they did it. You ask them. I regard them as fascists resorting to mob violence and threats of mob violence. The left that goes around spouting freedom and rights always seems to be the biggest violators once in power.
So Shaker is surprised that I don't like trump. What a joke, of course I don't and here is why,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-he-would-be-a-much-different-person-as-president/
Don't tell me you will be a much different person when president. I always vote for what a person presents now. However he is not the criminal that goes by his own rules like Clinton does.
OMW, what I saw at those Trump rallies was violence from Trump supporters against peaceful demonstrators against him and all he stands for (by the way, does anyone know what policies he actually stands for?)
-
I want to comment on several posts but will try and sum up my comments in one.
Religious beliefs should not be a secret; if people go to church, others will know about it anyway and why not? However there is no need to bang on about it which is what seems to happen in the USA. We've had ultra-religious would-be politicians here and there is grave suspicion, but some politicians have faith and admit it, but are low key about it. They represent everyone and that is how it should be.
I still don't know what ''them lefties'' means but I wouldn't support any 'lefties' who tried to stifle free speech though I do think there is such a thing as 'hate speech' which should, imo, be stopped in its tracks. Most politicians try to stay just on the acceptable side of the limit, I am not sure this is true of Trump. He could of course be misrepresented in the press. However I've never forgotten him saying publicly that Barack Obama was not an American which is utter garbage. He also said there should be a ban on Muslims flying in and out of the USA which is quite ridiculous! He made an idiot of himself saying both of those things.
The programme that Trump used to host is 'The Apprentice USA'. I enjoy it and recently I've been watching 'Celebrity Apprentice USA' which is great. Mr Trump is not a politician in that and he's quite engaging but it was a while ago, they are old programmes. He stopped doing it and Arnie took over, maybe three years ago. I'll be interested to see how Arnie performs.
Finally, I don't think it is fair to ask floo to question her family about faith issues and she has said several times that she doesn't discuss religion with them. Our families do not enter into any of the discussions on here. They may be mentioned when relevant but only as an aside. It's what we think that matters on this forum, not our kids.
-
People used to say that Reagan was the perfect politician - he was a professional actor who just played the part that people wanted.
In some ways Trump is similar. He is an outrageous egotist - but again, he plays the part that people want.
You can't take anything he says at face value. The only message you believe is that he wants to be president.
-
Not sure I understand. What do you mean, "them lefties"? Are you saying I am a 'leftie'? I certainly wasn't defending anyone like the people or group you mention above, who were totalitarian rather than socialist, merely pointing out that the USA are not alone in having fascist organisations, nor some immigrants with criminal intent; we have them too.
My point was to highlight the way you lumped all those you see as being in the same Right camp when they are not. This is what Lefties do so I did the same those groups who are seen as being on the Left.
-
OMW, what I saw at those Trump rallies was violence from Trump supporters against peaceful demonstrators against him and all he stands for (by the way, does anyone know what policies he actually stands for?)
He didn't try to calm his supporters down but actually fuelled their emotions. I reckon someone is going to get killed as Trump gets closer and closer to the White House as these two polar opposite groups come head to head. That could be his down fall, for not trying to calm things down, but putting petrol on the fire.
-
My point was to highlight the way you lumped all those you see as being in the same Right camp when they are not. This is what Lefties do so I did the same those groups who are seen as being on the Left.
Thanks Jack but I still don't understand the "them" in ''them lefties''; maybe you meant to say 'those'. I mentioned the National Front, BNP, EDL and I believe they are far right fascist groups - they probably do differ in some respects but they have an awful lot in common; most of us (GBP) are moderate, middle of the road, a little left of centre or a little right on some issues but not in the same category as extremists. I wouldn't put Donald Trump in an extremist category despite him making some very extreme statements.
-
I want to comment on several posts but will try and sum up my comments in one.
Religious beliefs should not be a secret; if people go to church, others will know about it anyway and why not? However there is no need to bang on about it which is what seems to happen in the USA. We've had ultra-religious would-be politicians here and there is grave suspicion, but some politicians have faith and admit it, but are low key about it. They represent everyone and that is how it should be.
I still don't know what ''them lefties'' means but I wouldn't support any 'lefties' who tried to stifle free speech though I do think there is such a thing as 'hate speech' which should, imo, be stopped in its tracks. Most politicians try to stay just on the acceptable side of the limit, I am not sure this is true of Trump. He could of course be misrepresented in the press. However I've never forgotten him saying publicly that Barack Obama was not an American which is utter garbage. He also said there should be a ban on Muslims flying in and out of the USA which is quite ridiculous! He made an idiot of himself saying both of those things.
The programme that Trump used to host is 'The Apprentice USA'. I enjoy it and recently I've been watching 'Celebrity Apprentice USA' which is great. Mr Trump is not a politician in that and he's quite engaging but it was a while ago, they are old programmes. He stopped doing it and Arnie took over, maybe three years ago. I'll be interested to see how Arnie performs.
Finally, I don't think it is fair to ask floo to question her family about faith issues and she has said several times that she doesn't discuss religion with them. Our families do not enter into any of the discussions on here. They may be mentioned when relevant but only as an aside. It's what we think that matters on this forum, not our kids.
Thanks Brownie. :) I will NEVER discuss my children's views on matters of faith, apart from stating they are moderate in their beliefs and not Biblical literalists. My thoughts on religion are all my own based on my reading of the Bible.
-
You're quite right too and it wasn't fair for you to be asked to ask them. I don't suppose he really meant it though, it was probably said off the top of his head.
-
You're quite right too and it wasn't fair for you to be asked to ask them. I don't suppose he really meant it though, it was probably said off the top of his head.
That particular poster makes a point of trying to wind me up by mentioning my children, particularly my eldest! >:(
-
Ah well, you can weather that one floo!
I make a point of not talking about mine because.....well, if I said why, I would be talking about him :D. However I will now say, once and for all, that he is an atheist or, more precisely, a not quite 100% atheist like Dawkins. It bothers me not at all.
Here are a couple of short extracts from what he has written:
"I have no want to belittle anyone’s beliefs, free will etc, but to me God is as unlikely and ridiculous as the tooth fairy. It's a myth made up by persecuted people who had no answers thousands of years ago and needed to control people en masse. I think it represents dark age thinking and I feel humans should be moving towards enlightenment via reason, not via ancient myths and superstitions."
"I am constantly in awe of the wonder in the universe and how such complexity can arise from reasonably simple iterative maths. It's amazing, and the fact we are here to discuss it proves it works! To reduce it to something by a supernatural entity belittles the wonder of it and undermines the amazing work that people have done to figure out the facts. My understanding has come from my education both formally and privately obtained. Somehow in society not having a faith can be considered something of a problem and on occasions I have been made to feel second rate because of it."
And that is all I will say - except, back to topic, he has strong opinions about Donald Trump, none of them affirmative, and favours Jerry Sanders.
(I may delete this post after you've read it)
Congratulations to him on such clear, unbiased thinking ... no little thing nowadays, I'm sorry to say.
-
Len I've edited my post, which you quoted, because I put ''Jerry Sanders'' when it should have been ''Bernie Sanders''. Thanks for your comment.
-
Stop it Floo, you bring up your daughters being Christians all the time. And yes I meant it. You mocked me for, the light of the world, and I wonder if you would mock your family that believes Jesus is the light of the world. If you don't want anything mentioned then you should learn to stifle. But let's be clear, I have only ever said positive things about your Christian children, you on the other hand rant every day against God, the Bible and Christianity, which are all very important to me and your children. It is you Floo, that has put stuff out for the public, in newspapers, the internet and radio and don't be baby when challenged.
So I don't think I was out of line. I betcha your Christian children will agree with me on who the light of the world is. You shouldn't have made fun of that really, but you are a completely different character as Floo. You have many faces.
-
Len I've edited my post, which you quoted, because I put ''Jerry Sanders'' when it should have been ''Bernie Sanders''. Thanks for your comment.
In fact I knew nothing about either!. My post was directed at the first two paragraphs, being his own personal deductions. A very lucid thinker! :)
-
Thanks Jack but I still don't understand the "them" in ''them lefties''; maybe you meant to say 'those'. I mentioned the National Front, BNP, EDL and I believe they are far right fascist groups - they probably do differ in some respects but they have an awful lot in common; most of us (GBP) are moderate, middle of the road, a little left of centre or a little right on some issues but not in the same category as extremists. I wouldn't put Donald Trump in an extremist category despite him making some very extreme statements.
Trump's just playing the field for his own agenda, an agenda I kind of agree with - from what I've heard from the 'shadows' - but I don't like the person trying to implement it.
-
You're quite right too and it wasn't fair for you to be asked to ask them. I don't suppose he really meant it though, it was probably said off the top of his head.
Oh yes he did!
The man is a troll and a WUM in the very worst sense of both these words. He wants a reaction about which he can complain to the Mods and Floo and I are two of his favourite targets.
He is probably the Recondite Revenant reincarnated - no, scratch that - he is nowhere near as clever as the RR.
-
I had to google RR, Owlswing! My knowledge increases daily due to posting on this forum ;D.
-
I had to google RR, Owlswing! My knowledge increases daily due to posting on this forum ;D.
In that case you know at least part of my history with him!
Trouble is - I know him in the "real" and ever there he is an unpleasant individual!
-
Too much information Owlswing. Most of us aren't all bad. Even me who is, apparently, a ''leftie'' (one of ''them lefties'' too). I've never met anyone from a forum, did think about it a couple of times but circumstances prevented - and I'm glad. I prefer to just 'know' fellow posters from forums, then I can keep my illusions, good and bad - & don't kid myself that I'm all that interesting to know either, would probably be shy and have difficulty finding something to talk about so we'd fall back on the forum and we do enough of that already.
-
Too much information Owlswing. Most of us aren't all bad. Even me who is, apparently, a ''leftie'' (one of ''them lefties'' too). I've never met anyone from a forum, did think about it a couple of times but circumstances prevented - and I'm glad. I prefer to just 'know' fellow posters from forums, then I can keep my illusions, good and bad - & don't kid myself that I'm all that interesting to know either, would probably be shy and have difficulty finding something to talk about so we'd fall back on the forum and we do enough of that already.
Oh, I agree that anonymity is better in some ways, but, and it is a big but, it also allows for some serious unpleasantness to be enacted against others. Such unpleasantness will, almost certainly, be expunged by the Moderators but this will not mitigate the effects of such unpleasantness upon the victim if they have read it before such action can be taken.
I had known RR before I joined the Beeb and disliked him even then, as it is easy to dislike those who take great pleasure in putting down those whom they think are incapable, for one reason or another, of handling such treatment; the less able the harsher the treatment.
Forunately he was spotted when he tried to join this forum and blocked.
-
Forunately he was spotted when he tried to join this forum and blocked.
Interesting - I never knew that.
-
Interesting - I never knew that.
I can't remember who mentioned it to me, but it was quite early on, one of the Mods I think.
-
I didn't know OLW was RR and have only encountered OLW fairly recently; have no knowledge of RR. OLW doesn't seem that bad to me. Lots of posters are tactless sometimes and say outrageous things.
Still I think anything we know about a fellow poster outside of the forum, whether from other forums or in real life, is best not discussed so they can have a clean slate. If they blot it at least those who moderate will not have any preconceived ideas about them and can assess the situation fairly on the day. I did know of one girl a few years ago who was blocked from joining a forum because of stuff that went on somewhere else. Honestly, nobody had died but she was preceded by a bad press.
I'm glad I've never met anyone from forums. Seem loads of posters from other forums as I am sure we all have.
These are just my opinions.
-
I have never known OMW to use RR as a username!
-
I didn't know OLW was RR and have only encountered OLW fairly recently; have no knowledge of RR. OLW doesn't seem that bad to me. Lots of posters are tactless sometimes and say outrageous things.
Still I think anything we know about a fellow poster outside of the forum, whether from other forums or in real life, is best not discussed so they can have a clean slate. If they blot it at least those who moderate will not have any preconceived ideas about them and can assess the situation fairly on the day. I did know of one girl a few years ago who was blocked from joining a forum because of stuff that went on somewhere else. Honestly, nobody had died but she was preceded by a bad press.
I'm glad I've never met anyone from forums. Seem loads of posters from other forums as I am sure we all have.
These are just my opinions.
I'm confused.
Who is OLW?
If it's OMW he isn't RR, and neither as far as I know, is Jack.
???
:)
-
I didn't know OLW was RR and have only encountered OLW fairly recently; have no knowledge of RR. OLW doesn't seem that bad to me. Lots of posters are tactless sometimes and say outrageous things.
Still I think anything we know about a fellow poster outside of the forum, whether from other forums or in real life, is best not discussed so they can have a clean slate. If they blot it at least those who moderate will not have any preconceived ideas about them and can assess the situation fairly on the day. I did know of one girl a few years ago who was blocked from joining a forum because of stuff that went on somewhere else. Honestly, nobody had died but she was preceded by a bad press.
I'm glad I've never met anyone from forums. Seem loads of posters from other forums as I am sure we all have.
These are just my opinions.
NO NO NO OH MY WORLD IS NOT RR! the first is and the latter was a troll but they are NOT the same person!
-
Trump has the neo-cons worried, which is by itself a good thing. They're afraid their atlanticist world order is at risk. May it fall.
http://m.sputniknews.com/us/20160306/1035871466/trump-neocons-critique-analysis.html
-
STOP! NOW!
RR has, to my knowledge NEVER been on this forum!
My comment about OMW was to say that while he is a troll he is in no way as bad as RR and it was never my intention to imply that he was!
RR was a one off - for which I am grateful - and so should the rest of the Forums of the world be.
I regret most sincerely even mentioning him and will not ever again do so!
-
People please!, everything floo mentions in her posts can be challenged and also brought back to her attention on a later date and used in an argument. If she's gonna cry about it, she would do better finding a spine donor. If we have to tolerate her daily attacks on our faith, our God and us as Christians then she will have to accept the same treatment with regards to herself and all she posts. Truth is she targets certain people for nothing but belittling comments. She never actually debates anything Sass posts for example. She just jumps in to make stupid, childish, infantile, stunted put downs. So she can stop the crocodile tears, I am not fooled.
My dearest fan Matty, so good of you to return, where were you, anger management classes? Now, my dear friend, if I'm a troll that would make you Jabba the Hutt. And if I'm a troll, you must be surprised at how damn good looking I am. (snork) I hope you remember what you have posted and also stop and think before sending the posts. You see, you really fly off your handle (snork) whenever somebody challenges your posts or just disagrees with anything you post. You especially target Hope for your trolling ways.
Now the topic of Donald. Let's not be surprised at his mouth, self promotion and tough guy behaviour. He comes from another blood sport, business, that is BIG BUSINESS. We are not talking about a little business like the little corner grocery store. Donald would go after them like illegal Mexicans. Donald has had to use his skills, the mouth, the self promotion, and the hair, to get back on top after being ruined. So nobody running for party nominations has the experience that Trump does. Clinton is no threat nor the pinko commie granddad running against her. He will stomp either one into a bloody pulp and leave them to die on the side of the highway. Truth is, Donald isn't a Republican nor a Democrat. He is an opportunist, and will financially support anybody or party that will be good down the road to his businesses. I don't want to see him as president but will accept him, if that means the USA won't be run by a socialist crazy or a crook that has her very own set of rules to play but.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGJd80y360c
-
:-[ :-[ :-[ Sincere apologies to Owlswing about my mistake over OMW and RR. I was confused (I won't blame my age as it is the same as floo's). Owlswing said: He (meaning OMW) is probably the Recondite Revenant reincarnated - no, scratch that - he is nowhere near as clever as the RR. I can see it all clearly now from "no, scratch that".
Apologies also to OMW but I really did misunderstand.
I wish you would stop saying ''snork'', it's revolting and conjours up visions of you sniggering and snorting loudly.
Be serious, there is no way a socialist will become President of the United States. However I do not understand the USA fear of socialism, which seems to be confused with Communism, such as in China.
There are some socialist governments in the world which are moderate and seem to work very well; Canada is a good example. Closer to home (for me), Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.
-
I wish you would stop saying ''snork'', it's revolting and conjours up visions of you sniggering and snorting loudly.
Way way back OMW explained that that is exactly what he means by it!
[edited for typo]
-
He did indeed but when he says it, I can almost hear it (& I ain't one for 'hearing things', honest). It's revolting. Well it is to me anyway, maybe no else minds and I'm being overly wotsit.
-
Trump has the neo-cons worried, which is by itself a good thing. They're afraid their atlanticist world order is at risk. May it fall.
Agreed.
I hear you are going to get a vote on whether to leave the Euro. I think I've got that right - a partition reached a certain threshold number.
-
Yes, we get to vote quite soon.
-
My gut feeling is Trump does not want to be President. Instead, he wants the election "stolen" from him so he can be a political martyr. Then, his followers will continue to idolize him, the media will cast him as a constant armchair critic of the next President, and he'll make billions from his brand.
-
My gut feeling is Trump does not want to be President. Instead, he wants the election "stolen" from him so he can be a political martyr. Then, his followers will continue to idolize him, the media will cast him as a constant armchair critic of the next President, and he'll make billions from his brand.
I don't know how you work that one out? I think Trump definitely wants to be President, but heaven help the world if he does. >:(
-
I don't know how you work that one out? I think Trump definitely wants to be President, but heaven help the world if he does. >:(
It would be bad but I'm pretty sure that Ted Cruz would be worse.
-
It would be bad but I'm pretty sure that Ted Cruz would be worse.
I doubt it.
-
My gut feeling is Trump does not want to be President. Instead, he wants the election "stolen" from him so he can be a political martyr. Then, his followers will continue to idolize him, the media will cast him as a constant armchair critic of the next President, and he'll make billions from his brand.
I think you are right. This is just a big ego trip for him.
-
I doubt it.
Ted Cruz's views are more extreme than Trump's. A lot of what you see of Trump is him whipping up the crowd for effect. I do not think Trump would be a good president but Cruz is ideologically driven. He believes the shit he says.
-
Ted Cruz's views are more extreme than Trump's. A lot of what you see of Trump is him whipping up the crowd for effect. I do not think Trump would be a good president but Cruz is ideologically driven. He believes the shit he says.
Well hopefully neither of them will become President, and Hillary Clinton will be the first woman elected to that office.
-
I don't know how you work that one out? I think Trump definitely wants to be President, but heaven help the world if he does. >:(
Keith is right.....amazingly. In fact it is a win-win for Trump for if he does become President or not he'll have some form of power and be in the public eye to an even greater extent than he was.
-
Well hopefully neither of them will become President, and Hillary Clinton will be the first woman elected to that office.
Oh my god NO!!!
-
What's wrong with Hils? She must be preferable to Donald.
-
What's wrong with Hils? She must be preferable to Donald.
She's part of the rotten current system. At least Trump wants to bring down the ruling elites and globalists.
-
She's part of the rotten current system. At least Trump wants to bring down the ruling elites and globalists.
Err, no.
-
Err, no.
Err, no, what? I had two statements in my post...
-
She's part of the rotten current system. At least Trump wants to bring down the ruling elites and globalists.
W T F are you talking about - he is a billionaire PART of the ruling elites and globalists. He has property and companies all over the world!
He wants more not less and, as President, he will get it!
-
You are right that Hilary Clinton isn't part of that (though she and husband were friends of Trump before competition set in), but what is wrong exactly with Trump being part of it? In the USA where prosperity is a value and being successful financially is more highly prized than over here.
-
Bernie is my man!
The monolith needs to broken!
-
Bernie is my man!
Likewise :)
-
You are right that Hilary Clinton isn't part of that (though she and husband were friends of Trump before competition set in), but what is wrong exactly with Trump being part of it? In the USA where prosperity is a value and being successful financially is more highly prized than over here.
You need to ask that with the Panama Papers crisis as an example of just exactly what is wrong with it.
-
She's part of the rotten current system. At least Trump wants to bring down the ruling elites and globalists.
That nutter Trump would probably start WW3!
-
Bernie is my man!
The monolith needs to broken!
Mine too.
-
That nutter Trump would probably start WW3!
I am not sure he or any president has the power.
-
I am not sure he or any president has the power.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
Well there is that nuclear button......
-
Well there is that nuclear button......
That is what worries me. :o
-
I try not to think about it, it worries me if I do. For all his bull, I don't think someone like Trump would push it, he's too switched on, but apparently Reagan nearly did. That could be an urban myth - I hope so!
-
I try not to think about it, it worries me if I do. For all his bull, I don't think someone like Trump would push it, he's too switched on, but apparently Reagan nearly did. That could be an urban myth - I hope so!
so switched on that he said that women who had abortions, if abortion was illegal, should be punished and then retracted it within hours? Your definition of switched on may be different to mine.
-
It probably is but we talked about that before - maybe not you but someone else and myself. It appears, from what I read, that Trump was saying that if something is illegal it should be punishable by law. He didn't say abortion should be illegal, just that if it is...etc. There's logic in there somewhere. He was probably put on the spot, being asked about abortion. It happens to all of them, they can't win whatever they say.
He's not daft NS, even though I often say, ''That prat'', etc. I can't see him pressing the button......anyway let's hope he doesn't get the opportunity, then we can be sure.
-
No, he was specifically asked if the woman who had an abortion should be punished. He said, yes. This was later retracted.
-
I try not to think about it, it worries me if I do. For all his bull, I don't think someone like Trump would push it, he's too switched on, but apparently Reagan nearly did. That could be an urban myth - I hope so!
I don't think the guy is switched on at all.
-
No, he was specifically asked if the woman who had an abortion should be punished. He said, yes. This was later retracted.
Ah well, I only know what I read from a news report.
Politicians are always opening their mouths and putting their feet in, then saying they didn't mean it. Nothing new there.
Floo, all I know of Donald Trump, apart from the presidential bid fiasco, is from 'Apprentice USA', which I like and in which he seems OK. Perhaps he should stick to that!
-
Ah well, I only know what I read from a news report.
Politicians are always opening their mouths and putting their feet in, then saying they didn't mean it. Nothing new there.
Floo, all I know of Donald Trump, apart from the presidential bid fiasco, is from 'Apprentice USA', which I like and in which he seems OK. Perhaps he should stick to that!
He should certainly stay as far away from politics as possible that is for sure.
-
Well there is that nuclear button......
I don't think this is a real button in the White house.
Obama cannot change the health system, and has said he is the most powerful man on Earth, and can do NOTHING.
-
They start off with high ideals and then find out they have to toe the line and their power is limited. It must be disheartening for a true idealist.
-
They start off with high ideals and then find out they have to toe the line and their power is limited. It must be disheartening for a true idealist.
I think Jeb Bartlett did it best.
-
W T F are you talking about - he is a billionaire PART of the ruling elites and globalists. He has property and companies all over the world!
He wants more not less and, as President, he will get it!
Exactly - anyone who thinks that Trump is somehow an outsider kicking against the establishment needs their head examined.
-
I think Jeb Bartlett did it best.
Better looking for sure.
-
Oh my god NO!!!
She would be better than any of the Republicans.
-
She would be better than any of the Republicans.
Agreed.
-
Oh my god NO!!!
Why? What's so wrong with her. She is competent and exceptionally experienced. I think she'd make an excellent, if somewhat uninspiring, president. But actually being elected as a woman would be inspirational in itself, in the same manner that Obama's election was inspirational as the first black president - albeit Obama is inspirational anyway - he really is a class act.
-
Why? What's so wrong with her. She is competent and exceptionally experienced. I think she'd make an excellent, if somewhat uninspiring, president. But actually being elected as a woman would be inspirational in itself, in the same manner that Obama's election was inspirational as the first black president - albeit Obama is inspirational anyway - he really is a class act.
Obama will certainly be a hard act to follow, having been the best President the US has had a for a good while.
-
W T F are you talking about - he is a billionaire PART of the ruling elites and globalists. He has property and companies all over the world!
He wants more not less and, as President, he will get it!
May be so, but his greed doesn't include the other elites and if that means a big bust up between them that looks good to me!!! ;D Nothing better than when the big fish rip each other apart.
-
She would be better than any of the Republicans.
That's questionable. But better doesn't necessarily mean good enough or acceptable.
-
Obama will certainly be a hard act to follow, having been the best President the US has had a for a good while.
Yes, definately the best.
Saw a programme on him the other day.
I'll be sad to see him go.
I hope they vote for Hilary next.
She seems the most sane IMO
-
Why? What's so wrong with her. She is competent and exceptionally experienced. I think she'd make an excellent, if somewhat uninspiring, president. But actually being elected as a woman would be inspirational in itself, in the same manner that Obama's election was inspirational as the first black president - albeit Obama is inspirational anyway - he really is a class act.
She's a wolf in sheep's clothing. She 'works' for the banking system and all the elites...
-
I agree Hillary seems the best bet under the circumstances. But I met some women from the US last week...and they all seem to hate Hillary. Funny!
-
Obama will certainly be a hard act to follow, having been the best President the US has had a for a good while.
And what grounds do you make that judgement?
-
She's a wolf in sheep's clothing. She 'works' for the banking system and all the elites...
I think it is pretty well impossible to be a credible candidate for the president without being in some way part of the elite - effectively because of the cost of a presidential run - you either need to be massively personally wealthy, or already well enough embedded in the 'system' to be able to attract major funding.
So who, in your opinion, isn't part of the elite and would be a credible president. Certainly all of the remaining contenders are, being either exceptionally rich (Trump) or with a longstanding background in the political establishment as governor or senator.
-
Obama will certainly be a hard act to follow, having been the best President the US has had a for a good while.
I'm glad you said that. He has tried very hard. I expect he'll be glad when it's over though, they usually are.
Sririam, maybe the American women you met are die-hard (or is it 'dye-hard'?) Republicans. Hils certainly does have a lot of female support.
Despite the fact that I think she is a good candidate, I accept that Hilary Clinton is one of the in crowd. Difficult to get away from that. Bernie isn't but I doubt he will get in though he has many fighting his corner.
-
I'm glad you said that. He has tried very hard. I expect he'll be glad when it's over though, they usually are.
Sririam, maybe the American women you met are die-hard (or is it 'dye-hard'?) Republicans. Hils certainly does have a lot of female support.
Despite the fact that I think she is a good candidate, I accept that Hilary Clinton is one of the in crowd. Difficult to get away from that. Bernie isn't but I doubt he will get in though he has many fighting his corner.
Bernie looks so frail, he doesn't come over very well either, imo.
-
I hadn't noticed him looking frail, might be the pressures of the campaign (have you noticed how, when someone gets into power, they seem to age ten years overnight?), but I like what he says. Well I would wouldn't I. I don't think he has much chance though. I'm off to google him to see if he's changed since I last looked.
-
Apart from Ted Cruz (45) none of the other contestants are in their first flush of youth. I think someone in their 70s is likely to be past it as far as being President is concerned.
Clinton 68
Trump 68
Sanders 74
-
Apart from Ted Cruz (45) none of the other contestants are in their first flush of youth. I think someone in their 70s is likely to be past it as far as being President is concerned.
Clinton 68
Trump 68
Sanders 74
Why? Personally I would rather have the oldest person in the world if they were terminal with dengue fever, bubonic plague and athlete's foot than Cruz
-
Why? Personally I would rather have the oldest person in the world if they were terminal with dengue fever, bubonic plague and athelete's foot than Cruz
I wouldn't want Cruz either.
-
I wouldn't want Cruz either.
Which doesn't deal with the question asked about your issue on age?
-
Bernie looks OK to me, very good for 74.
-
Why? What's so wrong with her.
My only problem with Hillary Clinton is that there are some potentially harmful legal cases hanging over her. If they surface i.e. come to trial before she is elected, it could be the opportunity the Republicans need to get into power. In short, she could lose the election.
My problem with Bernie Sanders is that he is already 74. He should pick his VP with care.
-
That's questionable.
No, really it is not.
But better doesn't necessarily mean good enough or acceptable.
You can only pick the best of what is on offer.
-
Obama will certainly be a hard act to follow, having been the best President the US has had a for a good while.
Clinton I was better IMO.
Normally, I would have made a joke about Martin Sheen being the best...
-
Clinton I was better IMO.
I think Bill Clinton was fortunate to have been president though a period (Jan 1993-Jan 2001) which was relatively benign in both an economic sense and also in terms of major security threats.
Sure you can claim that this was in part down to him, and I don't doubt he was a sure hand on the tiller, but sometimes these things are about luck rather than judgement.
It seems remarkable than toward the end of his presidency the thing that appeared to be the biggest threat was the millennium bug that was apparently going to screw up all our computers. Seems rather quaint now.
-
I think it is pretty well impossible to be a credible candidate for the president without being in some way part of the elite - effectively because of the cost of a presidential run - you either need to be massively personally wealthy, or already well enough embedded in the 'system' to be able to attract major funding.
So who, in your opinion, isn't part of the elite and would be a credible president. Certainly all of the remaining contenders are, being either exceptionally rich (Trump) or with a longstanding background in the political establishment as governor or senator.
I'm not sure Sanders is part of the elite, is he?
-
No, really it is not.
You can only pick the best of what is on offer.
That's not democracy that's a load 'dice'. The money needs to be removed or at least restricted. It would seem to me that democracy doesn't work for very large numbers, one reason being that the sheer cost and effort needed to reach so many people is only afforded to those with the means. Small is beautiful.
-
I'm not sure Sanders is part of the elite, is he?
He is part of the establishment - don't forget he has been in either the senate or house of representatives for over a quarter of a century.
-
He is part of the establishment - don't forget he has been in either the senate or house of representatives for over a quarter of a century.
But he has raised much of his money for his campaign from the grassroots...
-
But he has raised much of his money for his campaign from the grassroots...
As I said you either need to need to be massively personally wealthy, or already well enough embedded in the 'system' to be able to attract major funding. Sanders is the latter.
-
Can't see anything wrong with that.
-
Can't see anything wrong with that.
Sorry Brownie - whose post are you responding to?
-
I think Bill Clinton was fortunate to have been president though a period (Jan 1993-Jan 2001) which was relatively benign in both an economic sense and also in terms of major security threats.
Sure you can claim that this was in part down to him, and I don't doubt he was a sure hand on the tiller, but sometimes these things are about luck rather than judgement.
My impression is the Obama has largely been a passenger on the rollercoaster of US government. His most notable achievement is to implement an old Republican idea on healthcare as far as I can see. Many Americans who supported him at his first election see him as a disappointment.
It seems remarkable than toward the end of his presidency the thing that appeared to be the biggest threat was the millennium bug that was apparently going to screw up all our computers. Seems rather quaint now.
The Millennium bug was a real threat. As somebody who had a small part in averting it, I thoroughly resent the modern received wisdom that it was all a lot of fuss over nothing.
-
The Millennium bug was a real threat. As somebody who had a small part in averting it, I thoroughly resent the modern received wisdom that it was all a lot of fuss over nothing.
Ditto.
I did a lot of overtime working on that. A lot. An awful lot.
Did I mention that I did a ............?
..on the plus side it was good for the bank balance but only after I had recovered from doing a lot of..........!
-
The Millennium bug was a real threat. As somebody who had a small part in averting it, I thoroughly resent the modern received wisdom that it was all a lot of fuss over nothing.
JP and SebT.
Just because you spent a lot of time and effort on trying to avert the risk doesn't mean there was a significant problem.
Across the globe there were millions of private individuals and businesses who did absolutely nothing in the run up to 2000, and guess what their systems worked fine afterwards.
I gather there is no correlation between the investment in fixing the supposed problems by countries and the prevalence of post Jan 1st 2000 problems. Likewise comparing organisations (or individuals) that had achieved compliance, and those that hadn't.
I'm not disputing that there was a risk but in retrospect it is pretty clear that the risk was massively overstated and the investment in trying to 'fix' it was probably not really necessary.
-
My impression is the Obama has largely been a passenger on the rollercoaster of US government. His most notable achievement is to implement an old Republican idea on healthcare as far as I can see. Many Americans who supported him at his first election see him as a disappointment.
I think he has also been successful in achieving a strong economic recovery from the global recession - something that the UK should look at more.
Rather than going for the Osborne austerity approach, Obama recognised the importance in investing your way back to growth and ultimately deficit reduction. Now in Osborne's warped economic outlook that investment should result in greater borrowing, but it doesn't if it drives growth.
So at the peak of the recession the UK and US deficits as a proportion of GDP were pretty similar - actually the US (12.1% of GDP) was a little worse than the UK (11.4%), but Obama has been able to bring that down dramatically, so for the last 2 years it is hovering around just 2.5%. The UK's deficit remains about twice that.
-
JP and SebT.
Just because you spent a lot of time and effort on trying to avert the risk doesn't mean there was a significant problem.
Across the globe there were millions of private individuals and businesses who did absolutely nothing in the run up to 2000, and guess what their systems worked fine afterwards.
I gather there is no correlation between the investment in fixing the supposed problems by countries and the prevalence of post Jan 1st 2000 problems. Likewise comparing organisations (or individuals) that had achieved compliance, and those that hadn't.
I'm not disputing that there was a risk but in retrospect it is pretty clear that the risk was massively overstated and the investment in trying to 'fix' it was probably not really necessary.
Well I did all of my work for a large financial institution and the risk assessment was that if they did nothing and then lost money or customers or reputation because of not fixing the bug, then that was worth any investment and the effort taken.
As it turned out there were issues in some of the code, not a lot but some.
The problem (ie that which caused the huge effort) was because there was so much code to wade through a lot of it undocumented (bad!) some of it had to be re-engineered.
And tested!
Tested to death
- and then tested again, that took up most of the effort!
I wasn't complaining because I left my full time job prior in order to become a freelancer to make more money solely for that.
It worked for me!
-
Well I did all of my work for a large financial institution and the risk assessment was that if they did nothing and then lost money or customers or reputation because of not fixing the bug, then that was worth any investment and the effort taken.
As it turned out there were issues in some of the code, not a lot but some.
The problem (ie that which caused the huge effort) was because there was so much code to wade through a lot of it undocumented (bad!) some of it had to be re-engineered.
And tested!
Tested to death
- and then tested again, that took up most of the effort!
I wasn't complaining because I left my full time job prior in order to become a freelancer to make more money solely for that.
It worked for me!
Which I think isn't inconsistent with what I was saying.
I understand that some big organisations felt they needed to be sure there wasn't going to be a problem, rather than hope there wouldn't be one. But from what you are saying there might have been a few problems but not many. And that seems to be a general theme - and is backed up by the evidence that there weren't complete meltdowns in systems (whether personal, business or public sector) where little or no preventative action was taken so they weren't Y2K compliant.
If there were major problems then those sectors which were non compliant would have gone into meltdown while those that put in the investment and work would have been laughing, going 'told you so' and thinking the money well invested. But that wasn't the case - the non compliant areas carried on without major problems too, which suggests while there may have been a theoretical risk in fact it wasn't realised.
But of course plenty of IT specialists were kept in a lot of work during that period.
-
Which I think isn't inconsistent with what I was saying.
I understand that some big organisations felt they needed to be sure there wasn't going to be a problem, rather than hope there wouldn't be one. But from what you are saying there might have been a few problems but not many. And that seems to be a general theme - and is backed up by the evidence that there weren't complete meltdowns in systems (whether personal, business or public sector) where little or no preventative action was taken so they weren't Y2K compliant.
If there were major problems then those sectors which were non compliant would have gone into meltdown while those that put in the investment and work would have been laughing, going 'told you so' and thinking the money well invested. But that wasn't the case - the non compliant areas carried on without major problems too, which suggests while there may have been a theoretical risk in fact it wasn't realised.
But of course plenty of IT specialists were kept in a lot of work during that period.
Agreed.
It helped, a lot, if you could forward test dates in the future.
That saved a lot effort.
However if you couldn't then new testing harnesses had to be built, then even more effort!
However as a result of all of that, we had a super duper test process and a well documented set of systems which in the long run probably resulted in long term saving which recouped a hell of a lot of the initial outlay!
-
Agreed.
It helped, a lot, if you could forward test dates in the future.
That saved a lot effort.
However if you couldn't then new testing harnesses had to be built, then even more effort!
However as a result of all of that, we had a super duper test process and a well documented set of systems which in the long run probably resulted in long term saving which recouped a hell of a lot of the initial outlay!
But the world wouldn't have fallen apart, the sky caved in and everything wouldn't have ground to a halt had all this work not been done - albeit there may have needed to be some remedial action taken post Jan 1st 2002 to rectify isolated issues.
Back to the point I was making - at the time (toward the end of the Clinton administration) this seemed to be the biggest issue we were facing. And if that was the case (and actually it wasn't really a big issue) then we were in pretty benign times.
-
But the world wouldn't have fallen apart, the sky caved in and everything wouldn't have ground to a halt had all this work not been done - albeit there may have needed to be some remedial action taken post Jan 1st 2002 to rectify isolated issues.
I am actually agreeing with you, just pointing out that some good did come from the process.
-
I am actually agreeing with you, just pointing out that some good did come from the process.
I understand - you are right that some good did come out of the process - many evidenced in the bank balances of IT specialists ;)
-
I understand - you are right that some good did come out of the process - many evidenced in the bank balances of IT specialists ;)
I give you.......
https://images.rapgenius.com/08e29e1f80c4a923891222fa937e9307.450x429x1.jpg
See that, that was me that was. ;D
-
I give you.......
https://images.rapgenius.com/08e29e1f80c4a923891222fa937e9307.450x429x1.jpg
See that, that was me that was. ;D
Has your career headed downhill ever since, rather like Mr Enfield ::)
-
JP and SebT.
Just because you spent a lot of time and effort on trying to avert the risk doesn't mean there was a significant problem.
No. The audits we and others did show that in some cases there was.
Across the globe there were millions of private individuals and businesses who did absolutely nothing in the run up to 2000, and guess what their systems worked fine afterwards.
Here's a fact: without the efforts of me and my colleagues, it would have been impossible to get a UK passport in January 2000. Just because some systems were unaffected doesn't mean that no systems were unaffected or that the effects would not have been dramatic had they not been fixed.
I'm not disputing that there was a risk but in retrospect it is pretty clear that the risk was massively overstated and the investment in trying to 'fix' it was probably not really necessary.
This is utterly false.
-
Here's a fact: without the efforts of me and my colleagues, it would have been impossible to get a UK passport in January 2000. Just because some systems were unaffected doesn't mean that no systems were unaffected or that the effects would not have been dramatic had they not been fixed.
I never said that no systems were unaffected, but that the levels of problems were massively overhyped. Don't forget that thousands of computer systems were not checked and 'fixed' and remained non Y2K compliant and guess what, they didn't stop working on Jan 1st as had been claimed, they sailed happily through the millennium working exactly as they had on 31st Dec 1999.
And of course the question to ask (and is being asked) is whether it was sensible to spend a fortune 'fixing' computers that weren't broken (i.e. they'd have carried on working absolutely fine on 1st Jan 2000 regardless) or to take retrospective action in the few places where problems occurred.
Of course there would be certain 'critical' systems that you'd really have to take prospective action, but probably not that many. For all the rest wouldn't it have been better to see whether there was an issue (and in most cases there wouldn't have been) and then fix those actual issues.
I gather that some countries (e.g. Italy and South Korea) really didn't put any effort into fixing the issues in advance, yet I don't remember their infrastructures crashing down in Jan 2000. Actually I think it is the case that their levels of issues were no greater than places that had spent millions of fixes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html?_r=1
-
This is utterly false.
Really - then why is there no relationship between the amount of time and effort trying to fix the problems and the manifestation of problems post 1st Jan 2000.
-
No. The audits we and others did show that in some cases there was.
Here's a fact: without the efforts of me and my colleagues, it would have been impossible to get a UK passport in January 2000. Just because some systems were unaffected doesn't mean that no systems were unaffected or that the effects would not have been dramatic had they not been fixed.
This is utterly false.
But we wouldn't have needed passports as the flight booking systems would not have been working.
Not that we would have been booking flights, as most of us would not have been paid that month :) - so actually would not have needed the ATM systems either!
-
But we wouldn't have needed passports as the flight booking systems would not have been working.
Not that we would have been booking flights, as most of us would not have been paid that month :) - so actually would not have needed the ATM systems either!
I don't remember any news items about South Koreans not being paid, being unable to book flights or get passports. Or maybe we didn't hear because all their media outlets went kaput too ;)
-
Most of the software used to book flights, run payroll etc is run and maintained by companies who are contractually obliged to test and fix those systems. Similarly most banks use the same software to run their ATMs - updated well before time. Some smaller US banks found their ATMs failed in the days after 1st Jan.
Not sure about government built systems - but the chances are that the Korean passport system was an off-the shelf system based on one built for Japan - and maintained by the supplier.
Agree that all the end-of-the-world stuff was ridiculous but the required work was done and the fixes distributed in good time.
-
I never said that no systems were unaffected, but that the levels of problems were massively overhyped. Don't forget that thousands of computer systems were not checked and 'fixed' and remained non Y2K compliant and guess what, they didn't stop working on Jan 1st as had been claimed, they sailed happily through the millennium working exactly as they had on 31st Dec 1999.
The vast majority of desktop PCs were unaffected, but they are not the systems that mattered.
And of course the question to ask (and is being asked) is whether it was sensible to spend a fortune 'fixing' computers that weren't broken (i.e. they'd have carried on working absolutely fine on 1st Jan 2000 regardless) or to take retrospective action in the few places where problems occurred.
Do you know why there were few problems? It's because people checked the systems out and find the bugs.
Of course there would be certain 'critical' systems that you'd really have to take prospective action, but probably not that many.
There were plenty, believe me.
I gather that some countries (e.g. Italy and South Korea) really didn't put any effort into fixing the issues in advance, yet I don't remember their infrastructures crashing down in Jan 2000. Actually I think it is the case that their levels of issues were no greater than places that had spent millions of fixes.
I bet all the big banks in those countries audited their systems.
-
I don't remember any news items about South Koreans not being paid, being unable to book flights or get passports. Or maybe we didn't hear because all their media outlets went kaput too ;)
Do you really think the people that supplied them with their software didn't do due diligence? The passport system I mentioned earlier was actually fixed in 1997 because we were already well aware of the possible problems of Y2K back then and we regarded that as pretty late (the system was scheduled to be decommissioned in 1998 but its life was extended due to is successor being a no show). Almost all third party software would have been patched well before 2000. If the Koreans and Italians appeared to do nothing I bet their IT people were still doing normal patching and upgrades and would have applied the Y2K patches without really being aware that they were.
-
Do you really think the people that supplied them with their software didn't do due diligence? The passport system I mentioned earlier was actually fixed in 1997 because we were already well aware of the possible problems of Y2K back then and we regarded that as pretty late (the system was scheduled to be decommissioned in 1998 but its life was extended due to is successor being a no show). Almost all third party software would have been patched well before 2000. If the Koreans and Italians appeared to do nothing I bet their IT people were still doing normal patching and upgrades and would have applied the Y2K patches without really being aware that they were.
But there are thousands of computers (mostly homes ones) that didn't have software updates etc in the time running up to 2000, and they just carried on working.
The issues were massively overhyped, and I'm not necessarily saying it was wrong to do so, because had the worse case scenario actually happened then there really would have been trouble. But it didn't, even in computers which had had no remedial action taken.
It is a bit like boarding over your windows with a hurricane on the way which might, or might not pass over you. In the end the hurricane didn't arrive and therefore those who didn't board over their windows (i.e. not taking any action) ended up with systems running fine, jus the same as those that did board over their windows (i.e. those that took action).
Again there were of course isolated situation where systems might have failed without action but the prevailing view that unless we took action all our computers (well PCs) would stop working on 1st Jan 2000 was flat out wrong.
-
The vast majority of desktop PCs were unaffected, but they are not the systems that mattered.
But that's not what the hype suggested - the line was that all our PCs (unless fixed) would be affected.
Do you know why there were few problems? It's because people checked the systems out and find the bugs.
There were plenty, believe me.
I bet all the big banks in those countries audited their systems.
As an example apparently only 28% of schools in the USA achieved compliance (i.e. systems not fixed or software updates/patches achieved) in their critical systems by end of 1999, and there were predictions of massive problems including payroll. Guess what happened - nothing. Everything continued to work just fine.
-
Just a note to Prof D, you know when you might get annoyed with people believing media reporting of science as being too hyped? That's how I feel about how Y2K was reported.
-
But that's not what the hype suggested - the line was that all our PCs (unless fixed) would be affected.
As an example apparently only 28% of schools in the USA achieved compliance (i.e. systems not fixed or software updates/patches achieved) in their critical systems by end of 1999, and there were predictions of massive problems including payroll. Guess what happened - nothing. Everything continued to work just fine.
The problems seem to have been left to modern smartphones. If you're not careful, they simply default their time to 1st January 1970!!!
-
I work in applications and was involved in making our systems y2k compliant.
It took ages but we did see and correct several problems.
Our systems would not have collapsed, but some areas were affected and would have caused problems.
-
Getting back to Trump, I see he is beginning to slip and losing any chance of getting past the winning requirement of 1237 delegates, and it looks like it's going to be a brokered convention.
-
Jack,
Getting back to Trump, I see he is beginning to slip and losing any chance of getting past the winning requirement of 1237 delegates, and it looks like it's going to be a brokered convention.
Trump is headed to become the GOP nominee. But to win the presidency, he needs a minimum number of black, Hispanic and women voters, along with Millennials. Odds makers have Hillary Clinton winning these constituencies. No wonder Trump suggested Bernie Sanders run as a third-party candidate. It was said with the hope of draining votes from Clinton, allowing him to surge through the middle and win.
There is a fervor for Trump's message of making America great again, but reality suggests he may be the wrong messenger.... ;D
-
Jack,
Trump is headed to become the GOP nominee. But to win the presidency, he needs a minimum number of black, Hispanic and women voters, along with Millennials. Odds makers have Hillary Clinton winning these constituencies. No wonder Trump suggested Bernie Sanders run as a third-party candidate. It was said with the hope of draining votes from Clinton, allowing him to surge through the middle and win.
There is a fervor for Trump's message of making America great again, but reality suggests he may be the wrong messenger.... ;D
I agree, barring miracles, Trump looks certain to get the Republican nomination, but the polls say he would lose to Clinton.
-
Over the course of the primaries, the one thing that is clearly in Trump's favour, imo, is he isn't Cruz.
-
Over the course of the primaries, the one thing that is clearly in Trump's favour, imo, is he isn't Cruz.
I don't know much about Cruz, but could he be any worse than Trump who appears to have a few screws loose?
-
I don't know much about Cruz, but could he be any worse than Trump who appears to have a few screws loose?
Yes!
-
Yes!
In what way?
-
Yes....its Trump for the GOP. But Hillary in the finals I think.
-
Yes....its Trump for the GOP. But Hillary in the finals I think.
Let's hope Hillary gives it all she's got and wins the Presidency, because Trump is a danger to the whole planet, imo.
-
Let's hope Hillary gives it all she's got and wins the Presidency, because Trump is a danger to the whole planet, imo.
He may not be as bad as we think. They all talk lots of things (+ and-) but when they come to office, the system keeps them in check.
-
That is certainly true but Trump doesn't seriously believe half of what he says and is as surprised as anyone that he has gone so far. Imagine if he was elected as President, all the people he has befriended and promised to do things for will be on his back. Must be a frightening prospect for him, I think he will somehow fade away from now on.
-
He may not be as bad as we think. They all talk lots of things (+ and-) but when they come to office, the system keeps them in check.
Good point Sriram.
ippy
-
I'm going to come up with a conspiracy theory before anything's actually happened and say I reckon the CIA will take Trump out if he wins.
-
I'm going to come up with a conspiracy theory before anything's actually happened and say I reckon the CIA will take Trump out if he wins.
You could be right.
-
Given the choice of Mr Fart, or horrible Hillums, I would vote for a minor candidate.
-
I'm going to come up with a conspiracy theory before anything's actually happened and say I reckon the CIA will take Trump out if he wins.
Will that be directed from their base on the Moon?
ippy
-
Will that be directed from their base on the Moon?
ippy
No, from the grassy knoll.
-
Given the choice of Mr Fart, or horrible Hillums, I would vote for a minor candidate.
Are minors allowed to run for president ???
-
Many people seriously dislike Hillary, for various reasons, partly that she has been around for so long, and involved in so much heavy duty stuff, but on the other hand, would you vote for the man who suggests that Cruz's father was next to Lee Oswald? I would think that Trump has already lost the women's vote, and the Latino vote, also gays. True, he has the vote of those who are against big gumment, but for big guns.
-
Are minors allowed to run for president ???
We could still have an independent candidate. Back in 2004 and 2008 Ralph Nader stood as an independent and in 2008, there were 6 tickets who stood in enough states to potentially enable them to be elected to the White House. Didn't Nader stand as an Independent/Green in 1996 and 2000?
-
Many people seriously dislike Hillary, for various reasons, partly that she has been around for so long, and involved in so much heavy duty stuff, but on the other hand, would you vote for the man who suggests that Cruz's father was next to Lee Oswald? I would think that Trump has already lost the women's vote, and the Latino vote, also gays. True, he has the vote of those who are against big gumment, but for big guns.
On this morning's BBC Breakfast, a Republicans Overseas-UK spokesperson suggested that Trump had only stood as the protest candidate and only expected to last for 3 or 4 weeks. He is still potentially the protest candidate, especially as working class white voters seem to have decided that they don't like Hilary. Mind you, if she and Bernie are still as close in electoral college numbers as they seem to be at present come the summer, these disgruntled white Democrats may go to him rather than to Trump.
-
We now take you live to GOP headquarters:
https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bosch-hell.jpg
(Thanks to 914 for this).
-
On this morning's BBC Breakfast, a Republicans Overseas-UK spokesperson suggested that Trump had only stood as the protest candidate and only expected to last for 3 or 4 weeks. He is still potentially the protest candidate, especially as working class white voters seem to have decided that they don't like Hilary. Mind you, if she and Bernie are still as close in electoral college numbers as they seem to be at present come the summer, these disgruntled white Democrats may go to him rather than to Trump.
But the simple equation seems to be Clinton can beat Trump, Sanders can't.
But these things aren't always decided by logic or common sense as the Labour Party know only too well.
-
But the simple equation seems to be Clinton can beat Trump, Sanders can't.
But these things aren't always decided by logic or common sense as the Labour Party know only too well.
All we have on the 'equation' is polling which has consistently indicated that Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary.
-
All we have on the 'equation' is polling which has consistently indicated that Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html (there are links to various other options, including Trump v Clinton)
The possible counter to that polling evidence is that Bernie may mean that there's more possibility for an independent middle ground candidate to turn it into a three way fight, which would be harder to predict.
A Hillary candidacy would be seen as closer to the middle ground, which would leave less room for a third party and she'd win a two horse race much more easily than Bernie would win a three horse one.
-
All we have on the 'equation' is polling which has consistently indicated that Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary.
I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')
-
I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')
The Americans are SO gullible where religion and politics are concerned, imo.
-
I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')
That is so true LA, I can remember an American talking about our ''Communist government'' when Tony Blair was elected ;D. Hilarious.
Floo, yes it does seem as though those over the pond are gullible but we don't have much room to talk when you think about the people who slavishly follow extreme right organisations like the BNP, EDL etc, even UKIP. We tend to be cynical about religion though and politicians don't generally talk about their beliefs, if they have any. Quite right too.
-
The Americans are SO gullible where religion and politics are concerned, imo.
No more so than us Brits, Floo. Look at the last 3 or 4 governments we've had in Westminster and - for Wales - the fact that the Labour Party is increasingly reviled by Labour supporters yet still seems to win enough seats to rule alone or in coalition.
-
No more so than us Brits, Floo. Look at the last 3 or 4 governments we've had in Westminster and - for Wales - the fact that the Labour Party is increasingly reviled by Labour supporters yet still seems to win enough seats to rule alone or in coalition.
Well at least UKIP hasn't done too well, lets hope that lasts.
-
I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')
I said polling - not talking about one poll but mutiple polls
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump-polls-better-than-hillary-clinton-independent-vote-democratic-nomination-how/
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders
-
Well at least UKIP hasn't done too well, lets hope that lasts.
It has never had Welsh Assembly/Government candidates before, Floo, so not sure about your "hasn't done too well" comment.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html (there are links to various other options, including Trump v Clinton)
The possible counter to that polling evidence is that Bernie may mean that there's more possibility for an independent middle ground candidate to turn it into a three way fight, which would be harder to predict.
A Hillary candidacy would be seen as closer to the middle ground, which would leave less room for a third party and she'd win a two horse race much more easily than Bernie would win a three horse one.
Yes, I suspect that Sanders v Trump might tempt Bloomberg into the ring.
The worry is that Hillary has struggled against Sanders, and now the Donald can attack her while she is still fighting Sanders.
-
It has never had Welsh Assembly/Government candidates before, Floo, so not sure about your "hasn't done too well" comment.
I was talking generally, as far as getting bums on seats is concerned, we shall see the results soon enough.
-
I said polling - not talking about one poll but mutiple polls
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump-polls-better-than-hillary-clinton-independent-vote-democratic-nomination-how/
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders
I must admit NS, that does surprise me, but then opinion polls can be way-off the mark as that geeky bloke who used to run the Labour party will tell you.
Anyway, imagine the scenario, Sanders v Trump - the Republicans would have a field-day. They would throw billions into an advertising campaign to destroy 'Comrade' Sanders, comparing him to every communist leader from Stalin to Kim Jong-un and I suspect that would get Trump into the White house.
-
I must admit NS, that does surprise me, but then opinion polls can be way-off the mark as that geeky bloke who used to run the Labour party will tell you.
Neil Kinnock?
-
Neil Kinnock?
Whatever else I might have called Kinnock, I wouldn't have called him a geek.
-
Neil Kinnock?
:) Opinion polls quite often don't go well for Labour.
-
Whatever else I might have called Kinnock, I wouldn't have called him a geek.
Me either, but I didn't get L.A.'s reference to somebody who used to run the Labour Party. I suppose the late John Smith might be considered a bit geeky by some? ???
-
Well at least UKIP hasn't done too well, lets hope that lasts.
Plenty of time yet for them to grow and triumph in 2020.
-
Yes, I suspect that Sanders v Trump might tempt Bloomberg into the ring.
The worry is that Hillary has struggled against Sanders, and now the Donald can attack her while she is still fighting Sanders.
Are people suggesting that Sanders should go as an independent, if he could get the money to back him? I know he is still grappling with Hillary but he is unlikely to win. If he did run as an independent that would really upset the apple cart as he could get a substantial portion of the votes in a three-way.
I reckon Trump will play dirty with Hillary and reveal some skeletons from her cupboard. Otherwise he can't win.
-
Are people suggesting that Sanders should go as an independent, if he could get the money to back him? I know he is still grappling with Hillary but he is unlikely to win. If he did run as an independent that would really upset the apple cart as he could get a substantial portion of the votes in a three-way.
I reckon Trump will play dirty with Hillary and reveal some skeletons from her cupboard. Otherwise he can't win.
I wouldn't be surprised if people were to but this was just about the idea that should Sanders have been the Democrat candidate vs Trump then a third party candidate would do damage to Sanders. To be fair if it was Bloomberg it would damage Trump as well.
-
Me either, but I didn't get L.A.'s reference to somebody who used to run the Labour Party. I suppose the late John Smith might be considered a bit geeky by some? ???
Can't blame the pollsters for that miscalculation - that was definitely 'The Hand of God'
-
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/top-reason-americans-will-vote-for-trump-to-stop-clinton-poll-1403423?pfrom=home-topstories
I don't know how true that is....but interesting all the same.
-
Plenty of time yet for them to grow and triumph in 2020.
But what would their policies look like, JK. Their election flyer for the Welsh Government election yesterday was pretty devoid of anything other than immigration and the EU.
-
Neil Kinnock?
Alistair Campbell?
-
Alistair Campbell?
He didn't run the Labour Party though as per L.A.'s #416.
-
He didn't run the Labour Party though as per L.A.'s #416.
Didn't he? Wasn't Blair just his puppet? ;) Remember that with the Labour Party it isn't necessarily the party leader who 'runs' the party.
-
Hilarious interview has surfaced, where Trump compares his sleeping around to fighting in Vietnam, since he avoided disease. Quote, 'It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.'
Well, that should go down well with veterans.
http://tinyurl.com/j44dtrl
-
Didn't he?
No.
Wasn't Blair just his puppet?
Evidence?
Remember that with the Labour Party it isn't necessarily the party leader who 'runs' the party.
Party leaders are still party leaders.
-
Evidence?
That's interesting, quoted posts now seem to ditch emoticons.
Party leaders are still party leaders.
But 'lead' and 'run' are two different verbs, with different meanings, Shakes. Campbell was often referred to as the power behind the throne, and there is evidence that he took the decisions on issues such as the Dodgy Dossier
In the run-up to the Iraq War Campbell was involved in the preparation and release of the "September Dossier" in September 2002 and the "Iraq Dossier" (or "Dodgy Dossier") in February 2003. These documents argued the case for concern over possible weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Both have been criticised as overstating or distorting the actual intelligence findings. Subsequent investigation revealed that the September Dossier had been altered, on Campbell's orders, to be consistent with a speech given by George W. Bush and statements by other United States officials. On 9 September 2002, Campbell sent a memo to John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, in which Campbell directed that the British dossier be "one that complements rather than conflicts with" the US claims.[16]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Campbell#Iraq_War) Note also the reference no 16 in the quote - Ames, Chris; Norton-Taylor, Richard (10 January 2010). "Alastair Campbell had Iraq dossier changed to fit US claims". The Guardian (London). Archived from the original on 12 January 2010. Retrieved 12 January 2010.
-
But what would their policies look like, JK. Their election flyer for the Welsh Government election yesterday was pretty devoid of anything other than immigration and the EU.
They had a full and costed manifesto for the 2015 GE. It's online if you want to read it.
They got 7 seat from it.
-
Hilarious interview has surfaced, where Trump compares his sleeping around to fighting in Vietnam, since he avoided disease. Quote, 'It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.'
Well, that should go down well with veterans.
http://tinyurl.com/j44dtrl
Hold on. Weren't the Americans brutal and destructive and nasty, ans sadistic, in Vietnam? Then didn't they run away scared and defeated when they found their bully tactics didn't work?
Perhaps Trump has a point...?
-
I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')
Generally speaking, polls have indicated that Clinton beats Trump but Sanders also beats any other Republican Candidate.
-
Generally speaking, polls have indicated that Clinton beats Trump but Sanders also beats any other Republican Candidate.
Don't you mean Clinton trumps Trump? ;)
-
"Stopping Trump is a short-term solution. The long-term solution - and it wll be more difficult - is fixing the educational system that has created o many people ignorant enought to vote for Trump" Andy Borowitz
Taken from a Facebook post!!
See also https://www.tumblr.com/search/Andy-Borowitz
Couldn't find it on the Daily Kos website though. http://www.dailykos.com/
-
Generally speaking, polls have indicated that Clinton beats Trump but Sanders also beats any other Republican Candidate.
FWIW I would like to see Bernie win the Democrat nomination, but at the moment it looks like Hillums will win because of superdelegates, which makes the whole process an expensive charade.
-
FWIW I would like to see Bernie win the Democrat nomination, but at the moment it looks like Hillums will win because of superdelegates, which makes the whole process an expensive charade.
I think that, whoever gets elected, we should remember that the much vaunted but shambolic Constitution of the United States of America will ensure that he or she will be able to achieve very little.
-
FWIW I would like to see Bernie win the Democrat nomination, but at the moment it looks like Hillums will win because of superdelegates, which makes the whole process an expensive charade.
But she has this email/server thing hanging over her head. I gather the bloke who put the server in has been given immunity from prosecution for this for life which some commentators read as that the FBI are going to charge her. However, they are puzzled as to why they haven't done it yet and can only ponder on the possibility that they will do it a month or so before the election giving Sanders the nominee....?
-
I think that, whoever gets elected, we should remember that the much vaunted but shambolic Constitution of the United States of America will ensure that he or she will be able to achieve very little.
Yes, all of them are puppets.
Hillary at the moment is trying to win votes with a promise of ET disclosure. That'll never happen.
-
Wonder why Romney didn't jump into the ring this time. He might have had a good chance.
-
I don't think people are any more enamoured of Mitt Magic Pants this time round than they were last time.
-
Yes, all of them are puppets.
Hillary at the moment is trying to win votes with a promise of ET disclosure. That'll never happen.
Is that really likely to be a vote winner?
-
Wonder why Romney didn't jump into the ring this time. He might have had a good chance.
He did blot his copybook last time, with his bad loser "Obama won because he promised to throw money at the trash" attitude.
-
He did blot his copybook last time, with his bad loser "Obama won because he promised to throw money at the trash" attitude.
Maybe so....But I think he might have been better than Trump and would have had a good chance against Hillary too. Sort of dignified chap compared to the present lot IMO.
-
Is that really likely to be a vote winner?
Well, who knows. Hilary is back-peddling now as she deleted emails containing information about Black Ops projects that had information on UFO cover-up by the government. There is a huge community in the US awaiting disclosure on all this.
-
Sort of dignified chap compared to the present lot IMO.
But couldn't that apply to just about any 'normal' American, Sri? ;)
-
But couldn't that apply to just about any 'normal' American, Sri? ;)
Hmm....but everyone hasn't served as Governor of Mass (Trump certainly hasn't). Winning against Obama in his second term, WAS too much to ask.
Can the GOP field him even now? He would have a better chance against Hillary than Trump.
-
But she has this email/server thing hanging over her head. I gather the bloke who put the server in has been given immunity from prosecution for this for life which some commentators read as that the FBI are going to charge her. However, they are puzzled as to why they haven't done it yet and can only ponder on the possibility that they will do it a month or so before the election giving Sanders the nominee....?
I think the most likely reason why everybody including the FBI seems to be ignoring the possibility of charges over this email thing is that there isn't any evidence of serious wrongdoing.
-
I think the most likely reason why everybody including the FBI seems to be ignoring the possibility of charges over this email thing is that there isn't any evidence of serious wrongdoing.
Wouldn't they say, instead of leave it hanging in the air, that all possible charges have been dropped?
And why have they given the guy who installed the server immunity for life for this if there is no viable evidence to bring charges?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36376491
Oh dear!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36376491
Oh dear!
Well, yes, this is what happens when things get polarized. A similar storm is brewing in the EU. The Austrian elections have shown a polarization and in the 1930's in these areas there was a lot fighting on the streets.
-
Wouldn't they say, instead of leave it hanging in the air, that all possible charges have been dropped?
And why have they given the guy who installed the server immunity for life for this if there is no viable evidence to bring charges?
They must have given the guy his immunity and then found out that he didn't really have any evidence or, at least, not enough.
-
Well he's been unstoppable so far - but I think this endorsement could change all that!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/05/25/dale-winton-inexplicably-announces-endorsement-of-fellow-fake-tan-enthusiast-donald-trump/