The Never-President Trump

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 14/01/2024 at 18:25, Fen Canary said:

It’s rather flawed to use the Nazis as an example of the dangers of democracy when they only ever received around a third of the vote. Their rise to absolute power was largely aided by backroom deals by other establishment figures who saw the Communists as a bigger danger to the country. Your favoured approach of rule by an elite who rule by what they perceive to be the greater good, rather than the wishes as voted for by the public is as much responsible for the Third Reich and young Adolfs dictatorship as the electorate.

May I ask why you don’t appear to be a fan of democracy? Do you believe your somehow more qualified to pass judgement on the direction the country should take than those you deem to be beneath you? 

He just outed himself as a lover of fascism.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

11 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Ooo.  A guessing game, i'll play! 

I'd say that the complete opposite is true. I think you and LYB have identified the crux issues but I would see the way they are resolved at 180 degrees to you

if i were a gambler i would say: First the Supreme Court will be doing anything it can to delay this getting to judgment before the election and if they can't there will be lots of reasons they can find to let the public decide.

It's worth remembering that the Colorado lower court refused the petition and it only got through 4:3 in the upper court there. That tells me that there is opportunity for the US Supreme Court to find in Trump's favour. 

As judges are evenly split on the issue it might just be a choice for the Supreme court:  will they be the first (?) To take a name off the ballot and, as many will see it frustrate the most basic democratic right or be seen as an 'enabler' for trump. 

I can't see that conservative judges will see much harm to them in the second, after all the public gets what the public wants and its only four years we are talking, but the first is constitutional crisis stuff that is in text books for centuries, and they have already put their names into history.

 

 

Yes. I am agreeing with your analysis. It would create a constitutional crisis that could lead even to civil war if the courts were to disallow Trump to stand, especially if he has a large lead against other Republican candidates. The consequences of the courts overriding voters would be appalling.

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yes. I am agreeing with your analysis. It would create a constitutional crisis that could lead even to civil war if the courts were to disallow Trump to stand, especially if he has a large lead against other Republican candidates. The consequences of the courts overriding voters would be appalling.

Yes - but in any democracy you have to play by the rules - be eligible to stand, accept the result, 4 year terms and so on. That's what the constitution is ! Of course the constitution can be changed but by agreement but not dictat of any politician who doesn't like the rules of the game.

Trump by his actions is the 'constitutional  crisis'. He is stress testing the American model of democracy. It has to pass the test else all will be lost. 

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

16 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

🙃

Reminds me of somebody in a care home.

[ricardo 7,401]

The Democrats would be better off ending obstructing Trump and concentrate on beating him in the ballot. It makes them look scared and just increases his numbers.

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

12 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The Democrats would be better off ending obstructing Trump and concentrate on beating him in the ballot. It makes them look scared and just increases his numbers.

I think Biden has stayed completely aloof from it all and just lets the wheels of justice grind on.

Sadly in the USA, law enforcement is quasi-political and seen as such even if people are just doing their honest jobs without fear or favour (see Georgia for instance) - a warning there for some of our politicians on the right  to keep the judiciary / police fully independent!

[Nuff Said 5,178]

On 14/01/2024 at 09:39, Fen Canary said:

This is exactly the elitist attitude I was describing. The Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of populism is

“political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinarypeople by giving them what they want”

To me this sounds like the whole point of democracy. However you imply that politicians should simply ignore the wishes of the electorate and do what they believe is right irrespective of what people actually voted for.

This is what happened for a long time, and now voters have drifted away from the major parties due to their wishes being ignored, your advice is to ignore them further 

While I don’t always agree with you, you generally seem a reasoned poster so I’m surprised you are pushing such a flimsy point. We all want things but they are very often unrealistic, unaffordable or a bad idea for other reasons. I’d like to have a couple of sausage rolls, a few slices of cake and several pints of beer right now but I don’t. I’d like a flashy car but I don’t withdraw my savings, cash in my pension and buy one.

Similarly, there are very good reasons why most of the things populists like Trump promise are either a bad idea or unobtainable. Serious politicians who try to be truthful don’t promise lower immigration or lower taxes because they know they need immigrants to keep businesses running and taxes are needed to be at least as high as they are now to support infrastructure and invest in critical areas like green industry that in the long-term will improve the overall position of the country.

Populists like Trump spout easy answers to difficult questions but either know they are unobtainable or they are just stupid people more interested in their own ego than the people they claim to represent. Politicians who are more honest about what they can achieve are not elitist, just adults.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

While I don’t always agree with you, you generally seem a reasoned poster so I’m surprised you are pushing such a flimsy point. We all want things but they are very often unrealistic, unaffordable or a bad idea for other reasons. I’d like to have a couple of sausage rolls, a few slices of cake and several pints of beer right now but I don’t. I’d like a flashy car but I don’t withdraw my savings, cash in my pension and buy one.

Similarly, there are very good reasons why most of the things populists like Trump promise are either a bad idea or unobtainable. Serious politicians who try to be truthful don’t promise lower immigration or lower taxes because they know they need immigrants to keep businesses running and taxes are needed to be at least as high as they are now to support infrastructure and invest in critical areas like green industry that in the long-term will improve the overall position of the country.

Populists like Trump spout easy answers to difficult questions but either know they are unobtainable or they are just stupid people more interested in their own ego than the people they claim to represent. Politicians who are more honest about what they can achieve are not elitist, just adults.

 

Exactly -

If you had a referendum on say the death penalty in the UK I suspect it would pass. Of course more thoughtful politicians can see all the known pitfalls with that. Same could be said for gun control in the US!

The same usually goes for more complex issues like the economy, immigration, tax etc. Odd how most people want less tax but also 'on demand' NHS, Care, good roads etc. Sure you can pay less tax but you'll then have to pay for your own private medical insurance - £200/month plus  (and a pay-out limit so I hope you don't need months in hospital or expensive drugs).

Bottom line is our MPs are representatives not delegates i.e. we (should) vote for people who broadly represent our views but are sensible enough to tackle the detail and what's practical to balance the books. Take the tough if unpopular decisions.

The current 'Populists' (left or more commonly right) don't generally don't think through these consequences of their simplistic notions - lowest common denominator stuff - and as usual it ends in disaster as history keeps telling us.

[horsefly 4,315]

On 14/01/2024 at 18:25, Fen Canary said:

It’s rather flawed to use the Nazis as an example of the dangers of democracy when they only ever received around a third of the vote. Their rise to absolute power was largely aided by backroom deals by other establishment figures who saw the Communists as a bigger danger to the country. Your favoured approach of rule by an elite who rule by what they perceive to be the greater good, rather than the wishes as voted for by the public is as much responsible for the Third Reich and young Adolfs dictatorship as the electorate.

May I ask why you don’t appear to be a fan of democracy? Do you believe your somehow more qualified to pass judgement on the direction the country should take than those you deem to be beneath you? 

Historically incorrect with regard to the rise of the Naz*is, and you show little understanding of  the complexity of democracy as a political concept and ideal. No one in any political text I've seen thinks democracy is reducible solely to the idea of majority opinion. Why do you think we refer to our democratic political system as a "representative democracy"? It's because our MPs are expected to protect and represent the interests of every citizen, not just those who reflect their personal view or popular bias.

The moral relativism underlying your "position" is anathema to democracy. Just last week I read the following on Twitter, "N***ers are subhuman, they should be exterminated just like any other infestation of vermin". If you're claiming that I am an elitist for believing superior my opinion that a person's skin colour is irrelevant to their equal standing as a human being , then I'll happily accept that label. But, of course, it isn't an elitist position; it is an essential precondition of democracy. Democracies are defined fundamentally as communities of people whose diversity of opinion is respected insofar as each member respects the right of the other to exist as an equal participant. The racist excludes himself from the democratic community by refusing to include people of colour within it.

The fact that we elect our parliaments by popular vote doesn't begin to exhaust the principles that constitute our democratic system. It certainly does not demand that we aggregate every popular voice that can be heard. Indeed it demands that some popular voices are excluded precisely because they offend against the principle that all voices within a democracy must acknowledge the equal rights of others. That is precisely why we exclude the racist from public discourse, and legislate accordingly. The populism you laud as showing a turn towards "serious politics" shows precisely the opposite. It seeks to engender hate, division, and exclusion of minorities from participation in the democratic commonwealth. It is exactly how the Naz*is achieved power in 1930s Germany.

[Fen Canary 866]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

While I don’t always agree with you, you generally seem a reasoned poster so I’m surprised you are pushing such a flimsy point. We all want things but they are very often unrealistic, unaffordable or a bad idea for other reasons. I’d like to have a couple of sausage rolls, a few slices of cake and several pints of beer right now but I don’t. I’d like a flashy car but I don’t withdraw my savings, cash in my pension and buy one.

Similarly, there are very good reasons why most of the things populists like Trump promise are either a bad idea or unobtainable. Serious politicians who try to be truthful don’t promise lower immigration or lower taxes because they know they need immigrants to keep businesses running and taxes are needed to be at least as high as they are now to support infrastructure and invest in critical areas like green industry that in the long-term will improve the overall position of the country.

Populists like Trump spout easy answers to difficult questions but either know they are unobtainable or they are just stupid people more interested in their own ego than the people they claim to represent. Politicians who are more honest about what they can achieve are not elitist, just adults.

 

Why do we need to keep all these businesses running? If they’re only able to survive thanks to a steady supply of cheap imported labour are they really worth saving? Governments love immigration because more people working means a higher GDP, even if those jobs are of no overall benefit to society as a whole. Our GDP per population is actually less than it was 15 years ago, productivity has barely moved, house and rent prices soared and public services are straining under the increased demand so who has actually benefitted from all the low skilled labour we’ve imported apart from the already wealthy? All we’ve done since Brexit is replaced those poorly paid Eastern European baristas and waitresses with Indian ones.

Most populist parties wouldn’t exist if the West had a functioning immigration system, for most it’s their main vote winner and it’s a problem that to me is easily solved. I’m no fan of Trump but if for 20 years you’ve seen all your concerns disparaged by the so called sensible politicians why wouldn’t you vote for a wildcard?

Most voters aren’t idiots, they know a countries economic situation  and often adjust the expectations in that regard accordingly. I’ve heard no talk of tax cuts except for outside of a few Thatcherite politicians, most polls seem to indicate the opposite that people would be happy to pay a little more tax to get the public services back up to a functioning level.

[Fen Canary 866]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

.

Edited January 17 by Fen Canary
Duplicate

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

On 16/01/2024 at 07:36, A Load of Squit said:

I'm not missing your point because you don't have one.

He's reporting the facts & you're ignoring the facts because you've got your head in the sand.

 

I noticed you avoided answering my question, so with no distractions - 

What do you think of legal systems. Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents? What about Kim or Winnie the P00 in China?

 

 

Edited January 17 by Iwans Big Toe

[Herman 9,825]

But, but Hunter's laptop....

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

9 minutes ago, Herman said:

But, but Hunter's laptop....

 

Good argument.

What do you think of legal systems. Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents? What about Kim or Winnie the P00 in China?

 

 

[Herman 9,825]

Relevance??

[TheGunnShow 6,006]

If Trump was conclusively found guilty of a rape that he did then isn't that basically what the legal system actually supposed to do? Establish who is guilty and protect the innocent??

[Nuff Said 5,178]

4 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Most voters aren’t idiots, they know a countries economic situation

You have a higher opinion of the electorate than I do, Brexit being a prime case in point.

You seem very ready to reduce employment if jobs aren’t of an “overall benefit to society as a whole”. Easy to say if it’s not your job and not a platform even a populist would go near. And what about the lower wage jobs like care work that do have social value and we struggle to get people born here to take? It’s a bizarre argument.

It’s a fact that one immigrant raises the average GDP per head of our country, which sounds to me like they’re actually doing better at improving the state of the nation than natives. Maybe we should throw out a few of the economically inactive British people out? 

[Fen Canary 866]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Historically incorrect with regard to the rise of the Naz*is, and you show little understanding of  the complexity of democracy as a political concept and ideal. No one in any political text I've seen thinks democracy is reducible solely to the idea of majority opinion. Why do you think we refer to our democratic political system as a "representative democracy"? It's because our MPs are expected to protect and represent the interests of every citizen, not just those who reflect their personal view or popular bias.

The moral relativism underlying your "position" is anathema to democracy. Just last week I read the following on Twitter, "N***ers are subhuman, they should be exterminated just like any other infestation of vermin". If you're claiming that I am an elitist for believing superior my opinion that a person's skin colour is irrelevant to their equal standing as a human being , then I'll happily accept that label. But, of course, it isn't an elitist position; it is an essential precondition of democracy. Democracies are defined fundamentally as communities of people whose diversity of opinion is respected insofar as each member respects the right of the other to exist as an equal participant. The racist excludes himself from the democratic community by refusing to include people of colour within it.

The fact that we elect our parliaments by popular vote doesn't begin to exhaust the principles that constitute our democratic system. It certainly does not demand that we aggregate every popular voice that can be heard. Indeed it demands that some popular voices are excluded precisely because they offend against the principle that all voices within a democracy must acknowledge the equal rights of others. That is precisely why we exclude the racist from public discourse, and legislate accordingly. The populism you laud as showing a turn towards "serious politics" shows precisely the opposite. It seeks to engender hate, division, and exclusion of minorities from participation in the democratic commonwealth. It is exactly how the Naz*is achieved power in 1930s Germany.

What’s the point in having elections at all then? If parties and governments aren’t obliged to carry out the wishes of the electorate, why bother campaigning on various policies (such as reducing immigration) if they can just get into power and decide to do the exact opposite for what they perceive to be the greater good?

We could just scrap democracy and be ruled by a collection of experts and not have to worry about the plebs voting the wrong way, which sounds as if it’s a system you’d prefer

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

You have a higher opinion of the electorate than I do, Brexit being a prime case in point.

You seem very ready to reduce employment if jobs aren’t of an “overall benefit to society as a whole”. Easy to say if it’s not your job and not a platform even a populist would go near. And what about the lower wage jobs like care work that do have social value and we struggle to get people born here to take? It’s a bizarre argument.

It’s a fact that one immigrant raises the average GDP per head of our country, which sounds to me like they’re actually doing better at improving the state of the nation than natives. Maybe we should throw out a few of the economically inactive British people out? 

Not every immigrant does raise the average GDP per capita though. As I posted on another thread, immigrants from countries that were EU members prior to 2004 earned on average 9% above the national average, whereas those from the countries that joined after 2004 earned nearly 25% less. Nobody benefitted from that influx except the already wealthy, and those at the lower socioeconomic level in Britain were hit hardest by it with stagnant wages and higher house prices. You claim Brexit to be a stupid decision simply because of your background but if you were in their shoes it’s a perfectly logical choice.

Nobody is saying to stop all immigration, but there’s no reason it can’t be more regulated. Only let in those who have sought after skills who will earn considerably more than the national average, or in sectors where we have an acute skills shortage. You can also have seasonal work visas for agriculture as it’s an industry that doesn’t lend itself to full time work. This is how most countries operate after all 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

20 minutes ago, Herman said:

Relevance??

Overruled because we're not in court, so I can copy and paste to get you to answer.

What do you think of legal systems. Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents? What about Kim or Winnie the P00 in China?

 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Lets make it even easier for you to answer yes or no  Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents?

 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Come on now, your silence is evidence of your hypocrisy.

Yes or no?

 

 

Edited January 17 by Iwans Big Toe

[horsefly 4,315]

12 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

What’s the point in having elections at all then? If parties and governments aren’t obliged to carry out the wishes of the electorate, why bother campaigning on various policies (such as reducing immigration) if they can just get into power and decide to do the exact opposite for what they perceive to be the greater good?

We could just scrap democracy and be ruled by a collection of experts and not have to worry about the plebs voting the wrong way, which sounds as if it’s a system you’d prefer

 Nothing I can add provides a better example of your lack of understanding of the principles and practicalities of how a representative democracy works.

[horsefly 4,315]

11 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Come on now, your silence is evidence of your hypocrisy.

Yes or no?

 

 

No! It's evidence that he's still incapacitated by laughing at your ignorance

[Herman 9,825]

28 minutes ago, horsefly said:

No! It's evidence that he's still incapacitated by laughing at your ignorance

I can't be arsed with his passive aggressive form of whataboutery.

[Herman 9,825]

How do we prove to people like IBT and Jools that Trump is as dodgy as hell when all we have is his words, deeds, court documents, witness statements, photographic evidence, newspaper columns, television programmes and testimonies from his old friends? 

It's an uphill struggle. 

[Fen Canary 866]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

 Nothing I can add provides a better example of your lack of understanding of the principles and practicalities of how a representative democracy works.

I’m well aware of how representative democracy works, but you’re suggesting that those MPs shouldn’t have to worry about the opinions of those they’re actually representing. You then slam the electorate for then voting in different MPs who do promise to act in their interests.

You seem to imply that MPs should be able to act as they please irregardless of public sentiment and not then have to worry about the prospect of failing to be re-elected for ignoring their constituencies wishes.

I agree that while they’re an MP they can do as they please in Westminster, but they also have to explain those decisions at the subsequent election. Complaining that people are voting the wrong way is a pathetic cop out. If the public are voting for other parties it’s because you haven’t listened to their concerns, no other reason.

The last election was an example of this. Despite the EU referendum being close in absolute numbers, two thirds of MPs represented seats that voted to leave. Many spent the next few years ignoring the result of their constituency and paid the price for it at the next election when Johnson won a landslide by promising to enact the result 

Edited January 18 by Fen Canary

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

10 hours ago, Herman said:

I can't be arsed with his passive aggressive form of whataboutery.

Of course you can't, because it would reveal not only how weak your argument is, your hypocrisy and TDS, but also your true political opinion (which rhymes with cash-ist) if you answered my question truthfully.

So again, yes or no, 

Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents?

If you can't answer I will assume (correctly) that you think it is OK to use the legal system to oppress those that don't agree with you

You and all that have recently piled on do not believe in democracy, don't try to pretend you do.

 

Edited January 18 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Let me show you how easy it is.

Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents? No he is not.

See I'm not terrified of taking a stand for my beliefs, what about you are you scared? (that's not too passive aggressive, asking you a direct question is it?) Is Putin right to use the Russian legal system to oppress his political opponents?

 

 

Edited January 18 by Iwans Big Toe

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

He's bat sh!t mental & he's being interviewed by Sean Insannity.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-who-tried-to-overturn-his-election-loss-claims-biden-is-a-threat-to-democracy/

During an appearance on Thursday’s Hannity, former President Donald Trump claimed that President Joe Biden is “a threat to democracy.”

Trump infamously attempted to overturn the 2020 election, which he falsely claims was rigged against him. After that contest, he pressured Republicans in states he lost to subvert the results so he could remain in power. After those efforts failed, he urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results in Congress as the presiding officer. When Pence declined, a mob stormed Congress and sparked a deadly riot while Trump reportedly watched it all on television while ignoring lawmakers’ pleas to send help.

In short, Trump tried to end AmericanTrump democracy.