14 minutes ago, Choke said:

I think my post stands on it's own as an effort to remove my rose coloured glasses.

Yet you refuse to address the matter of inflammatory language used by the left.

I have no issue with the rest of your post and it seems to be a cry in the dark for the reformation of the left, but the first part of that reformation is toning down the hatred that they show towards anyone that doesn't agree with them. If you can't see that then there is no point in pursuing the rest.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Dante said:

Yet you refuse to address the matter of inflammatory language used by the left.

I have no issue with the rest of your post and it seems to be a cry in the dark for the reformation of the left, but the first part of that reformation is toning down the hatred that they show towards anyone that doesn't agree with them. If you can't see that then there is no point in pursuing the rest.

 

 

I make a conciliatory post about the flaws of the left, and you're angry because of I missed one issue?

Yes, the left use inflammatory language too and that needs to improve.

52 minutes ago, Choke said:

I make a conciliatory post about the flaws of the left, and you're angry because of I missed one issue?

Yes, the left use inflammatory language too and that needs to improve.

In my opinion that issue is the main problem on the left side of politics and the left in general, you consider it insignificant and an afterthought. Oh! well.

35 minutes ago, Dante said:

In my opinion that issue is the main problem on the left side of politics and the left in general, you consider it insignificant and an afterthought. Oh! well.

I really dislike labeling this issue as "left" or "right".  In my opinion inflammatory language and the need to acknowledge the offense it has caused  or the absence of the acknowledgment is not confined to either side of politics. It is not a right or left issue  - it is an individual person thing and they exist across the political spectrum. 

15 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I really dislike labeling this issue as "left" or "right".  In my opinion inflammatory language and the need to acknowledge the offense it has caused  or the absence of the acknowledgment is not confined to either side of politics. It is not a right or left issue  - it is an individual person thing and they exist across the political spectrum. 

It's not a left or right thing, it's a left and right thing but the left refuse to acknowledge they are responsible for their share of the abuse, I would acknowledge that the conservative side are guilty of verbal abuse but will the left?  I've seen many times where someone from the right side of politics, particularly women, are abused and instead of condemning it the left applaud, it amazes me why the applauders can't see it's wrong. When Clementine Ford prints some of the revolting trash she is prone to, she gets #greatarticle, whereas a journo on the right would get hounded by the very same people.

There are racists and bigots on both sides of politics and having worked in pubs and clubs I can tell you that there were plenty of racists that were rusted on Labor supporters and the same applies to misogynists, how many times do you see a picture of a naked women in an office as compared to a factory of workshop? Where is the call to arms when a female on the right is verbally abused and who stands up for them, certainly not the sisterhood.

Yes it is an "individual person thing" but it is also the reaction that is the problem, there has to be some condemnation of this sort of thing and it shouldn't mater who said it it should be condemned by both sides. When someone says that Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi should be taken out and raped, there should have been an outcry by everyone but there wasn't, imagine if that was said about Gillard or Plibersek?

 

1 hour ago, Dante said:

It's not a left or right thing, it's a left and right thing but the left refuse to acknowledge they are responsible for their share of the abuse, I would acknowledge that the conservative side are guilty of verbal abuse but will the left?  I've seen many times where someone from the right side of politics, particularly women, are abused and instead of condemning it the left applaud, it amazes me why the applauders can't see it's wrong. When Clementine Ford prints some of the revolting trash she is prone to, she gets #greatarticle, whereas a journo on the right would get hounded by the very same people.

There are racists and bigots on both sides of politics and having worked in pubs and clubs I can tell you that there were plenty of racists that were rusted on Labor supporters and the same applies to misogynists, how many times do you see a picture of a naked women in an office as compared to a factory of workshop? Where is the call to arms when a female on the right is verbally abused and who stands up for them, certainly not the sisterhood.

Yes it is an "individual person thing" but it is also the reaction that is the problem, there has to be some condemnation of this sort of thing and it shouldn't mater who said it it should be condemned by both sides. When someone says that Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi should be taken out and raped, there should have been an outcry by everyone but there wasn't, imagine if that was said about Gillard or Plibersek?

 

Again I re-iterate - it is a person by person thing irrespective of political persuasion.

I acknowledge that both sides of politics are guilty of verbal abuse. I acknowledge that some on both sides of politics will own up to it and some on both sides of politics won't. Both sides have individuals that are racist, misogynist etc etc.

I will also state in regards to the present US scene that when a candidate suggests that he wants to ban an entire religion entering the country that amounts to racism/bigotry but throughout history you have governments on both sides of political spectrum that have resorted to racism and bigotry - communist Russia was virulently anti semitic and oppressed minorities.

And both the left leaning and right leaning media has been over vocal on issues and too quiet on others - You mentioned Gillard - her treatment by the press when she was PM was appalling and went unchecked. Some of the comments by Radio shock jocks barely rated a mention

I think trying to point to behaviors of entire group (the"left or the right") being worse one way or the other is showing a bias.

However you can point to behaviors of the individual and am happy to say that regarding the US political I would sorely disagree with policies of the likes of Cruz and Rubio but did not have an issue with their behavior . Trump is an entirely different matter. 

However on Trump I think everyone is going to be disappointed with him. I think those who support the democrats will be angered by what he does do and those who did support Trump are going to be disappointed as he is backing away from campaign promises and it is only two weeks since he was elected and months away from inauguration. 

  

12 minutes ago, nutbean said:

However on Trump I think everyone is going to be disappointed with him. I think those who support the democrats will be angered by what he does do and those who did support Trump are going to be disappointed as he is backing away from campaign promises and it is only two weeks since he was elected and months away from inauguration. 

  

lol yep.

Already the Mexican wall has become a 'fence', and now in parts a 'virtual wall'.

He's not going to appoint a special investigator to look into Clinton's emails.

He's backed away from deporting all Muslims, now it's just the ones with criminal records. I have no doubt that this will be watered down further.

Both sides are going to be disappointed with him as you say. I think Gingrich even referred to some of his policies as 'campaign devices'. Sounds like the good old 'non-core promise' to me. The whole idea behind electing someone who wasn't a politician was to avoid the sort of backflips and concessions politicians make upon getting into office wasn't it? For a 'political outsider', he does seem to be able to perform the political backflip like the best of the 'elites'.

One wonders how he's going to drain the swamp, given the swamp monsters must vote on their own drainage system. I really like his congressional terms limitation policy, but it'll never pass.

He's in now for better or worse though, we're all in the same boat so lets hope it somehow turns out for the better. Hand on heart, I'd much rather be here in 4 years saying "I was wrong, Trump was great", than "told you so".

16 hours ago, Choke said:

 

He's in now for better or worse though, we're all in the same boat so lets hope it somehow turns out for the better. Hand on heart, I'd much rather be here in 4 years saying "I was wrong, Trump was great", than "told you so".

I will settle for   - " it could have been a lot worse". 

But you are 100% right in saying that nobody is going to benefit if at the end of 4 years all we have got to say is " I told you so".

I too hope that he will be a successful president. 

On 23/11/2016 at 10:30 AM, Dante said:

In my opinion that issue is the main problem on the left side of politics and the left in general, you consider it insignificant and an afterthought. Oh! well.

The issue of inflammatory language exists on both sides of politics... the right commonly use derogatory terms when referencing the left (perhaps the left have thicker skins?).

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

The issue of inflammatory language exists on both sides of politics... the right commonly use derogatory terms when referencing the left (perhaps the left have thicker skins?).

How many people of the right hide in "safe spaces" or need "trigger warnings" before something is too shocking for them to hear?

The left might all share the same opinion and suffer from group think but thick skins they do not have.

3 hours ago, hardtack said:

The issue of inflammatory language exists on both sides of politics... the right commonly use derogatory terms when referencing the left (perhaps the left have thicker skins?).

Not sure that is right. I think the left is as derogatory of the right as the right is of the left. 

The diatribes against Trump and Clinton knew no bounds  - and in both cases - some justified.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

How many people of the right hide in "safe spaces" or need "trigger warnings" before something is too shocking for them to hear?

The left might all share the same opinion and suffer from group think but thick skins they do not have.

Trump does:

 

Btw, this is what he was reacting to:

http://imgur.com/gallery/orLvWdQ

Youtube if link above doesnt work

The man might as well not have skin at all, considering how thin it is!

 

Pay that ^^

 

2 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Pay that ^^

 

lol, thanks mate! I finally landed one!

 

My personal believe is that the whole 'safe space' notion is just idiotic. For several reasons:

1 - you can't have a proper conversation about real issues if you're worried about 'triggering' people 

2 - use of the word 'trigger' undermines it's actual valid medical use (for people who actually have depression or PTSD)

3 - applying them to universities or colleges, where the environment is supposed to be one of learning and being exposed to new ideas is just counter productive.

 

I'm a lefty, but I'm not an "I'll dance around your sexual orientation with pronouns in case you identify as owlkin" lefty.

5 hours ago, nutbean said:

Not sure that is right. I think the left is as derogatory of the right as the right is of the left. 

The diatribes against Trump and Clinton knew no bounds  - and in both cases - some justified.

That's essentially what I was saying NB...the right reference was a counterpoint to the Dante's reference to the left.

6 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

How many people of the right hide in "safe spaces" or need "trigger warnings" before something is too shocking for them to hear?

The left might all share the same opinion and suffer from group think but thick skins they do not have.

Yes, I thought that re the thick skins after I posted. However, the group think thing is well and truly the domain of both sides... "Lock her up, lock her up!", "Build the wall, build the wall!" ring any bells? ?

7 hours ago, hardtack said:

Yes, I thought that re the thick skins after I posted. However, the group think thing is well and truly the domain of both sides... "Lock her up, lock her up!", "Build the wall, build the wall!" ring any bells? ?

Take your point but would argue that was more a disaffected mob chantingrather than group think.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Choke said:

lol yep.

Already the Mexican wall has become a 'fence', and now in parts a 'virtual wall'.

He's not going to appoint a special investigator to look into Clinton's emails.

He's backed away from deporting all Muslims, now it's just the ones with criminal records. I have no doubt that this will be watered down further.

Both sides are going to be disappointed with him as you say. I think Gingrich even referred to some of his policies as 'campaign devices'. Sounds like the good old 'non-core promise' to me. The whole idea behind electing someone who wasn't a politician was to avoid the sort of backflips and concessions politicians make upon getting into office wasn't it? For a 'political outsider', he does seem to be able to perform the political backflip like the best of the 'elites'.

One wonders how he's going to drain the swamp, given the swamp monsters must vote on their own drainage system. I really like his congressional terms limitation policy, but it'll never pass.

He's in now for better or worse though, we're all in the same boat so lets hope it somehow turns out for the better. Hand on heart, I'd much rather be here in 4 years saying "I was wrong, Trump was great", than "told you so".

He has said time and time again he is a negotiater not a career politician.

In his book the art of negotiation he talks about taking an extreme position to begin with and then being talked down to the position he actually wants. I.e if you want to be paid $120k you tell the boss you want $200k and let him drag it back to $120k and let him think he won.

I hate politicians lying on both sides of politics. It's harder to call negotiation a lie when he has documented how he does it.

Time will tell but people will always be disapointed. 

15 hours ago, Choke said:

 

The man might as well not have skin at all, considering how thin it is!

 

The Trumpster is probably the most sensitive person I have ever witnessed in politics from any persuasion ( short of authoritarian regime heads who shot or imprisoned people of other beliefs rather than tweet).

At some stage he has gonna have to listen to his advisers who must be saying to him - "mate, you gotta let it go"

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

He has said time and time again he is a negotiater not a career politician.

In his book the art of negotiation he talks about taking an extreme position to begin with and then being talked down to the position he actually wants. I.e if you want to be paid $120k you tell the boss you want $200k and let him drag it back to $120k and let him think he won.

I hate politicians lying on both sides of politics. It's harder to call negotiation a lie when he has documented how he does it.

Time will tell but people will always be disapointed. 

I understand, and that might even be a good thing in the business world. I don't know, I'm not a real estate mogul, maybe that strategy works.

But I reckon the electorate who chanted "lock her up" and waved signs about a wall with Mexico won't be overly happy about it.

The whole point about voting for Trump was that he WASN'T a politician, and would actually do what he says. Now he's backing away from that premise.

So he'll anger those people who voted for him because:
- he wasn't a politician as he's now demonstrated he backflips like the rest of them
- he won't do the extreme things he said he do, that they wanted him to do (Clinton to jail etc)

But, by doing this, he'll validate those people who voted for him who did so hoping that these stances would actually soften. I would guess many Americans would be in this camp. They voted for him because he wasn't Hillary, in the hope that he'd soften his stances later. He's doing just that, but as I said, in doing so he alienates the other group that voted him in to do exactly what he said he'd do.

So, he'll annoy some of his voters, and validate others.

As I said previously, I hope he does a good job. I have severe doubts about whether he can, but I hope that he does.

Probably the biggest worry Trump will have now is that those who are likely to be disappointed and upset if he moderates his stance on Clinton, the wall etc, are probably the more dangerous/extreme elements of his supporter base.  

26 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Probably the biggest worry Trump will have now is that those who are likely to be disappointed and upset if he moderates his stance on Clinton, the wall etc, are probably the more dangerous/extreme elements of his supporter base.  

damned if you do, damned if you don't

Looks like the FBI and the KGB were working in tandem to get Donald over the line using Wikileaks and who knows what other methods. Yes maybe the whole thing was rigged! 

On 10/12/2016 at 9:24 PM, Earl Hood said:

Looks like the FBI and the KGB were working in tandem to get Donald over the line using Wikileaks and who knows what other methods. Yes maybe the whole thing was rigged! 

and then there is the computer aspect to us voting http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh121216-story04.html

Quote

  Stalin  "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."