Do you like or hate Donald Trump, and why?

Guysmiley

Fail...stop playing dishonest games.

I said migrant....do you understand the difference between a refugee and a migrant?

Of course you do.

Your dissembling is transparent.

Blob in terms of sneering, mocking and plain insulting you are way ahead in this discussion. Tone it down and you might get more response.

Blob, you're just making that shit up.
It is inconceivable that you could define global media as being leftwing.

"In conventional parlance, the current era in history is generally characterized as one of globalization, technological revolution, and democratization.
In all three of these areas media and communication play a central, perhaps even a defining, role.
Economic and cultural globalization arguably would be impossible without a global commercial media system to promote global markets and to encourage consumer values. "

In other words, the global media exist to support a neoliberal ideology.
By and large, apart from the window dressing of "inclusion", the global media are by definition, right wing.

So-called left wing ideology like identity politics is actually a massive Trojan horse - although it has very laudable roots, it ends up atomising the Left and leaving it with no real cause for solidarity.

The Right are laughing their heads off.

At the same time, any centrist or left wing media (I'd include Australia's ABC as centrist media despite their breathtaking capitulation over the second Gulf War and basically their support of any Australian/U.S. hegemonic foreign policy), are comprehensively wedged by identity politics.

Geez Louise peppercheez!
Might be time for a bit of introspection Blob.....
The original question to this thread is do you like Trump or not!
Yes, we understand you choose to elaborate, and the TRUTH for you is that you’d like a big blob from his knob in ya gob;)
However, if you retrace your idiotic rambling/ interpretation of everything you have added to this forum, it is useful to understand that you think you are an expert. There is a common theme of sadness and forcefulness on your behalf in an effort to try and educate other people on your mistaken and illogical beliefs. You don’t even understand them!
Amongst the so called ‘fails’ and mistruths you are trying to point out there is one recurring projection...
The whole ‘you are all liars/can’t you see/this is what is really going on’ mentality is a simple insight into your own confusion.
Everything you have stated and every article/link provided is an example of your bias, your misguided opinion and YOUR inability to deal with hearsay and speculation. There is no truth to what you have to offer, there is no direct experience involved to verify your conclusions...
You are trying to understand your own and others bullshit and not doing a very good job about it! You claim to ‘consume’ particular forms of media that seem to reinforce or validate your personal illusions... Remember what you consume ends up coming out as shit!
YOU are the hypocrite! Every body else is wrong in your eyes and you have an answer to every one else’s alternate viewpoint. Strange dat!
Something is lacking severely within your self identity, stop trying to convince others! It is okay to be an imbecile like Trump if you really wish to be so - for you anyway;)
Trump is an egomaniac master of deceit, a puppet yes, a symbol yes, but a human void of any shred of genuine sincerity or truth. Trump is a selfish, money hungry, racist, misogynistic, filthy example of a human being - let alone the ‘leader’ of the supposed free world. Your arguments and defense of anything Trump are simple nonsense! Try all you like but maybe look within and see what you are...
A former extreme lefty now gone the other way... Hypocrite?! Liar?!
Maybe just too far gone...
Wake up to yourself, you just want the last word and your efforts to convince others are simple efforts to convince yourself...
No one listens to you in the real world and here you are in virtual land still trying to push it out. Give it a rest ay.....

‘When there is universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act’

No Blob, your sleight at hand in the use of the words "migrant" and "illegal" is just too clever by half.

Come on lets not beat around the bush big boy, say what you really mean.

You make a good point andym but I don't think the old left/right divide applies anymore. I don't think anyone, anyone at all, would argue the press weren't behind hilary clinton - the left candidate - in the American election. You could take a purists (bernie) view and say the press were against his left wing agenda (and they were - with shocking bias against bernie) but we're talking about different left/right divides.

CNN. Whether you see it as 'Clinton News metwork' or 'Corporate News Network' it is clearly never EVER supportive of the republican party or anything remotely conservative. In fact one could argue CNN have drank so much identity politics kool aid that they've become counter productive in many regards across the board - something which you touched on.

Australia press landscape is very different to the US as well I reckon. Mainstream press Oz (murdoch) is clearly bias. Clearly, shamelessly, unscrupulously bias, but they don't really hide it. And, newspapers/media outlets have taken political positions since the beginning of time, with something like 95% openly suppoting Clinton.

While I still love the abc, the fact they've spent the last few years rebalancing due to public pressure shows there is an issue in media, in all countries.

And a problem in academia...

With that left wing nutty site Bloomberg even conceding we're in dangerous territory.

Left wing nutty site that is very pro global economic imperialism. Which would make them right wing, or neo liberal, or something...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-17/colleges-have-way-too...

'...The second reason is that students are less likely to get a good education, and faculty members are likely to learn less from one another, if there is a prevailing political orthodoxy. Students and faculty might end up in a kind of information cocoon. If a political-science department consists of 24 Democrats and 2 Republicans, we have reason to doubt that students will exposed to an adequate range of views...."

"...If academic hiring is skewed along ideological lines, the march toward uniformity might be self-reinforcing. Prospective professors will have an incentive to adopt the prevailing orthodoxy (or to speak and write as if they do)...."

And this little gem popped up on one of those articles.

It's already a border-less world...if you've got the cssh...

Which shows the pipedream that is 'open borders' for what it is. The return to a class ridden society.

You'se might have got away with it if you didn't overlook that pesky little product of the process - growing inequality.

Actually you might have got away with it if growing inequality was just a pesky little product, rather than the whole mechanism to facilitate the dream.

http://www.noborders-group.com/landing-pages/adelaide/general?gclid=EAIa...

Sypkan, the fact that you say that H. Clinton is of the Left speaks volumes.

You've shown us that the Right have clearly succeeded in redefining the political spectrum to suit their agenda, which from memory you tend to oppose.

Unfortunate.

If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

"This election season has brought to the surface an issue that, until recently, seemed to have become a neoliberal sacred cow, the holy writ of the lords of capital: free trade.
And while this cornerstone of US economic hegemony has come under fire from a deeply reactionary, and to varying degrees racist and xenophobic, perspective, as expressed by Donald Trump, it has nevertheless sparked a much needed conversation about free trade and its destructive impact on both the American working class, and the Global South as well.

But free trade having become a campaign issue has also spotlighted for the umpteenth time the breathtaking hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton who I have previously referred to as the high priestess of the Church of Free Trade and Neoliberalism. For it is, in fact, Hillary Clinton who has for more than two decades been one of the loudest and most resolute voices championing neoliberalism and free trade.
And still, despite her record, Clinton today presents herself as a friend of the working class. The same working class that has been all but eviscerated by the policies she herself has supported."

https://www.mondialisation.ca/hillary-clinton-and-the-big-neoliberal-lie...

Talk about turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

But Clinton's Left, right?

She must be, she's a woman.

Or is she.....

Does this help?

"...neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-...

The links between neoliberalism and right wing politics are rock solid 100% Sypkan, there is no debate whatsoever.

Clinton and the Democrats are not Left, let's bury that idea.

You'd still go there Blowin, just so you had a good story in the public bar the next day ;)

The rumour is that every tariff dollar Trump squeezes out of China is going to have his imperial head on it one day. I have this from an impeccable source. Caesar.

"Sypkan, the fact that you say that H. Clinton is of the Left speaks volumes."

Well I did say the old divides don't apply. I actually think we need new language to talk about this stuff.

For the majority of the population HRC is clearly left of donald trump - with her identity politics narrative (and not much else).

But I would argue trump could possibly be more left than HRC with his campaigning for American manufacturing. Opposition to free trade in general, And his less war hawk position.

How the 'lefty' female holier than thou democrat candidate could be more war hawk than the nazi narcissistic aggressive autistic cunt male trump is cause for concern about bigger agendas.

To go to back to your left/right labels. If 'left' is socialism (don't dare say communism), do you think the punters have an appetite for socialism?

.. but andym, neo liberalism became standard orthodoxy of 'the left' when they adopted it as the 'third way'.

A total crock of shit that allowed 'the left' to shamelessly sell off public assetts in order to fund more fuckimg identity politics bullshit!!

I started to disagree but then stopped. Maybe terms like left etc. have been so co-opted and bastardised that we need something else? It could be at the expense of 150 years of academic study though.
Personally, I think historical definitions are perfectly fine and applicable and if nothing else, exist to demonstrate how far to the right we've lurched.

That the hawkish HRC is left of Trump is indeed debatable. She's the pinnacle of the most violent, militaristic ideology.

Yeah I think punters do have that appetite, not for socialism but for a more centrist democratic socialism that is still very capitalist as opposed to neoliberal.
If the housing market heads very far south and people start defaulting on mortgage repayments as interest only repayments change to principle plus interest, then we could start to see a more pronounced change of tune.
I live in hope that at some stage, people will begin to reject the financialisation of pretty much all basic living requirements.

Andym great post on the media and yes HRC and Bill are not of the left never have been.

Interesting Sanders who would struggle to get a gig with the NSW Labor right is cast as such an extremist.

First of all, I see the "third way" as demonstrated by Blair, B. Clinton and even Mark Latham as being a crock of shit, all hot air.
The Left in mainstream politics were long gone by that stage.

Which leads me to an extremely interesting tangent that I haven't got my head around.

When was the last real Left government and importantly, why did it disappear?

This is when I go all conspiracy theory.

For me, Whitlam was the last real leftie and he was overthrown in a soft-power coup because for the heavy hitters out there, he was actually quite a way towards the genuine Left, and also towards an independent Australia, which we are now not.

For example:

Withdrew Oz from Vietnam
Recognised China after the Libs hadn't for the previous 24 years
Free uni education
Racial Discrimination Act
Curtailing foreign ownership in mining

An American commentator wrote that no country had "reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution".

"When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term, in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador.
He had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia.
One of his first speeches in Australia was to the Australian Institute of Directors - described by an alarmed member of the audience as "an incitement to the country's business leaders to rise against the government".

"The Americans and British worked together.
In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain's MI6 was operating against his government.
"The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office," he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, "We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans." In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the "Whitlam problem" had been discussed "with urgency" by the CIA's director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: "Kerr did what he was told to do.""

I have very little doubt that the burgeoning neoliberal setup especially in the wake of abandoning the gold standard and the globalisation of finance saw Whitlam's ideology as unacceptable.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/25/rundle-proving-the-cia-backed-consp...

I thought you were going full conspiracy then, but that sounds quite reasonable. I think it's just like our current wave of globalisation. Where does once well intentioned cooperation become questionable collusion and conspiracy?

This is the best thing I've heard on trump.

And it's not pro trump.

Not sure of his solution. Sounds a bit dreamy socialist for me, but an excellent analysis.

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-gwynne-...

Yeah I think there's plenty to back it up.

Thought I'd start with a bit of a disclaimer anyway, especially when a bit of Googling on the subject will uncover a frothing, over-earnest yet still credible John Pilger.

As for the podcast, I'll certainly give it a listen.

"He thinks the current turmoil is not a prelude to global chaos"

Jeez, I wish BB could have listened to this a while back! ;)

I will give it a listen when I get the chance Andy

@Sypkan,

Listened to the first half of his interview while driving up to Sydney today, but had a meeting just as it was getting juicy. Gonna listen to the full conversation tonight.

Jelly Flater

Now you got that off your chest do you feel better now?

You seem to be trying to psychoanalyse me
.....from the couch.
And you do use a lot of words to essentially say nothing.

AndyM

If the ABC is in the centre where areTrump, Obama and you ?.

Guysmiley

So when you change my words it's my fault for using plain language ?.
OK champ, that sums you up.

Clinton isn't left wing....if you are positioned where some of you roosters seem to be......on the left side of the Greens....which means your views represent less than 5% of Australians.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism) as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).[1] The term left-wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".[5]

Doesn't sound much like Clinton to me Blob. Oh and it probably explains why so many of us are actually quite proud of the label. A concern for the disadvantaged, social justice, as opposed to right wing dog eat dog I'm alright Jackism, sounds good to me.

A young, ruthless executive died and went to hell. When he got there, he saw one sign that said Capitalist Hell, and another that said Socialist Hell.

In front of the Socialist Hell was an incredibly long line, while there was no-one in front of the Capitalist Hell. So the executive asked the guard, ''What do they do to you in Socialist Hell?''

''They boil you in oil, whip you, and then put you on the rack,'' the guard replied.

''And what do they do to you in Capitalist Hell?''

''The same exact thing,'' the guard answered.

''Then why is everybody in line for Socialist Hell?''

''Because in Socialist Hell, they're always out of oil, whips, and racks!''

Haha blowin, whilst we're on the subject:
What's the difference between capitalist hell and socialist hell?
In capitalist hell, the damned must lie on a bed of nails while a steam roller drives over them. In socialist hell, it is exactly the same, except sometimes there are no nails, sometimes the steam roller is broken and sometimes the driver is too drunk to work.

Old joke Blowin. One word answer - China. Not that there is any need to go to that wxtreme. There is no intrinsic conflict between moderate left wing policies and successful capitalism. In fact left wing policies such as higher taxation in upper income brackets to fund higher standards in education, health care and income support improve economic performance. One of the major factors in the current economic stagnation has been the diversion of more wealth to the already wealthy, who cannot spend it on goods and services since they already have more of these than they can consume. So they invest it which pumps up the value of assets (eg house prices) and inflates stock prices beyond their true value. Redistributing income via the tax system (cue boo hiss Red's under the beds hysteria from the media owned by oh what a coincidence, the wealthy!), means a greater percentage is spent on goods and services boosting employment and creating higher wages as companies compete for labour.

Blob you're just a little delusional today

Blindboy

Lefties are not more compassionate or generous....except in theory.

"Chronicle of Philanthropy, uses IRS data to determine giving patterns across the country, broken out by income ranges across ZIP codes, counties, and states. Researchers looked at adjusted gross income to determine how much people gave, and the study tracked about 80 percent of all money donated to charity by taxpaying Americans in 2012, the latest year for which IRS data was available
While most coverage of the report has focused on the finding that top-earners have been giving a smaller share of their income to charity than poorer Americans, The Chronicle study also highlights "giving patterns," broken out by state and compared against how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election, i.e., whether it went for Romney or Obama.

Overall, the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income went for Obama. The top 17 states for rate of giving all went for Romney."

...and Hillary is left....as in left of Trump....don't complicate simple things.

Guy smiley

Perfect....you can't be wrong when you say nothing

Blob.

Without a huge amount of consideration -

Trump - centre right to far right although he doesn't appear to actually have a coherent ideology. He's a populist, an opportunist.

Obama - centre right. Smooth talking public manipulator rather than real reformer. Toed the neoliberal line and achieved little, despite congressional support for his first two years in office.

Yours truly - left of centre. I believe in a social democracy/liberal democracy which embraces capitalism but rejects neoliberalism.
I believe natural monopolies should be nationalised.
The purchase of all Australian natural resources, including land, water, minerals and energy resources should be restricted to Australian citizens.

What about you mate?

The state by state data tells us nothing about the individuals Blob. The only relevant point you quote is that wealthy people, who tend to vote Republican, donate less.

Hey Blob, did it not seem curious to you that Utah topped the philanthropy list?

Not just a little bit...?

OK then.

"When religious giving isn’t counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4."

"“New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations,” says Patrick Rooney, “but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country.”

So you might have to scrap that argument, eh? Toss it next to the post-humous Nobel award you're prepping for Ronny Reagan.

And don't forget...the left is wrong on everything!

Maybe Trump’s psychology makes him inadvertently left leaning ?

I suspect that he is so driven by ego that he truly dreams of being an American hero. He wants to be an idol to the amorphous masses. He might be addicted to the thrill of a few thousand downtrodden blue collar workers chanting his name . Even though he’d probably vomit from revulsion if he was forced to share a dinner table with any of them.

Then when you factor that he doesn’t like being on the losing side of a deal and you can see why he wants to hobble China with trade. Maybe he actually does want to give USA workers their manufacturing jobs back and make America great again ? Even if the resulting benefit to the proletariat is ultimately driven by ego does it matter ?

He wants Americans to have jobs......as long as he’s the boss.

"Then when you factor that he doesn’t like being on the losing side of a deal and you can see why he wants to hobble China with trade. Maybe he actually does want to give USA workers their manufacturing jobs back and make America great again ? Even if the resulting benefit to the proletariat is ultimately driven by ego does it matter ?

He wants Americans to have jobs......as long as he’s the boss."

I reckon you're right on the money there blowin.

And while his personal motivations may be questionable, the outcome he seeks isn't a bad one for your average American.

He wants to be their hero, and he ultimately wants to win the game of world. A win win you might say...for a period anyway...

He was also a Democrat for twenty odd years. I know, I know, the democrats aren't left and all that. But they are left of the republicans (or at least were). Which is left of something, left of right at least.

He's also quite socially progressive. Not a homophobe. Not really that racist. This is where the democrats did themselves no favours trying to smear him with their usual patheticness.

He also believes in universal healthcare. Pretty left there. Much lefter than the democrats new found hero john mc cain anyway.

Blindboy

I'm not surprised you reject the facts in the whole quote them twist the bit that suits your bias.

So the top states for Romney are the top for giving and the top states for Obama are at the bottom....and you say it proves nothing.

OK

You say the wealthier give less.
Do you mean they give less as a % of their income or net?
Is that another lie?

And I have to admire you for your unblushing virtue signalling

@Blob,

The 'charity' they're giving to is the church.

The only fact in the report is this: Republican states are more religious.

Take religious donations away and your argument turns to water.

But don't let that stop the culture warring.

Sorry, almost forgot....and the left is wrong on everything!

Stunet

Wow....

The wily sniper pops up again in ambush then goes safe to ground

You never back up your lazy jabs when asked simple questions, but you just keep punching blindly

You need to google yourself some combinations champ

Ok then, ....let's drop out all the hours volunteers give at St Vinnies, the Salvos, all the contributions to all the religious welfare agencies, the houses built in 3rd world countries by evangelical kids, the counselling, the major disaster relief paid through church contributions etc etc.....a huge proportion of the actual charity done in society - not the theoretical, virtue signalling, big government tax extorted welfare type charity beloved of keyboard socialists....
.....so deduct the religious giving and the secular giving turns out to be exactly the same.

Genius move

I'm with you though, I can't argue that 10 minus 5 is exactly the same as 5 ....can I?

"...so deduct the religious giving and the secular giving turns out to be exactly the same."

Yes. The red states give the same as the blue states and your argument is meaningless.

But again, don't let that stop you from the oldest exercise in moral philosophy.

Not much point arguing with someone who believes that their view is always right, but who conspicuously dodges inconvenient subjects. RIP Blob, you are a waste of time ...... feel free to claim you won the argument. It would be the least of your delusions.

Blowin

See...I know I'm seen as biased but I'm often actually calling for balance....

...as in, you think it is clever fantasising in unflattering terms about Trumps unknowable inner motivation, but I'm guessing you never made the same type of confected judgements about Obama.

Do you reckon Obama was motivated by ego and ideology and did some crap getting to the top?

They both have ego but talent is determined by results...

....and facts are less convenient than partisan conjecture...
Simply, under Trump unemployment and food stamp welfare is down, jobs for the working class are up.

Stunet

Nah, I'm trying to get to the facts

Are you saying that secular giving is similar across states, but, as the study found, the top states in supporting Romney contributed the most in total because of extra church related charitable giving, while Obama's top states gave the least because they give less, in total, through churches?.

...as in,

New Hampshire gives 'x'
Utah gives 'x' + 'y'
Therefore you reckon they give the same.

How is that?

....do you see charitable giving through churches as somehow less real than secular giving?.

No less real but the motivation is different enough to make negate your argument. They're not giving through generosity - as was your point - they're giving because they're either culturally compelled or because it's compulsory.

“Giving to a church is a different kind of giving than giving to other charities,” says Steve Rothschild, founder of a job-training program in Minneapolis.“Giving to a church is 'inward-centered’: You get a personal benefit from it. If you’re giving to an antipoverty program, it’s 'other-centered.’”

"A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire—which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle—weren’t stingy; they were simply nonbelievers."

“New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations,” says Patrick Rooney, the center’s leader, “but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country.”

Blindboy

So you say I'm deluded....and always think I am right.

Are you (always) right about that?.

But I appreciate the sincere and gentle feedback..

(That was a condescending and snide jab at what I, for some unwarranted reason, perceive as your clueless hypocrisy)

You may get your nose bloodied but I give you credit for always having a go.

You are like one of those blow up clowns that always bounce back when you punch them.

Cheers