Trump thread,gone ??

Florestan posted:

Well, if this is humour then I give up.

On all threads? Please, don't tease!

Florestan posted:

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?  OK, I'll ask again.  If everyone has the power to know the difference between right and wrong on their own then how do you explain this one?

Is saying, "I have thought about blowing up the White House" or others "someone should assassinate the President" humorous or political or something else?

"Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head," Trump said. "I said, ‘You can take the hand away, okay?’ "

"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice," Trump added.

Humorous, political or something else?

Florestan posted:

Eloise posted:

@Florestan it’s true that not all liberals are as liberal as they might claim to be, but that doesn’t mean that liberal values are bad.  A liberal society is something I believe we should still be working towards and while there are pot holes which have caused frustrations the more liberal, open and tolerant we are the better the world will be.  

Tolerance does work both ways, but that doesn’t mean that as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance and discrimination towards others.  Equally tolerance doesn’t mean that I won’t challenge your views.

PS. I think Madonna’s “offer” was made in an attempt to be humourous and those saying they would leave the country were making political statements.

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?  OK, I'll ask again.  If everyone has the power to know the difference between right and wrong on their own then how do you explain this one?

Is saying, "I have thought about blowing up the White House" or others "someone should assassinate the President" humorous or political or something else?

Leaving out whether or not Madonna's statement was "sick and morally bankrupt", explaining the morality, nuance, subtext, and intent of statements such as this, as well as the nature of celebrity, and the breadth of socio-political reaction, is exactly the sort of thing  parents should be doing. Dare I say it is an obligation that parents have. A much worse reaction would be to simply tell your kids that Madonna is the devil because the baby jeebus says so. If coping with your children's reaction to statements like this is a problem to you, then you have no business being a parent.

Adam Meredith posted:

Florestan posted:

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?  OK, I'll ask again.  If everyone has the power to know the difference between right and wrong on their own then how do you explain this one?

Is saying, "I have thought about blowing up the White House" or others "someone should assassinate the President" humorous or political or something else?

"Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head," Trump said. "I said, ‘You can take the hand away, okay?’ "

"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice," Trump added.

Humorous, political or something else?

Locker room talk. Nothing to see here, move along.....

Adam Meredith posted:

Florestan posted:

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?  OK, I'll ask again.  If everyone has the power to know the difference between right and wrong on their own then how do you explain this one?

Is saying, "I have thought about blowing up the White House" or others "someone should assassinate the President" humorous or political or something else?

"Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head," Trump said. "I said, ‘You can take the hand away, okay?’ "

"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice," Trump added.

Humorous, political or something else?

Common sense?

Florestan posted:

Adam Meredith posted:

Florestan posted:

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?

 

Humorous, political or something else?

Common sense?

And how about...

You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.

Grab them by the p***y, you can do anything.

Just common sense too ... how would you explain that to a kid?

How about the appropriateness of...

Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father...

Or explain why these are are being spoken by the President of the USA...

"@timjcam: @megynkelly @FrankLuntz @realDonaldTrump Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly will consider other programs!"

.@ariannahuff is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision.

"@ForeverMcIn: @realDonaldTrump how much would it take for you to make out with Rosie O'Donnell?" One trillion, at least!

Or are all these just "banter"?

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

Eloise posted:

@Florestan it’s true that not all liberals are as liberal as they might claim to be, but that doesn’t mean that liberal values are bad.  A liberal society is something I believe we should still be working towards and while there are pot holes which have caused frustrations the more liberal, open and tolerant we are the better the world will be.  

Tolerance does work both ways, but that doesn’t mean that as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance and discrimination towards others.  Equally tolerance doesn’t mean that I won’t challenge your views.

PS. I think Madonna’s “offer” was made in an attempt to be humourous and those saying they would leave the country were making political statements.

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?  OK, I'll ask again.  If everyone has the power to know the difference between right and wrong on their own then how do you explain this one?

Is saying, "I have thought about blowing up the White House" or others "someone should assassinate the President" humorous or political or something else?

Leaving out whether or not Madonna's statement was "sick and morally bankrupt", explaining the morality, nuance, subtext, and intent of statements such as this, as well as the nature of celebrity, and the breadth of socio-political reaction, is exactly the sort of thing  parents should be doing. Dare I say it is an obligation that parents have. A much worse reaction would be to simply tell your kids that Madonna is the devil because the baby jeebus says so. If coping with your children's reaction to statements like this is a problem to you, then you have no business being a parent.

Were you accepting of the Trump / Billy Bush 'locker room' talk on the bus tapes?

Maybe you felt it was the nature of celebrity and the breadth of socio-political reaction and figured out the nuance, subtext and intent?  If you have young kids I'm sure you had a good laugh over this one (nudge, nudge, wink(y), wink(y)) but then they might ask you why you 'hate' someone like Donald Trump so much and idolize Madonna? 

No double standards from Winky and his household.

Eloise posted:

Florestan posted:

Adam Meredith posted:

Florestan posted:

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?

 

Humorous, political or something else?

Common sense?

And how about...

You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.

Grab them by the p***y, you can do anything.

Just common sense too ... how would you explain that to a kid?

Eloise, same reply to Winky above and is my point exactly.  I do not condone either Madonna or Trump's words here and have never said otherwise inconsistently.

But according to Winky, if I can't handle Madonna's words then their is something wrong with me then he is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when it comes to his judgements of others and his singular ability to sort right from wrong.

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

Eloise posted:

@Florestan it’s true that not all liberals are as liberal as they might claim to be, but that doesn’t mean that liberal values are bad.  A liberal society is something I believe we should still be working towards and while there are pot holes which have caused frustrations the more liberal, open and tolerant we are the better the world will be.  

Tolerance does work both ways, but that doesn’t mean that as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance and discrimination towards others.  Equally tolerance doesn’t mean that I won’t challenge your views.

PS. I think Madonna’s “offer” was made in an attempt to be humourous and those saying they would leave the country were making political statements.

Well, if this is humour then I give up.  Can you imagine if you have kids and would like to teach them why it is important to vote or a kid that has just become of age to vote and you have to explain why Madonna's statement (no matter her intent) is just plain sick and morally bankrupt?  OK, I'll ask again.  If everyone has the power to know the difference between right and wrong on their own then how do you explain this one?

Is saying, "I have thought about blowing up the White House" or others "someone should assassinate the President" humorous or political or something else?

Leaving out whether or not Madonna's statement was "sick and morally bankrupt", explaining the morality, nuance, subtext, and intent of statements such as this, as well as the nature of celebrity, and the breadth of socio-political reaction, is exactly the sort of thing  parents should be doing. Dare I say it is an obligation that parents have. A much worse reaction would be to simply tell your kids that Madonna is the devil because the baby jeebus says so. If coping with your children's reaction to statements like this is a problem to you, then you have no business being a parent.

Were you accepting of the Trump / Billy Bush 'locker room' talk on the bus tapes?

Maybe you felt it was the nature of celebrity and the breadth of socio-political reaction and figured out the nuance, subtext and intent?  If you have young kids I'm sure you had a good laugh over this one (nudge, nudge, wink(y), wink(y)) but then they might ask you why you 'hate' someone like Donald Trump so much and idolize Madonna? 

No double standards from Winky and his household.

Again, what are you talking about? I didn't say whether I "accepted" anything. I actually said "leaving out" judgement on the issue. I'm just saying it is the role of the parents to explain these sorts of things, regardless of whether they think these things to be good or bad. It is not acceptable to simply dismiss them as "sins" just because some ancient text has been interpreted as saying so without further discussion.

You seem to imply by your use of the "imagine if you have to" that these sorts of discussions with children are inappropriate or difficult. Nothing is further from the truth. I don't have to "imagine" discussing morally deficient or ambiguous issues with my children. As parents, we see it as part of our obligation and do it regularly.

What is also interesting to explain to kids is why the Precedent of the US tacitly approved of, of not incited, police brutality against suspects, in front of an assembly of policemen. More interesting again to explain, is why he received a cheer. These things have significant moral and societal implications. They are complex and not easily resolved nor dismissed. Your world of black and white is abhorrent to me.

I think I'm going to sign off from this thread as well. There's nothing here for me. Enjoy your tea-party.

Winky, what is happening to you?

Haim Ronen posted:

Winky, what is happening to you?

Florestan has trolled me.  I feel a fool.

winkyincanada posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

Winky, what is happening to you?

Florestan has trolled me.  I feel a fool.

Winky,

I don't think you should feel a fool, just because you choose to refute the irrational arguments of someone who presents as a US supremacist from the radical right trying to create chaos, anger and confusion in others to justify that position (very possibly to themselves, even though they don't realise this yet).  Looking at his posts they haven't been a trail of breadcrumbs (the specific mark of trolling), it's just that any time a position he's taken on a specific has been shown to be logically flawed he's shut up and moved on to a new equally (or even more) specific subject.

These philosophies can't be allowed free rain again, it's still good to put up counter arguments to this type of persistent irrational philosophy.  Look at the result caused by the mass rise of this type of politics last time (as happened in the 1930s): You're right to fight against that whenever they appear, whether the person concerned is trolling or not.

Huge posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

Winky, what is happening to you?

Florestan has trolled me.  I feel a fool.

 .................        These philosophies can't be allowed free rain again, it's still good to put up counter arguments to this type of persistent irrational philosophy.  Look at the result caused by the mass rise of this type of politics last time (as happened in the 1930s): You're right to fight against that whenever they appear, whether the person concerned is trolling or not.

Or treat 'it' like a troll anyway,  & DON'T FEED TROLLS

Mike,

When it comes to the politics of division, hate politics rides on it's coat tails; and that is just too destructive to ignore.  While the arguments presented superficially seem to be persuasive (at least to a significant portion of the population, primarily due to the inherent negativity bias in human psychology), the people who promote these ideas seek to convince the more centre aligned people to accept this philosophy as justified even if those influenced don't actually commit to it.  In this way they reduce the opposition and can then start peddling their message of hate.

This is why this has to opposed whenever it rears it's ugly head.  As has been stated...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
[anon, but usually attributed to Burke]

This was certainly the case in the 1930s.

I 'get' your reasoning Huge,  & I have to commend you & others for opposing this kind of garbage.   I just consider it to be a never ending battle,  even if you were to succeed in 'converting' this one,  there are 10's of million others with the same (& worse) ideology.    

Mike-B posted:

I 'get' your reasoning Huge,  & I have to commend you & others for opposing this kind of garbage.   I just consider it to be a never ending battle,  even if you were to succeed in 'converting' this one,  there are 10's of million others with the same (& worse) ideology.    

Mike, we'll never convert any of the protagonists, but by refuting their 'rationale' we can hopefully stop them converting others and spreading the politics of division, and the "righteous" hatred that follows.  With luck we may prevent then getting to critical mass in places other than the US (too late there for the next 4 years at least).

The last thing I want is another nuclear war (and don't forget that the US is the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons).

sjbabbey posted:

Perhaps Naim have been influenced by SeattleNaim's threat not to buy their stuff anymore.

My faith in NAIM had been restored with the rational decision to end a very polarizing thread.  I'm not about to jump back into this kind of "discussion" here again so don't worry.  I doubt I had anything to do with the demise of the now infamous thread, but I'm grateful NAIM called it a day. 

back to the music! 

SeattleNaim posted:

sjbabbey posted:

Perhaps Naim have been influenced by SeattleNaim's threat not to buy their stuff anymore.

My faith in NAIM had been restored with the rational decision to end a very polarizing thread.  I'm not about to jump back into this kind of "discussion" here again so don't worry.  I doubt I had anything to do with the demise of the now infamous thread, but I'm grateful NAIM called it a day. 

back to the music! 

It might have been SeattleNaim's complaint that caused the thread to be pulled out but I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of numerous UK members who took pleasure in competing with each other in who could come up with more toxic insults and name calling of the US president. Eventually, it became so embarrassingly ugly that the moderator had no choice but remove the whole thing. It is a pity that so much writing by such a diverse forum membership is gone.

Haim Ronen posted:

SeattleNaim posted:

sjbabbey posted:

Perhaps Naim have been influenced by SeattleNaim's threat not to buy their stuff anymore.

My faith in NAIM had been restored with the rational decision to end a very polarizing thread.  I'm not about to jump back into this kind of "discussion" here again so don't worry.  I doubt I had anything to do with the demise of the now infamous thread, but I'm grateful NAIM called it a day. 

back to the music! 

It might have been SeattleNaim's complaint that caused the thread to be pulled out but I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of numerous UK members who took pleasure in competing with each other in who could come up with more toxic insults and name calling of the US president. Eventually, it became so embarrassingly ugly that the moderator had no choice but remove the whole thing. It is a pity that so much writing by such a diverse forum membership is gone.

Let's just provide some balance as this cuts both ways...

Maybe that was the reason, but equally maybe the reason was the irrational and aggressive nature of the defence by some of the US posters and the result toxic nature of personal insults delivered by them to some of the European members of the forum.

Maybe it was both.

Richard doesn't reveal reasons for moderation decisions - and that's a very wise policy on his part.

i learnt a lot from the Trump thread -- and even this residual thread continues to provide useful insights into whats happening in the US -- (and probably other countries too) -- and the views and attitudes of various posters here. to me, actually explain a hell of a lot -- but leaves me somewhat "uncomfortable"....

enjoy

ken

I miss the Trump thread and, with recent developments,  it clearly has some room to run.  I would not shut it down.  I have enjoyed the back and forth and have not been offended by any of it.   I love the way Mr. T makes the liberal heads fill with rage and explode.  They troll him and he responds in kind.   To be candid, I think you guys who have been offended by it, particularly you Americans,  have an unduly thin skin.   I will continue to buy Naim products and will buy a Statement --at least the preamp---when my ship comes in regardless of what comes of the thread.   In my world, we have learned to disagree without being disagreeable.  I defy you to hurt my feelings.    I welcome any and all if you are ever over this way.

Well, the Trump thread may be gone, but the increasingly erratic and irrational acts by Trump himself continue, as do the irrational and knee jerk responses by those who spring to action in his support at every conceivable opportunity and seek to defend the indefensible. 

I see today that Trump and his administration appear to be considering the out and out 'privatisation' of war. Sebastian Gorka and Erik Prince (the former head of Blackwater) are looking at the possibility of the replacement of US Troops currently based in Afghanistan by private companies (whose employees apparently should not be labelled as 'mercenaries', but as 'skilled operatives'). When asked if these 'operatives' (mercenaries) would be recruited from the US, the response from Prince was that some of them could be recruited from ex servicemen the US, but that they could also be recruited from other countries around the world with skilled and experienced people in this field.

According to Prince, General Macmaster is opposed to the idea, but the idea is favoured by Gork and others, and appears to be gaining favour with Donald Trump himself. Prince claims that private companies would succeed against the Taliban where the US Military has failed. 

Let us hope that this idea will be rejected in its entirety by the Trump administration - at least Kelly (whatever his political views) does appear to have a little integrity and substance, and I hope that he will be opposed to this proposal. However, does anyone else feel that even the slightest prospect of the US openly outsourcing its wars to private companies and mercenaries is more than a little sinister and frightening? Or perhaps, given the nature of this and the former 'Trump' thread (where the same two or three apologists for Trump regularly pop up to defend him against each and every criticism, no matter what), I should ask if there is anyone out there who thinks this a good idea, a natural progression of a 'free market' philosophy and the increasingly far right ideology of those in the Trump, FOX and Breitbart camp in the States. If this proposal does indeed go ahead, where will the accountability lie? Will there be any? I would certainly not trust Blackwater and its personnel, nor for that matter any other gangs of private mercenaries, to behave 'responsibly' in areas of conflict, given that money and private gain would be the only motives for their being there in the first place.  

Now, is my last paragraph written in a 'fair and balanced' way in order to give this outrageous idea a fair chance, or do I openly display my prejudice against it. You are absolutely right I do. Mercenaries have been employed by a number of countries (Saudi Arabia and a few others spring to mind), and mercenaries from companies like Blackwater have been used to some extent in Afghanistan before, but I am not aware of the US or other allied countries openly recruiting private companies and their mercenaries to replace its military and conduct its warfare openly on a wholescale basis. 

Maybe even Trump will not be able to stomach this proposal, or is this just too much to hope for? 

How long before the "Trump thread gone" thread is removed, and replaced with a "Trump thread gone thread gone" thread?

Latest utterance: "They [N Korea] will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

That should calm things down nicely 

With Trump,  he may do it.

Something like the Operation Opera (Babylon) carried out by the Israeli would be a better option than strong, crude words.