|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 31, 2016 15:02:18 GMT
Well, self-evident to anyone at all, he is much closer to the latter than the former in so many ways. But I don't like the crudeness of such flip/flop designations. In fact I don't like the crudeness inherent to much of your posting despite having more sympathy to your right wing and populist stance than most on this forum.
Farage is both the tribune and the damage point for UKIP. Trump is exactly the same but in an exaggerated and American form in an old established party rather than a party of his own creation. He is crude, rude and abrasive it would appear at times for its own sake? As if rallying his core stump was more important than a final victory. It is one of the many parts of his campaign that makes no sense to me, but then I am not an American nor am I Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 16:04:16 GMT
Donald Trump, the god of gits.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 31, 2016 16:08:06 GMT
Well, self-evident to anyone at all, he is much closer to the latter than the former in so many ways. But I don't like the crudeness of such flip/flop designations. In fact I don't like the crudeness inherent to much of your posting despite having more sympathy to your right wing and populist stance than most on this forum. Farage is both the tribune and the damage point for UKIP. Trump is exactly the same but in an exaggerated and American form in an old established party rather than a party of his own creation. He is crude, rude and abrasive it would appear at times for its own sake? As if rallying his core stump was more important than a final victory. It is one of the many parts of his campaign that makes no sense to me, but then I am not an American nor am I Trump. To answer the question posted by the thread title, my answer would be that I don't think those categories are necessarily mutually exclusive. I am an old sceptic and a convinced atheist but I am quite sure that they are mutually exclusive, except in a certain literary genre of cynical Greek-style gods with all too human characteristics. I don't think you were referring to that sub genre? The problem lies in the nature of the juxtaposition 'god or git'. No one falls under the one and few under the other, so it is a false choice, except in the crudest manner of stating 'I love him' or 'I hate him'? That is too crude as well as most people don't do hate in reality whatever they may say over a third drink. If you meant 'political saviour/radical/polemicist' versus 'political incompetent/loudmouth/spoiler' then we have a better but far from perfect question, but still with nearly every member of the forum on one side. And no, we are not all socialist and fellow travellers as well you know. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843 
|
Post by Crimson King on Mar 31, 2016 16:25:41 GMT
OK. I think I may have to defend myself
My thread title suggestion was a lighthearted, not to be taken seriously, (when will I learn) suggestion that we could have somewhere for pj to post all his links about how wonderful Trump is, or how his opponents are evil or deluded, and for those who wish to engage with that to respond, without this cluttering the more n-dimensional discussion of the presidential election process on that thread.
Credit where due for it being taken up, but perhaps the thread title's meaning is lost outside the original context
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 31, 2016 17:22:46 GMT
Much like carlton43, it's Trump's utter crudeness that puts me off. For a man who spent his life poncing around flogging luxury or alleged luxury, it's particularly bizarre. That's not to say I'd rather have the terrifying Ted Cruz anywhere near the White House. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 31, 2016 17:46:06 GMT
And no, we are not all socialist and fellow travellers as well you know. Erm, did I ever say you were? I think you have often implied it. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 31, 2016 19:11:07 GMT
I think you have often implied it. If I think that 'conservatives' are adopting SJW attitudes or tactics, tactics that often involve insulting or ridiculing those they deem insufficiently politically correct, then I am fulling justified in insulting and ridiculing those people in return. That doesn't mean such people are closet socialists. For example Richard Allen can be quite aggressively PC at times (although to be fair I think he falls some distance short of having an fully SJW outlook) but he's clearly not remotely near being a socialist. I would describe him as an anti-socialist liberal and he would call himself a conservative. Whether he and those with similar outlook are described as 'liberals', 'liberal conservatives' or just 'conservatives is a semantic question. I'm not disrespecting anyone on the right simply for disagreeing with Trump (or Farage in the UK for that matter). For example the letter below is not simply a letter that disagrees with Trump or even just a letter attacking Trump. This is a SJW letter, it adopts SJW attitudes and tactics  Everyone who has signed this letter has gone full SJW and I'm fully justified in calling that out. Everyone has PC tendencies of a kind, often without knowing it. Richard is like me in different ways by being very lite on PC elements whereas I read you as a doctrinaire PC man yourself quite as bad as the rent-a-moron socialists. You approve and disapprove 'conservatives', statement by statement, issue by issue and person by person. That is pure PC as seen in your own judgmental eyes. Those media women have a personal agenda, a sisterhood agenda, a feminist agenda and an anti-Trump agenda. Most are probably Democrats? It is what they do and what must be expected. Ignore them completely. Never refer to them. If the issue comes up say "Who?" with a genuine frown on face. Learn to play the game Jones, without being shrill, aggressive, rude and coarse. You will then create more effect. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 31, 2016 22:08:41 GMT
Those media women have a personal agenda, a sisterhood agenda, a feminist agenda and an anti-Trump agenda. Most are probably Democrats? It is what they do and what must be expected. Unfortunately all of these women are identified as conservative and/or Republicans. Ignoring this kind of disgraceful behaviour from them is one way to deal with it. Calling it out is another. You can do the former if that's what you think is the best way to deal with it. I will do the latter. Frankly I don't give a toss what they say or do and wonder why it exercises you so much? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 1, 2016 19:19:56 GMT
Those girls are quite a coven jones, and I think I would angle to have them on my side for a raft of reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 2, 2016 9:05:48 GMT
Both strategy and tactics suggest best to ignore fluff and get people either neutral or onside. You and Trump are deficient in tactical efficiency. You grossly irritate potential allies on this site and he does it nationwide. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Apr 2, 2016 10:02:39 GMT
And people wonder why Trump's poll ratings with women voters (even Republicans) are so dreadful.
Still it hardly matters as they are only 53% of likely voters!
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 2, 2016 10:10:14 GMT
Both strategy and tactics suggest best to ignore fluff and get people either neutral or onside. You and Trump are deficient in tactical efficiency. You grossly irritate potential allies on this site and he does it nationwide. Lets look at the facts. Michelle Fields, a woman with a history of throwing around false accusations to call attention to herself attends a Trump press conference. During the lengthy press conference she makes no attempt to ask any questions. After the press conference is over and Trump is making his way to leave she approaches him, passes the secret service guards, makes physical contact with Trump and asks him a (not very relevant) question. Given that Trump is under Secret Service protection (and has received an unusually high number of death threats) her behaviour is clearly completely inappropriate and she is asked repeatedly by the secret service to move away. She fails to do so. Entirely predictably, and quite properly, she is brushed aside by one of Trump's entourage. Field turns to her friend Ben Terris who was following closely behind, observing. They speak Fields "I've been horribly assaulted did you see that" Terris "Yes I did, it was Corey Lewendowski, the cad! You look in bad shape, you'd better call a waaaaaambulance" Fields "Yes I will, I'll call a waaaaaambulance right away". It should be quite obvious to any disinterested observer what has happened here. And yet these women have piled on a character assassination of Lewendowski and called for his livelihood to be taken away. Ignoring them is not going to get them onside. Many, possibly all, of the women pictured above have been expressing hostility to Trump for months. Dana Loesch, Meghan McCain, Katie Pavlich and SE Cupp certainly have. They obviously don't care about the justice or injustice of the situation and are looking for an excuse to bash Trump. Ignoring it or not calling it out is not going to make these kinds of attacks go away. So what? Why bother with them at all? Concentrate on winning friends and influencing people. Do not create enemies or hostages to fortune, especially ones with ability, a pen or a microphone. Positive conversion, goodwill and an ability to rebut with a light touch are well worth cultivating. You and your chum Trump are so leaden and heavy handed on everything. You don't need to continually place everyone in boxes and then label them with rude and coarse labels. Concentrate on what you are saying and converting as many as you can, and ignore the fluff that annoys you on your own side. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 2, 2016 12:26:49 GMT
One enormous promise by a Presidential candidate:
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 2, 2016 12:55:34 GMT
This is electoral politics we are talking about, the facts are irrelevant. Trump has just suffered his worst week of the campaign by a country mile. It has been one monumental screw up after another. The re-tweeted picture of Heidi Cruz was a terrible mistake and doubling down with the "he started it" was just about the most pathetic thing Trump has ever done, it sounds utterly ridiculous and exposes Trump for the petulant little boy that he has. He got utterly skewered on a widely heard Radio interview by Charlie Sykes (one of the most influential conservative voices in Wisconsin) and then again by Anderson Cooper on national television. He charged head long into the abortion trap saying one of the dumbest things imaginable, flipped his position and then partially flipped back. His Campaign Manager has been charged with battery of a woman and the Cruz sex scandal has gone absolutely no where (Trump supporters believe it while Cruz supporters think it is a smear). It looks likely at this point that he will lose Wisconsin which leaves him with only a narrow path to 1,237. The only saving grace for him at the moment is that New York voting on 19th April is a chance for him to regain momentum. That being said if he under performs the high expectations for him in New York it could be close to game over. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 2, 2016 16:44:20 GMT
It may or may not be a display of moral courage but politically it is a dumb move. Rightly or wrongly Lewandowski is damaged goods while he has this charge hanging over him.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Apr 2, 2016 16:49:44 GMT
I am beginning to think that Trump has blown the nomination. There is a growing feeling that it is first ballot or nothing for Trump. There has even been talk that even 1,237 pledged delegates will not be enough to secure the nomination. Many of the notionally pledged Trump delegates will not be supporters. Hence the nuclear option of the convention voting to free all delegates of obligations on the first ballot could be carried, with consequences. Alternatively faithless delegates could vote against Trump in the first ballot.
In any event 1,237 delegates is looking a rather remote prospect for Trump. 538 made a rather optimistic projection of 1,208. He is already 6 down on that projection and that depends on him getting 25 delegates from Wisconsin, where he is 10% behind Cruz in current polling.
Trump needs to do spectacularly well to get anywhere near 1,200 pledged delegates.
What the implications of Trump being denied the nomination in that scenario remain to be seen. It is likely to be very ugly indeed!
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 2, 2016 18:04:33 GMT
It may or may not be a display of moral courage but politically it is a dumb move. Rightly or wrongly Lewandowski is damaged goods while he has this charge hanging over him. Don't you think that it is sometimes good for a candidate to do the right thing even if it doesn't help electorally? Absolutely, but on a major issue of importance, not something silly like this. You seem to see this as some massive battle against dark and evil political forces when in reality it is a minor matter and certainly not one for a presidential candidate to take a hit for. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 2, 2016 20:53:57 GMT
Absolutely, but on a major issue of importance, not something silly like this. You seem to see this as some massive battle against dark and evil political forces when in reality it is a minor matter and certainly not one for a presidential candidate to take a hit for. It might seem like something silly to you but it doesn't seem that way to many other people. The sixteen women who signed the above quoted letter think its serious enough that Lewandowski should have been fired for it as soon as the accusation was made. Are they wrong to take the incident so seriously? Cruz and Kasich think the matter would be serious enough for them to have fired a senior member of their staff over. Are they wrong to think it is so serious? You wouldn't be assuming that Trump will 'take a hit for' this matter unless you thought that many people in the general public considered it to be a serious matter. Criminal charges like this are a serious matter and they deserve a serious response and that is what Trump has made. As for describing SJWs and their allies in the media and the political establishment to be 'dark and evil political forces'. Well if the cap fits. Talk about spectacularly missing the point. The 16 women are playing politics, as are Cruz and Kasich. That's because this is politics and when it comes to the political game Trump has been a massive loser this week. It doesn't matter what his supporters think, or what his enemies think. This plays badly outside of the political bubble, with the type of people that Trump needs to win over. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 2, 2016 23:33:11 GMT
Talk about spectacularly missing the point. The 16 women are playing politics, as are Cruz and Kasich. That's because this is politics and when it comes to the political game Trump has been a massive loser this week. It doesn't matter what his supporters think, or what his enemies think. This plays badly outside of the political bubble, with the type of people that Trump needs to win over. Of course having his campaign manager arrested for battery looks bad for him. That is the reason why Michelle Fields cooked up this incident, beyond, of course, looking for fame and sympathy for herself. The Trump campaign staff can't help it if one of them gets arrested at the instigation of political opponents. As for the suggestion that Trump's response to this incident played badly I don't think it will. Backing down by sacking Lewandowski would not only have been strategically bad, backing down in the face of this kind of attacks from your enemies simply encourages further attacks, but I don't it would have made tactical sense either. Trump has grown his polling numbers by showing strength and not backing down in the face of journalistic and now legal assaults. People may tut tut at some of the things he says but people respect strength shown under fire. To back down against this legal assault would look like weakness to the voters and would be bad for his image. Yes I agree that firing him would have gone against Trump's image so that isn't how you do it. Lewandowski should have maintained his innocence but "stepped down" for the good of the campaign. It is a pretty standard speech "this campaign is too important" etc, etc. It then allows Trump to praise Lewandowski while still looking like he takes such accusations seriously. What you are failing to grasp is that for Trump to win he has to appeal to a wider audience, the voters he has appealed to so far have taken him a long way but might well be insufficient to win him the nominations and will certainly be insufficient to win him the general. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 0:56:24 GMT
ND is highly over represented with 28 delegates vs. 42 in much larger Wisconsin, so a nice little coup if Trump can pull it off.
|
|
