- Reaction score
- 4,154
- Points
- 1,260
I heard he did quite well in the CBThucydides said:
US Election: 2016
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Apparently Newsweek will be publishing an investigative report as a cover piece tomorrow that shows Donald Trump violated the prohibition on companies doing business with Cuba under the embargo. His casino business had dealings in Cuba which were hidden by passing through a front company that would make it appear legal, as long as it was portrayed as a charitable venture.
And to add injury to insult, about 7 months after this violation took place, he made a campaign speech in his 2000 bid under the Reform Party banner to Cuban expats in Miami where he stated he would never do business while Castro was in charge.
If this is indeed true, this will have a huge impact on the race, up to and including possible criminal charges.
And to add injury to insult, about 7 months after this violation took place, he made a campaign speech in his 2000 bid under the Reform Party banner to Cuban expats in Miami where he stated he would never do business while Castro was in charge.
If this is indeed true, this will have a huge impact on the race, up to and including possible criminal charges.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
FJAG and cupper:
My sense of it is, the short form is, it just doesn't matter. Nobody believes nuffink not no how no more. All trust has been lost.
If an official organ utters the information, or if the press utters the information, for many folks that is enough believe that the truth must be the opposite.
Consequently - the more the press beats up on Trump, (or le Pen, or Boris Johnson or Beppe Grillo) the more people are inclined to support him.
If they're agin him, I'm fer 'im.
And I say that with the conviction bred of centuries of dour Scots contrariness.
:cheers:
My sense of it is, the short form is, it just doesn't matter. Nobody believes nuffink not no how no more. All trust has been lost.
If an official organ utters the information, or if the press utters the information, for many folks that is enough believe that the truth must be the opposite.
Consequently - the more the press beats up on Trump, (or le Pen, or Boris Johnson or Beppe Grillo) the more people are inclined to support him.
If they're agin him, I'm fer 'im.
And I say that with the conviction bred of centuries of dour Scots contrariness.
:cheers:
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,624
- Points
- 1,160
Chris Pook said:
Agreed.
I do wonder how we got here because things don't happen in isolation. When I look back in history I can see there were periods of time when the press was horribly slanted (vis newspapers during the US civil war and even further back [I recently read "Alexander Hamilton"]) But there was a long stretch there in the post WWII era when the press was a respected institution (the days of Cronkite et al).
I think very much that the US went trough a phase of liberalism in the last half of the 20th Century that saw a slow but steady acceptance of people who were different from the "normal" component of society - whether for people of colour or sexual orientation or religion or women's equality or abortion etc and the press generally reported that favourably and criticised those who opposed it. That was followed by a growing movement of a fundamentalist Christian backlash which manifested itself into a very strong political movement. (prior to this the Christian right had generally rejected politics as unseemly. Afterwards politics became one of their prime tools to advance their cause of a social conservative agenda). See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
Again in my opinion (and I have not done any research to back it up) there is a link between those who accept religious "facts" on pure faith and those who reject any opposing viewpoints out of hand regardless as to actual evidence that support them (and by that much of what the so-called MSM reports). That's basically where I have parted ways with my earlier republican fiscally conservative roots. When fiscal conservatism turned more into social conservatism, I got off the mule train. I haven't jumped onto the Liberal one because I still reject "tax and spend" as a way of life.
As a practical German, I very much appreciate dour Scots contrariness. Healthy scepticism is a good thing but it has to cut both ways and not blindly follow just one path irrationally.
op::cheers:
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
With respect to the press and respecting the press - in the US there has been a mythology promulgated by the press that they are democracy. They wrote the Constitution after all.
In Britain there is no such tradition. The tabloids in Britain are the true inheritors of the British press freedom. The British press has always been dominated by scurrilous pamphleteers who make a penny peddling influence and scandal.
The US press has usurped the pulpit. It usurped the pulpit in Britain as well, much to the chagrin of both Protestant and Catholic establishments.
The difference between the two countries is that despite the attempts of the establishment to manage quality debates my countrymen in Britain have never been much inclined to give the emperor credit for his new clothes. They prefer their football and beer. And they may give an Empress a look if she shows up on Page 3.
The biggest single divide that I find between my British mob and the Europeans, a division that spans the Atlantic and crosses to Australia, is that in Europe people will, without any sense of irony, describe themselves as an intellectual. No self-respecting Brit, except for the occasional Guardianista, would ever contemplate that. They would be laughed right out of their pub.
The Brit's lack of regard for intellectuals, experts, the elite, professionals, is of longstanding and cuts across all class lines and all regions.
Lawyers and accountants are not highly regarded. And politicians are nothing more than another species of London lawyer - hired to argue cases at Westminster instead of down the road at the Old Bailey.
In Britain there is no such tradition. The tabloids in Britain are the true inheritors of the British press freedom. The British press has always been dominated by scurrilous pamphleteers who make a penny peddling influence and scandal.
The US press has usurped the pulpit. It usurped the pulpit in Britain as well, much to the chagrin of both Protestant and Catholic establishments.
The difference between the two countries is that despite the attempts of the establishment to manage quality debates my countrymen in Britain have never been much inclined to give the emperor credit for his new clothes. They prefer their football and beer. And they may give an Empress a look if she shows up on Page 3.
The biggest single divide that I find between my British mob and the Europeans, a division that spans the Atlantic and crosses to Australia, is that in Europe people will, without any sense of irony, describe themselves as an intellectual. No self-respecting Brit, except for the occasional Guardianista, would ever contemplate that. They would be laughed right out of their pub.
The Brit's lack of regard for intellectuals, experts, the elite, professionals, is of longstanding and cuts across all class lines and all regions.
Lawyers and accountants are not highly regarded. And politicians are nothing more than another species of London lawyer - hired to argue cases at Westminster instead of down the road at the Old Bailey.
- Reaction score
- 4,154
- Points
- 1,260
What a difference a letter makes :facepalm: to mecupper said:
Meanwhile ...
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Points
- 1,160
Oh good! Rex Murphy promises that the election entertainment will not end with the November election.
Snowbirds, consider staying north this winter.
Snowbirds, consider staying north this winter.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-think-the-u-s-election-campaign-has-been-bad-so-far-things-will-get-worse-the-morning-after-the-vote
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,624
- Points
- 1,160
MCG said:
No. No. I quite like the States and Americans in general. The funny thing is that when you deal with them as individuals on a day to day basis, most of them can be quite charming. The extremes that you see on TV simply aren't there overtly. Hell, I even eat at Chik-fil-a (except on Sundays of course) Besides, I still have a lot of my Disney World and Sea World annual passes to use.
On top of that, one should never underestimate the lethargy of the civil service and their ability to slow down the implementation of either good or bad policy initiatives. My guess is that it would be years before we see any changes which would impact us Snowbirds.
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
It was inevitable Trump would go after Bill on the home/final stretch of the election:
Canadian Press
Canadian Press
- Reaction score
- 4,258
- Points
- 1,260
FJAG said:
As I have explained to my American co-workers, Canada has a reputation as being nice, and in the aggregate, we are, As individuals though, we can be assholes. America is the opposite. As individuals they are very nice, but as a country they are assholes...
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,635
- Points
- 1,040
The US is a two-party nation federally, with the population divided close to 50/50 on most major issues and along the general progressive/conservative fault line.
When the minority party in the Senate blocks legislative change or contentious appointments which must be confirmed by the Senate, or the majority party in the House or Senate declines to co-operate with the wishes of a president of the opposing party, that is a reflection of the divide. Contrary to the opinions of those who think it some sort of moral failing if Red Team refuses to move along Blue Team's vector or vice versa, at this time it is appropriate for status quo to be maintained. If there is no popular concensus for major change, there should be none.
If a party finds the means to effect major change against the wishes of roughly half the population (I would put the threshold for concensus for major change at about 70%), increased social and political tension should be the expected result.
The Democrats have found the means: own the presidency, and refuse to challenge the president from Congress - and work to prevent Republicans from effectively doing so - when the president oversteps his powers.
To own the presidency for more than two terms generates a requirement to buck strong historical trends, foremost among which is the general desire of the people to switch teams every couple of terms. Increasing desperation should be expected to lead to increasing resort to outright disinformation/propaganda and vote fraud.
The media no longer enjoy the privilege of deciding what gets widespread public attention and what does not. Information that they would prefer to suppress slips out; people read it (or digests of it, which need not necessarily be entirely accurate), ask why it didn't get major coverage, and conclude the establishment media are not to be trusted. The pamphleteering model of information control and distribution does not work in the internet age.
Similarly, politicians should not expect to be able to modify a position or embellish an untruth or partial truth successfully. The entire trail is preserved online, where it is also helpfully summarized in single articles for the convenience of readers who need not search the web to piece together the evolution of a lie. People conclude the politicians who attempt such revisionism are not to be trusted.
An additional term of the Democratic experiment with executive authority will further increase tension and frustration. This should be expected to promote more extreme attitudes. So many people thought it impossible for Trump to advance as far as he has. What grounds are there to conclude that caution-to-the-winds, throw-the-establishment-bastards-out attitudes can only support a populist this far and no further?
Trump is not the risk. The risk is the next more extreme candidate after Trump, combined with a greater number of people motivated by fear, frustration, anger, rumour, ignorance - deride them using any adjectives you please; they must nevertheless be dealt with.
When the minority party in the Senate blocks legislative change or contentious appointments which must be confirmed by the Senate, or the majority party in the House or Senate declines to co-operate with the wishes of a president of the opposing party, that is a reflection of the divide. Contrary to the opinions of those who think it some sort of moral failing if Red Team refuses to move along Blue Team's vector or vice versa, at this time it is appropriate for status quo to be maintained. If there is no popular concensus for major change, there should be none.
If a party finds the means to effect major change against the wishes of roughly half the population (I would put the threshold for concensus for major change at about 70%), increased social and political tension should be the expected result.
The Democrats have found the means: own the presidency, and refuse to challenge the president from Congress - and work to prevent Republicans from effectively doing so - when the president oversteps his powers.
To own the presidency for more than two terms generates a requirement to buck strong historical trends, foremost among which is the general desire of the people to switch teams every couple of terms. Increasing desperation should be expected to lead to increasing resort to outright disinformation/propaganda and vote fraud.
The media no longer enjoy the privilege of deciding what gets widespread public attention and what does not. Information that they would prefer to suppress slips out; people read it (or digests of it, which need not necessarily be entirely accurate), ask why it didn't get major coverage, and conclude the establishment media are not to be trusted. The pamphleteering model of information control and distribution does not work in the internet age.
Similarly, politicians should not expect to be able to modify a position or embellish an untruth or partial truth successfully. The entire trail is preserved online, where it is also helpfully summarized in single articles for the convenience of readers who need not search the web to piece together the evolution of a lie. People conclude the politicians who attempt such revisionism are not to be trusted.
An additional term of the Democratic experiment with executive authority will further increase tension and frustration. This should be expected to promote more extreme attitudes. So many people thought it impossible for Trump to advance as far as he has. What grounds are there to conclude that caution-to-the-winds, throw-the-establishment-bastards-out attitudes can only support a populist this far and no further?
Trump is not the risk. The risk is the next more extreme candidate after Trump, combined with a greater number of people motivated by fear, frustration, anger, rumour, ignorance - deride them using any adjectives you please; they must nevertheless be dealt with.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
Brad Sallows said:
Brad,
The only quibble I would have with your post is in the first line - "...with the (voting) population divided....."
I continue to believe that the rise of Trump is connected to the continued decrease in the voting population and the re-engagement of those many who had become frustrated with the sterile debates of the Clinton-Kennedy faction and the Bush family. I believe they are becoming re-engaged in large part because they feel they can no longer leave their lives to the vagaries of people who argue loudly about nothing for the sole purpose of controlling contracts.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,875
- Points
- 1,160
I don't see Trumph winning. The US is a business built on exporting war. Trump seems to head strong to do what he's told when other kingpins are making money. Clinton seems like she knows enough to not get in the way of business. Trump is too much of a business man to be a business man who masquerades as a politician.
