President Trump

[KPXBLN]

That's a false dichotomy, it's not critical race theory, intersectionality and DEI on one hand and Jim Crow, 1950s on the other.

I would suggest that critical race theory, intersectionality and DEI exacerbates racial conflict by making everything about race.

without googling, can you name a single scholar who is known for writing about critical race theory or intersectionality, and/or can you describe what those things actually mean?

 

[TinFoilHat]

She's polite and respectful yet the Mango Shitgibbon sets his hounds onto her. Thousands of death threats in the past 24 hours.

 

[blue for life]

My view is there would be violence short term but it would simmer out. He's just prolonging the tensions now.

The loons on the far right will think it’s Christmas. They must be itching for it to kick off

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

She's polite and respectful yet the Mango Shitgibbon sets his hounds onto her. Thousands of death threats in the past 24 hours.

Christians making death threats to another Christian for asking for compassion for vulnerable people just about sums it all up.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

It won’t be better though. It will further increase those divisions. In a very violent way.

He'd also be immortalised as a modern day saint or martyr - can't happen as it would just be manipulated into a way of keeping the divisions alive.

He needs to be taken down for some of his more grotesque misdemeanors (whatever they are) so that he can't be revered as some sort of prophet.........

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

She's polite and respectful yet the Mango Shitgibbon sets his hounds onto her. Thousands of death threats in the past 24 hours.

Is the little priest chap on the left from one of the genders he's banned?

 

[grunge]

Is the little priest chap on the left from one of the genders he's banned?

Well she is married to a bloke and has 2 sons so no.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The liberal left has lost its shit in here.

A Bishop makes a political speech and heads explode if you state that simple fact. And why? Coz so many people in here believe her, but more than that they believe she was speaking to an absolute and irrevocable truth! But she wasn't, she spoke to a belief system so hard wired amongst liberal/progressives that the idea that someone might say no is an anathema. Well hello! millions have just said no, liberals may not like it, I may not like it, but it is a fact.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to live in a world where you can say no, a world where you can say I do not agree.

I've already made reference to aspects of the speech that were clearly political that no one has bothered to refute, but I'm not surprised. Everywhere the left has done the same in the face of a right wing surge. In the States the laughingly self titled hard left is engaged in a purity test, anyone seeking dialogue with the Trumpian devils is a sell out, and the corporate democrats are simply confused, their donors don't call any more. The only thing that unites them is they despise those that voted for Trump and and happily engage 24/7 in disparaging them.

In the UK Labour is in government, but the feeling is it's not in power, the zeitgeist is moving right, it just doesn't have a home yet. The left despise Starmer and f**k around playing purity games so beloved by the likes of Owen Jones, meanwhile in Whitehall the Blairites around Starmer look lost.

Everywhere social democracy is in a crisis, the old tricks don't work, you know, economically conservative, socially liberal. Well that economic conservatism hasn't delivered on jobs, homes and inflation, and as social democrats are supposed to deliver these things for their traditional blue collar voters, they've had to knit together a more fragile electoral base that has increasingly tilted to a patchwork quilt of minorities. Then along comes a charlatan, points at those minorities, tells those blue collar workers they're to blame and bingo! You've bought yourself a massive constituency!

The minorities are not to blame, but they do use their leverage in the new Social Democratic base to extract concessions, they become interest groups, very powerful interest groups and in the blink of an eye there's a whole raft of initiatives that we all must pay lip service to, yet almost no one believes.

But the moral of this story is not persecuted minorities, its the downtrodden masses, you know? The ones most folk in here seem to hate, you know, the ones who in large numbers voted Trump.

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

She's polite and respectful yet the Mango Shitgibbon sets his hounds onto her. Thousands of death threats in the past 24 hours.

I’m not religious at all, but I could listen to her all day long.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The liberal left has lost its shit in here.

A Bishop makes a political speech and heads explode if you state that simple fact. And why? Coz so many people in here believe her, but more than that they believe she was speaking to an absolute and irrevocable truth! But she wasn't, she spoke to a belief system so hard wired amongst liberal/progressives that the idea that someone might say no is an anathema. Well hello! millions have just said no, liberals may not like it, I may not like it, but it is a fact.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to live in a world where you can say no, a world where you can say I do not agree.

I've already made reference to aspects of the speech that were clearly political that no one has bothered to refute, but I'm not surprised. Everywhere the left has done the same in the face of a right wing surge. In the States the laughingly self titled hard left is engaged in a purity test, anyone seeking dialogue with the Trumpian devils is a sell out, and the corporate democrats are simply confused, their donors don't call any more. The only thing that unites them is they despise those that voted for Trump and and happily engage 24/7 in disparaging them.

In the UK Labour is in government, but the feeling is it's not in power, the zeitgeist is moving right, it just doesn't have a home yet. The left despise Starmer and f**k around playing purity games so beloved by the likes of Owen Jones, meanwhile in Whitehall the Blairites around Starmer look lost.

Everywhere social democracy is in a crisis, the old tricks don't work, you know, economically conservative, socially liberal. Well that economic conservatism hasn't delivered on jobs, homes and inflation, and as social democrats are supposed to deliver these things for their traditional blue collar voters, they've had to knit together a more fragile electoral base that has increasingly tilted to a patchwork quilt of minorities. Then along comes a charlatan, points at those minorities, tells those blue collar workers they're to blame and bingo! You've bought yourself a massive constituency!

The minorities are not to blame, but they do use their leverage in the new Social Democratic base to extract concessions, they become interest groups, very powerful interest groups and in the blink of an eye there's a whole raft of initiatives that we all must pay lip service to, yet almost no one believes.

But the moral of this story is not persecuted minorities, its the downtrodden masses, you know? The ones most folk in here seem to hate, you know, the ones who in large numbers voted Trump.

I think you make some perfectly valid points, and it’s absolutely correct to say that ‘the West’ is in crisis, broadly existential, which is ultimately down to its decline, which is most likely irreversible. You have previously articulated this, and articulated it well. I accept Trump is a symptom of all that, and that it is understandable that people are going to look for alternatives, and sometimes severe ones, to the status quo when they do not like the direction their society is heading.

But none of the above militates against what a horrible, spiteful, graceless, vengeful **** he is, who is actually going to make the situation worse, not better. And people are entitled (and should be expected to) comment on that.

Just because sacking Alan Ball was the right thing to do, it didn’t make appointing Frank Clarke the solution.

 

[KS55]

I think it has taken not much more than 24 hours for Trump to irrevocably spend what little political capital he had. He now has just until the mid terms before he becomes a lame duck, unable to enact anything at all.
He has demonstrated in the office of President that he has not one ounce of morality, of compassion, of understanding. He is a busted flush.

 

[The perfect fumble]

And he’s been enabled by the American people. They have literally chosen to increase the divisions in their society.

They have.

But Trump didn't create those divisions, he simply exploited them.

There's much talk in left leaning circles that the USA is becoming a failed state, but that assumes, not unlike the Make America Great Again crowd (though I suspect for different reasons) that there was a time when it wasn't.

When was this imperfect union a little less imperfect?

 

[frothy]

I think it has taken not much more than 24 hours for Trump to irrevocably spend what little political capital he had. He now has just until the mid terms before he becomes a lame duck, unable to enact anything at all.
He has demonstrated in the office of President that he has not one ounce of morality, of compassion, of understanding. He is a busted flush.

FFS

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

They have.

But Trump didn't create those divisions, he simply exploited them.

There's much talk in left leaning circles that the USA is becoming a failed state, but that assumes, not unlike the Make America Great Again crowd (though I suspect for different reasons) that there was a time when it wasn't.

When was this imperfect union a little less imperfect?

Agreed on the provenance of the divisions. They have always been there to some extent tbf (as with any society) but have unquestionably been considerably accentuated during the rise of social media. Whether the two are directly related is debatable, and it’s a hugely nuanced issue, but it’s certainly a significant contributing factor imo.

As to your question at the end of your post - I guess the Civil War is the straightforward answer, but that was essentially a single issue and these divisions are far more complex than that.

I don’t agree it’s always been a failed state though. For most of the second half of the last century it was a highly functioning and broadly cohesive society.

Edit - misread your question - although I’ve answered it at the end of mine in any event!

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I think it has taken not much more than 24 hours for Trump to irrevocably spend what little political capital he had. He now has just until the mid terms before he becomes a lame duck, unable to enact anything at all.
He has demonstrated in the office of President that he has not one ounce of morality, of compassion, of understanding. He is a busted flush.

He was like this before, promised to be like this again, and Americans voted for him.

I came to the conclusion that this is what a majority of Americans want.

 

[bluejon]

The liberal left has lost its shit in here.

A Bishop makes a political speech and heads explode if you state that simple fact. And why? Coz so many people in here believe her, but more than that they believe she was speaking to an absolute and irrevocable truth! But she wasn't, she spoke to a belief system so hard wired amongst liberal/progressives that the idea that someone might say no is an anathema. Well hello! millions have just said no, liberals may not like it, I may not like it, but it is a fact.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to live in a world where you can say no, a world where you can say I do not agree.

I've already made reference to aspects of the speech that were clearly political that no one has bothered to refute, but I'm not surprised. Everywhere the left has done the same in the face of a right wing surge. In the States the laughingly self titled hard left is engaged in a purity test, anyone seeking dialogue with the Trumpian devils is a sell out, and the corporate democrats are simply confused, their donors don't call any more. The only thing that unites them is they despise those that voted for Trump and and happily engage 24/7 in disparaging them.

In the UK Labour is in government, but the feeling is it's not in power, the zeitgeist is moving right, it just doesn't have a home yet. The left despise Starmer and f**k around playing purity games so beloved by the likes of Owen Jones, meanwhile in Whitehall the Blairites around Starmer look lost.

Everywhere social democracy is in a crisis, the old tricks don't work, you know, economically conservative, socially liberal. Well that economic conservatism hasn't delivered on jobs, homes and inflation, and as social democrats are supposed to deliver these things for their traditional blue collar voters, they've had to knit together a more fragile electoral base that has increasingly tilted to a patchwork quilt of minorities. Then along comes a charlatan, points at those minorities, tells those blue collar workers they're to blame and bingo! You've bought yourself a massive constituency!

The minorities are not to blame, but they do use their leverage in the new Social Democratic base to extract concessions, they become interest groups, very powerful interest groups and in the blink of an eye there's a whole raft of initiatives that we all must pay lip service to, yet almost no one believes.

But the moral of this story is not persecuted minorities, its the downtrodden masses, you know? The ones most folk in here seem to hate, you know, the ones who in large numbers voted Trump.

Surely the fact that the message of Jesus is meant to be one of compassion and understanding means that she was merely repeating the tenets of the religion that she was dressed up to represent, in a church that is in the name of that religion? I'm not religious at all, and I agree with a significant amount of your comments on the liberal left and how it has completely disappeared up its own collective arse, but this was a sermon. Calling it political misses the point of what Christianity is supposed to represent. Was she supposed to completely ignore the primary message of the religion she represents just to make Trump happy? That would then be political, she didn't do that.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He was like this before, promised to be like this again, and Americans voted for him.

I came to the conclusion that this is what a majority of Americans want.

There is no other logical conclusion to draw.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Surely the fact that the message of Jesus is meant to be one of compassion and understanding means that she was merely repeating the tenets of the religion that she was dressed up to represent, in a church that is in the name of that religion? I'm not religious at all, and I agree with a significant amount of your comments on the liberal left and how it has completely disappeared up its own collective arse, but this was a sermon. Calling it political misses the point of what Christianity is supposed to represent. Was she supposed to completely ignore the primary message of the religion she represents just to make Trump happy? That would then be political, she didn't do that.

Trump is a politician.

He's also a malevolent, hate filled and vindictive criminal, found culpable for rape and constantly bullying vulnerable people.

Not mentioning these things in a speech amounts to turning a blind eye in order to support Trump, so is political.

Mentioning these things is oppositon to Trump, so is political.

It's literally impossible to make a speech in front of Trump which would not be characterised as political.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I think you make some perfectly valid points, and it’s absolutely correct to say that ‘the West’ is in crisis, broadly existential, which is ultimately down to its decline, which is most likely irreversible. You have previously articulated this, and articulated it well. I accept Trump is a symptom of all that, and that it is understandable that people are going to look for alternatives, and sometimes severe ones, to the status quo when they do not like the direction their society is heading.

But none of the above militates against what a horrible, spiteful, graceless, vengeful **** he is, who is actually going to make the situation worse, not better. And people are entitled (and should be expected to) comment on that.

Just because sacking Alan Ball was the right thing to do, it didn’t make appointing Frank Clarke the solution.

That last line made me smile.

One thing did unite Alan Ball and Frank Clarke though, they both knew the rules of the game and they both knew what success on the field looked like, they just couldn't coach it.

That's not the case in politics.

In politics lofty words might pepper constitutions and manifesto's, but too often they're just words, the rules of the game favour the rich and powerful. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is the well-known phrase from the United States Declaration of Independence, penned by good Christians in an age that tolerated slavery, in a country that didn't truly have universal suffrage till the 1960's

The right wing have this phrase they use to disparage the left, the "hive" mind and though I despise it I can't think of a better way of describing how progressives believe that the default setting of government is to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number of people, but that is almost never the case, certainly not in the USA.

As far as I can discern, in the short period of time the USA has been in existence, with the odd interregnum here and there, one group or another, usually in batches and for different reasons, has been on the end of a brutal thumping for the benefit of another more powerful group.

Maybe Trump is closer to the star spangled default setting than progressives are willing to admit.

 

[KS55]

He was like this before, promised to be like this again, and Americans voted for him.

I came to the conclusion that this is what a majority of Americans want.

I’m not sure what they believed or not. So they certainly liked the nonsense of deportation raids but the pardoning has gone down very badly; one poll shows two thirds opposed. The police have come out strongly.
The DC bench have, to a man, condemned it and that includes a large number of judges appointed by Trump or Bush. Even a few Republicans have condemned it but many who opposed the idea of freeing the violent ones have now done a volte facie.
He now has the churches speaking out against him.
Like everything else with this charlatan, only history will really get to grips with him.