Republican win

[Phil Perry]

Ah, the BBC.

Lovely organisation. Makes fantastic shows. Absolutely brilliant productions, fantastic comedy, documentaries, dramas, news, social commentary. Can't fault it really.

 

And Professor Cox! What a man. Who said scientists have to look like Albert Einstein? What's wrong with him using his rock star status and zoomed-in wistful looks if it gets teenage girls off their Iphones and interested in science? Another stroke of brilliance by the Beeb!

 

Well done for their objective and science-based coverage of climate change. Refreshing to see an organisation who's not in the hip pockets of big business with a financial incentive to ruin the planet in order to pay dividends to their shareholders.

 

Good on them I say. Go the Beeb. Brian Cox for PM (and if you don't want him, we'll take him.)

 

Huzzah!

 

(I'm off to the BBC website to give them a big thumbs up.)

 

 

Yah Boo Sucks ! You're welcome to it Marty. ( check both hands aterwards, to make sure you have not got TWO left thumbs )

 

The only REAL reason I REALLY hate that grinning Girlie faced CoxMong is that ALL of the bloody deluded Female members of my famly think that he is 'YUMMY' ( Insert Vomit sound effect here )

 

 

[dutchroll]

I was mainly troubled by the notion that scientist and science organisations are so shallow and unethical that they will say anything to get research funds.

I'm really bothered when people use that argument too.

 

Although in principle it could be true, it is normally used without any supporting evidence at all and purely directed at climate science. However, if it is true for climate research that scientists are just "making it up" to get research funding, then it should logically be true for pretty much every other research field in the world. Why would only climate scientists do it to get money when everyone else can too? Do they have some sort of vetting process which filters out the honest ones, but only in that field and in no others? Seems unlikely to me. Therefore all scientific research is untrustworthy and we should believe none of it. Better still, to root out this corruption, we should cease all scientific research. Of course this argument then becomes fairly absurd.

 

The reality is that it's normally when people don't like the results that the accusations fly. Prior to any unpalatable results being released, they're absolutely fine with it and have nothing to say about it at all. It's a fascinating observation in how human behaviour changes depending on the circumstances. I've actually witnessed a heavy smoker use the same argument - that research on smoking related diseases is all dodgy. It's a really interesting psychological phenomenon that people will vehemently dispute research findings which imply they're doing something bad or damaging, without having any evidence that those findings are actually wrong, but are totally ok with any research which doesn't produce those results.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

#BREAKING; Army deployed to #Molenbeek, #Brussels, where huge anti-#terror operation is ongoing.!!

 

Molenbeek, Belgium. . . Police and the Army deployed in large scale crackdown on jihadist terrorism. Ongoing for 4.5 hours.

 

BBC have a mere 70 reporters permanently based in Belgium. . .

 

BBC reports ? . . .ANYWHERE ?. . . Radio ?. . .TV . . .?

 

Big fat Zero. Nothing, Nada, Zilch. . . .waiting for the Bosses to tell them how to SPIN IT no doubt. . . .Biggest news organization on the planet

 

Bloody useless I call it. . . . .All the other major news sources have been reporting this for a while. . .but not our reliable, impartial BBC. . . . . They are absolutely TERRIFIED that it might just be something to do with our Muslim friends. . .and until they can spin it as NTDWI they obviously won't report it. . . . which makes me wonder why they have 70 staff permanently stationed in a particular country, if they are not allowed to report anything but OF COURSE. . . .It's the unique way in which they are funded. . .. if you don't pay the BBC Licence tax,. . .you go to jail. . . . .

 

 

[storchy neil]

hey phil they don't want your urine over heating again neil

 

 

[octave]

The only REAL reason I REALLY hate that grinning Girlie faced CoxMong is that ALL of the bloody deluded Female members of my famly think that he is 'YUMMY' ( Insert Vomit sound effect here )

Perhaps the female members of your family are attracted to intelligence and affability and good humour and perhaps turned off by perpetually angry red faced men who bang on about how angry they are and how bad their lives are working out, just a thought

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Perhaps the female members of your family are attracted to intelligence and affability and good humour and perhaps turned off by perpetually angry red faced men who bang on about how angry they are and how bad their lives are working out, just a thought

 

Ooops . . . . Mornin' Octave Sir. Deffo forgot the appropriate smiley at the end of that piece !

 

And here's me getting regularly admonished by friends and family for being too 'Jokey' and never serous about nuffin. . .

 

 

[Methusala]

I am intrigued by the degree of skepticism and doubt that is being directed at the prospective Trump administration and all prior to him actually taking office. Sure, he is a character of acquired notoriety. So was Clinton having been de-barred in his own state and actually carrying out the execution of a mentally disabled felon when governor, prior to election. George Bush was well known as a dodger of service in Vietnam but this did not seem to occupy much space in the political analysis of main stream media. Mrs Clinton, the Democrat's nominee, had probably egregiously broken national security laws by conducting secret matters of state over a private (and so, not secure) email system, presumably to defy public record disclosure laws. Other emails showed outrageous party donation scams along with a policy within the Democratic Party to discredit Bernie Sanders candidacy in league with major players in the news media.

 

But it is Trump, who has stuck to his pre-election commitment, to seek "detent" (real Nixon era speak) with Russia who has ignited a bees nest of fury within the US Beltway. Today we have the eerie, chilling spectacle of the CIA Director Brennan "warning" a President elect not to tangle with them! As with the popular (except among the illegal drug using community)president of the Philippines, Trump has got to watch his back.

 

You may find little to like about Trump but the Clintons make my skin crawl.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Mrs Clinton, the Democrat's nominee, had probably egregiously broken national security laws by conducting secret matters of state over a private (and so, not secure) email system, presumably to defy public record disclosure laws.

If you mean she deliberately wanted to defy "public disclosure laws" to avoid disclosure of that information, you'd be wrong. Classified information is classified information. It actually doesn't matter where or how it's stored, technically, as long as it stays safely locked away unable to be accessed by people who are not authorised. Of course this is why they have "secure" servers and rules regarding their use, ie, above a certain classification, it becomes mandatory to store and transmit that information only using secure, approved methods. If it's classified, it cannot be publicly disclosed - no matter what. To do that it must be "de-classified".

 

If you mean she wanted to deliberately disclose it by storing it insecurely, well there's no evidence she actually ever did deliberately disclose it. So that argument doesn't really work either.

 

However she was certainly careless and stupid to do it. There is no doubt about that.

 

This is one example of how conspiracy theories start - a misunderstanding of the rules and their intent.

 

Source: I worked in the military for many years with a very high level security clearance.

 

 

[Bruce]

I was impressed that Trump is saying he will have a max tax rate of 15% and already some companies have decided not to move offshore as they were planning.

 

But how will he fund the 600 billion annual military cost?

 

Personally, I think it insane that a country would tax domestic production out of business and then import the same goods from low tax and wages countries and doing this while increasing the tax rate to pay for unemployment welfare.

 

Of course CASA win the prize here for a government intent on creating poverty.

 

 

[octave]

I am intrigued by the degree of skepticism and doubt that is being directed at the prospective Trump administration and all prior to him actually taking office. Sure, he is a character of acquired notoriety. So was Clinton having been de-barred in his own state and actually carrying out the execution of a mentally disabled felon when governor, prior to election. George Bush was well known as a dodger of service in Vietnam but this did not seem to occupy much space in the political analysis of main stream media. Mrs Clinton, the Democrat's nominee, had probably egregiously broken national security laws by conducting secret matters of state over a private (and so, not secure) email system, presumably to defy public record disclosure laws. Other emails showed outrageous party donation scams along with a policy within the Democratic Party to discredit Bernie Sanders candidacy in league with major players in the news media.But it is Trump, who has stuck to his pre-election commitment, to seek "detent" (real Nixon era speak) with Russia who has ignited a bees nest of fury within the US Beltway. Today we have the eerie, chilling spectacle of the CIA Director Brennan "warning" a President elect not to tangle with them! As with the popular (except among the illegal drug using community)president of the Philippines, Trump has got to watch his back.

 

You may find little to like about Trump but the Clintons make my skin crawl.

 

OK firstly I am trying hard not to put my point of view in an aggressive way because I don't think it is good for me. There are many good things about the net but one of the less positive things is the way people tend to polarise. People who would normally say "I have a slightly different opinion but that's OK lets have another beer or shiraz. I am with Charlie Brooker

 

 

Anyway the following is just my opinion and I fully accept that you may think I am naive or whatever.

 

In terms of draft dodging Whilst many US politicians were able to avoid serving in Vietnam I have no problem with that BUT when Trump refereed to Sen John Mcain (someone who I disagree with politically but have to respect the sacrifice made) says that someone who served and became a prisoner of war as - “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured,” What Trump said. in my opinion is despicable and the words of someone not suitable to take on one of the most important jobs in the world.

 

Although not a big fan of George Bush Jnr, he was regularly lampooned but did not feel the need to respond. I find it disturbing that Trump having won an election is so insecure that he needs to respond on Twitter to a second rate comedy show every time it makes fun of him, to me this is extremely undignified and probably indicates a rather insecure person, this is not what is required for such an important job.

 

In terms of Clinton emails, I can honestly say that I have no idea about using your own server, but I would assume that the FBI investigation was thorough and that if there was a legal case to answer that a prosecution would be a distinct possibility however my understanding is that the FBI although critical and has described it as. careless nevertheless said there was no legal transgression, there was no case to be prosecuted. Trump claimed during the election that if he won Clinton would end up behind bars, A CLAIM THAT HE HAS BACKED AWAY FROM -I wonder why, perhaps he was advise that there is nothing to prosecute. In any case it makes him look foolish and naive - the president DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS PROSECUTED OR WHAT THE OUTCOME MAY BE - it is called the "separation of powers" and it is what makes the difference between Banana republics and modern nations. This makes me worried about how this man will perform.

 

In terms of Russia, I find it amazing that in the past cosying up to Russia would have you branded as a Commie now it is OK. I have no problem with that per se but I do have doubts about how political savvy Trump is. To believe that a talent in negotiating a business deal to benefit oneself makes someone good at negotiating a deal that is good for a whole country of for avoiding military conflict I suspect is naive.

 

I am troubled by his despicable recorded quotes, I can't help but be repulsed by a man who said "you grab them by the pussy and they can;t stop you" I can't help but think of him doing this to the females that are important in my life. Now perhaps it was locker room talk (whatever that is) but let me tell you that I spent 12 years in the Military and I worked with many people that I respected and also some that I despised, but I never heard anyone talk about doing anything to a women against her will. p"In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There's never been a case like this,” the president-elect said in a meeting with The New York Times Tuesday, Perhaps he was just joking but call me old fashioned, I would not employ someone who thought that was funny.

 

I think his arrogance is a problem. "I can fix the problems but no one else can" If Trump was a flying instructor I would not fly with him. There is nothing worse than a person in any field who believes they can do it all and no one else can.

 

I think his spat with the United States security organisations is extremely worrying, if the FBI and CIA are as bad as he says, what is he going to do about it??

 

But my misgivings may turn out to be quite wrong and he might make America great again (whatever that actually means - his fans don't seem to be discerning about this). If this happens I will be man enough to admit I was wrong (although I still think he is a despicable person). The good thing is we won't have to wait too.

 

The next twelve months will show whether America will be great again, whether the Mexicans will build a wall and pay for it. whether he is mature enough to handle foreign affairs (although having a hissy fit because a comedian has parodied him is worrying). The implications of him being so insecure and reactive when China has a go at him are a completely different thing).

 

I don't wish to make predictions (we will know soon enough) but I will say that in 12 months America will not be great again. A thing which his fans don't seem to need a definition for.

 

We should revisit this subject on Jan 20 2018 because I am sure one of us will be demonstrably wrong by then!!

 

 

[Bruce]

Well said octave, and I agree, but what about the argument that he might just turn out to be the least worst of the choices?

 

 

[Methusala]

If you mean she deliberately wanted to defy "public disclosure laws" to avoid disclosure of that information, you'd be wrong. Classified information is classified information. It actually doesn't matter where or how it's stored, technically, as long as it stays safely

No...that's not what I think she was doing. I think that she was conducting her negotiations privately and probably with criminal intent and used a private server to conceal her motives. Why else would she do it? I think that "Occum's Razor" applies well in this case. Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to have her tried in criminal court for this during the campaign. I think that it is too easy to simply assert that this was "clever politics" on his part. I have said before in this forum that I believe Trump to be a conviction politician. He does not need to be in politics, not being his career unlike the Clinton's who have left a trail of criminality and possibly murder in their wake. We will have leisure time to observe how he acts as POTUS over the next 4 years (if not impeached or assassinated in the mean time, remember JFK.)

 

You can call me a "conspiracy theorist" whatever that really means but I have followed politics all of my life and don't get it soo wrong.

 

Trump is being targeted because Hellery was meant to get the prize. Negotiation and cooperation with Russia doesn't fit with the imperial ambitions held by the US since at least the conclusion of Bretton-Woods where Russia and China where surrounded and hog tied.

 

BTW obviously she was stupid. The fact that (at least some of) the emails have surfaced publicly demonstrates this. I don't even care if you choose to believe your own interpretation of this fascinating period in history but no one should become too comfortable because the dogs of war are howling and it is the neocon establishment in US that is yanking their tails.

 

 

[octave]

Well said octave, and I agree, but what about the argument that he might just turn out to be the least worst of the choices?

Just my opinion but as ineffective as the usual parade of politicians at least they somewhat maintain the status quo such as it is. The thing about Trump is that he is not a conservative (according to his rhetoric) but rather is a radical and I worry about any radical of any persuasion.

 

I recently heard an interview with Greg Bart - foreign affairs editor at the Australian newspaper. He is a conservative columnist but although I tend to disagree with him a lot I do admire his intellect. Any he makes the point that the average Trump voter does not understand that Trump is not a true conservative. This makes sense to me, when I was growing up in the seventies it was the left who were into protecting local industry and tariffs and also they tended to be naive about the Russians (or Soviets as they were at the time)

 

 

[octave]

No...that's not what I think she was doing. I think that she was conducting her negotiations privately and probably with criminal intent and used a private server to conceal her motives.

Thoughts on Colin Powell???

 

Colin Powell defends personal email use

 

I know that this is what you think she was doing but the only thing that counts is the evidence. I would be interested to hear you "theory" on how it is that the FBI after examining the evidence came to a different conclusion to the one that you came to (after examining the evidence) or is it more about what you just FEEL must be true?)

 

 

[Methusala]

FBI Director, James Comey made an extraordinary announcement during the final days of the long election campaign making public new emails damaging to Hillary Clinton possibly putting the last nail in her political coffin. This electrified the voters who already harboured deep (really DEEP) misgivings about her character and her judgement. Remember that after her husband was found to have willfully lied about not having sex with Monica she retorted,"He's a good dog but hard to keep on the porch!" Is that a comment that would satisfy you had it been your young daughter that the President had touched up with a Havana cigar?

 

I don't enter these discussions with malice or anger. I wish to place information and considered opinion into public space for consideration.

 

Whether or not Trump feels it worth the political price to try Clinton is moot. I believe that his motive was to warn people of the serious risk electing her would entail.

 

I take umbrage at your pointed question about what I would feel. Please stick to commenting on views and not personalities.

 

Regards, Don

 

 

[octave]

Whether or not Trump feels it worth the political price to try Clinton is moot.

Whether or not Trump FEELS (or are we just sticking to views?) it is not within his power to PUT SOMEONE BEHIND BARS, Why Clinton and not Powell???? By what process could Trump put Clinton behind bars?

 

If you don't like

 

or is it more about what you just FEEL must be true?

perhaps I could substitute "think" or "assert" but my point is do you actually know, is there robust evidence, by the way I have no urge to defend any politician Clinton or Trump or anyone else but it is easy to throw around allegations. Is it wrong for a secretary of state to use a private server, the answer is either yes or know either Clinton and Powell should be behind bars or not unless the 2 cases are somehow different if so how (not saying they are not but only interested in verifiable facts)

So what are you predictions for the next 4 years?

 

 

[Methusala]

Dear Octave, I don't do predictions and I feel something if it physically interacts with my nervous system.

 

I simply ask you why would the Director of the FBI raise questions about Clinton's emails if he saw no legal implications? He is not some back woods county sheriff. You have baldly asserted that Clinton is in the clear when this question has not been answered. I imagine that the concept of robust evidence was in HIS mind when he raised the matter. The POTUS has a great amount of power and his party controls both houses and he will have opportunity to make nominations for retiring supreme court judges. Don't make the assumption that he is a mere poster boy. Regards, Don.

 

BTW You had a strong reaction to alleged inappropriate sexual conduct on Trump's behalf. I am waiting to hear your judgement of the Clinton episode which is fully documented

 

 

[Marty_d]

I believe Trump to be a conviction politician.

How can he be a conviction politician when he doesn't have any convictions?

 

During the campaign he made many statements and election promises that he knew he was never going to be able to keep. That's not conviction, that's cynically gaming the gullible.

 

As to Bill's infidelities, he wouldn't be the only married man in the USA to be caught with his pants down (probably not even the only married man in the White House....) and I don't see what his personal life has to do with him doing his job. His only political mistake (moral is subjective) was not admitting to it. If he'd just come out and said "Yes, I did it, I was unfaithful and I'm very sorry, but it does not affect any area of policy", then it wouldn't have blown up so much.

 

 

[octave]

I simply ask you why would the Director of the FBI raise questions about Clinton's emails if he saw no legal implications?

What conclusion did he come regarding the legality? To be clear I think is was a poor decision of Clinton and Powell to use private email and is a legitimate question to ask a candidate for the presidency but I believe the chants of "lock her" up to be nothing more than whipping up the masses. So I simply ask why has the Director not recommended charges? Surely now Trump is the the President elect, would it not be in his interest to do what Trump wants? I will make one prediction. Clinton will more than likely not be prosecuted and if so will not be found guilty (and Powell)

 

Note I prefaced every I said with my "opinion". My opinion is not meant to offend you and yours does not offend me.

 

Anyway the following is just my opinion and I fully accept that you may think I am naive or whatever.

Just my opinion but as ineffective as the usual parade of politicians at least they somewhat maintain the status quo such as it is

 

If Bill Clinton were standing for President now I would want to know what his character is but he isn't. Trump is. If President A was flawed in a certain way it does mean that President B gets a free pass.

 

BTW You had a strong reaction to alleged inappropriate sexual conduct on Trump's behalf. I am waiting to hear your judgement of the Clinton episode which is fully documented

When you say alleged, I am not talking about allegations only what the man said. I am in no way applying that what he said was true but I am not sure if I could trust someone who talked like that even in private and no I have not led a sheltered life. But again just my opinion.

 

Anyway like I said in my first post, I am sure we would get on wonderfully over a glass or red or beer.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Methusala]

Lying to Congress while holding the office of President... now that would offend most peoples sense of morality. But I did not introduce moral judgement as a theme. I simply questioned whether it was all that unusual for presidents to be sexually liberal (think of JFK). I think that Trump is being undermined by the establishment even before taking office and is being held to a different standard than Clinton. Why this? I want to know. I am suspicious of the political establishment including the MSM (main stream media). I was utterly convinced that Abbott would be a catastrophic PM well before he became one. I don't understand why the political commentariot could not see this coming. That IS their job. They are constantly making public utterance on Bill Shorten's suitability for the office. Please don't think that I wish to be adversarial in this discussion. I am open to contrary argument and hope not to be trapped in reacting to side issues. I apologise if I have given offence to anybody. Regards, Don

 

 

[octave]

Please don't think that I wish to be adversarial in this discussion. I am open to contrary argument and hope not to be trapped in reacting to side issues. I apologise if I have given offence to anybody.

Absolutely no offence either taken or intended, it would be boring if we all agreed.

 

 

[Yenn]

All this talk only proves what a sad state our and US politics are in.

 

The U S fielded two presidential candidates who were of very low quality.

 

There may have been no better candidates, who knows?

 

Colin Powell is a really good example of failure. He was a brilliant general with a good grasp of what was possible. Then GW Bush got him to do the ridiculous and push the war against Saddam Hussain on false grounds.

 

Look at all the problems caused by yanky pollies and then look at how our prime ministers follow blindly. What a stuff up!

 

At the start of this forum I wondered about Trump lasting the course. I am still wondering.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Thanks gent for an interesting debate.

 

Methuselah has highlighted a most important point, which has kept me carefully watching the media:

 

When the MSM starts what appears to be a concentrated campaign to denigrate a politician (the President Elect), I am deeply concerned where they are leading the public. There is always an ulterior motive when the mudslinging starts before the guy is actually sworn in. If he is so bad we will see once he starts stuffing things. Until he actually creates the evidence, all I can see is just another self interested polly. So far it's all a load of hot air.

 

PS that doesn't mean I would endorse him, just that I don't trust media.

 

 

[Methusala]

From my initial posting to this thread I never set out to laud Donald Trump as an individual. I did see his election as the least worst choice that was to be expected. I am in favor of :

 

1. Any attempt to lesson tension between the US and Russia- 2 massively equipped nuclear weapons states.

 

2. Anyone's foreign policy agenda bar Madam Clinton's. (Because she as a Democrat Congress woman voted in favor of GBW's illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq on obviously fabricated evidence; Presided over the US State Dept {Dept responsible for Making War against defenseless countries} whilst invading and destroying the most socially advanced state in Africa; Backing the Nazi coup that swept the elected govt of the Ukraine from power; and, making use of their convenient (and secret allies Al Queada, aka Al Nusra etc...) to destroy and attempt illegal regime change against the elected and highly popular Al Assad govt in Syria. Read more widely and you can see similar stories in Africa, Sth America etc.)

 

3. An American leader who can see that there is so much to be done to repair the domestic US homeland socially, economically. industrially and morally. I have visited the US in the past couple of years as well as S/E Asia and China and was shocked at the poverty visible on the streets of US cities co-existing with extreme wealth. Vietnam and other veterans living out of shopping trolleys and begging on the same streets that carry millionaire Ferraris and Lear jets. Conspicuous and outstanding poverty.

 

So it will require the efforts of some radical thinking to alter the course of US imperial maneuvering that has proceeded unchecked since the end of WW2. "Come the time, come the man", is an old proverb. Perhaps I am just a wishful thinker but something needs to change.

 

 

[nomadpete]

It's nice that you harbour so much positive hope. I truly hope you are right. Personally, though, based on observed behaviour of politicians over the years, I'm preparing for the worst.

 

I agree that Hillary seems very dangerous. My point is that Donny is an unknown quantity so it is not sensible to prejudge. Time will tell.