People are actually protesting because Donald Trump is coming?

It’s not about boredom or too much free time. People stand up for what they believe in. Whether or not you agree with it, it’s not a difficult thing to understand. 🤷🏻*♀️

Reply 43

Alexty28

19

Original post by Fullofsurprises

People are not protesting against the American people, or the office of president. They are protesting against a racist reactionary and neo-fascist holding that office.

Trump is a rude, unprofessional, **** but you clearly do not understand what fascism is. People like you have made terms such as 'fascist' and 'nazi' meaningless.

Reply 44

Doones

Original post by Chief Wiggum

Those pictures above are still an absolutely tiny number of the general public.

(And yes, the crowds at Trump's inauguration were also a ludicrously small number of the general public.)

Is that how it works? A protest has to be 50%+ of the total population to matter?

If not, what would be an acceptable percentage?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 45

Original post by Alexty28

Trump is a rude, unprofessional, **** but you clearly do not understand what fascism is. People like you have made terms such as 'fascist' and 'nazi' meaningless.

I said neo-fascist.

The evidence is that Trump consistently attacks the media and spreads blatant lies that he knows to be lies; that he advocates violence against the media - as he did repeatedly during his election campaigns; that he carries through racist policies; that he is happy in the company of dictators and appears to appreciate them more than democrats; that he acts unconstitutionally and instead of backing down, attacks those who try to prevent such actions - and that he was willing to win the election using secretive methods of propaganda under the control of foreign governments.

I could go on, but those are just to get us started.

He is basically like Mussolini in the early days of his power in Italy. A few more years of Trump and we will be hearing about the need to suspend the constitution, abolish the media and other such fascist acts.

Reply 46

Wōden

15

Original post by RF_PineMarten

The idea that we should pander to this horrible egotistical w***** who brags about sexually assaulting women, is severely anti-environmentalist, despises free speech and is completely incapable of actual diplomacy so we don't hurt his feelings is just nonsense.

All he and the American government wants is a "trade deal" in which we completely remove our environmental and animal welfare protections so that American companies with awful business practices (no care for the environment, animal welfare, food standards or workers rights) can undercut ours. That race to the bottom is absolutely not something we should ever be accepting or encouraging.

I'll readily admit I'm no fan of Trump's stance on environmental issues, and that would be a worthy thing to protest, but I don't recall seeing any of the Socialist Worker of Amnesty placards making any reference to environmentalism, just the usual drivel, "RACIST!" "SEXIST!" "FASCIST!" blah blah blah. I still think the vitriolic hatred he recieves is completely out of proportion, and I really can't help but feel 90% of it is nothing more than virtue signalling, just the latest fad that gets fickle morons whipped up into a frenzy.

While we are on the subject, I must wonder how many of these protestors actually give one hap'ney jizz about the environment? They might nominally do so, but in practice, these are the same people who are perfectly happy with the mass-migration of people from the third world into Western nations, a massively destructive act towards our own local environments and ecosystems. They think we can just cram as many people as possible into a small, island nation like Britain, and that somehow it will have no impact whatsoever, we won't have to concrete over more and more of our countryside, we won't have to sacrifice more of our farmland to housing making us ever more dependent on foreign imports, we won't have more and more cars on our already heavily congested and polluted roads, we won't have more litter and waste to contend with, everything will be just ****ing fine and we'll have a fantastic range of restaurants. :colonhash:

And that's not even touching upon the social upheavals...

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 47

Alexty28

19

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I said neo-fascist.

The evidence is that Trump consistently attacks the media and spreads blatant lies that he knows to be lies; that he advocates violence against the media - as he did repeatedly during his election campaigns; that he carries through racist policies; that he is happy in the company of dictators and appears to appreciate them more than democrats; that he acts unconstitutionally and instead of backing down, attacks those who try to prevent such actions - and that he was willing to win the election using secretive methods of propaganda under the control of foreign governments.

I could go on, but those are just to get us started.

He is basically like Mussolini in the early days of his power in Italy. A few more years of Trump and we will be hearing about the need to suspend the constitution, abolish the media and other such fascist acts.

I agree with the Mussolini and Trump comparison you gave, however those actions by Mussolini were mainly carried out for his own personal gain and concealing power, and making Italy his personal dictatorship rather than a fascist one.

Reply 48

Wōden

15

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I said neo-fascist.

The evidence is that Trump consistently attacks the media and spreads blatant lies that he knows to be lies;

The media are hardly an innocent party in all of this. Are you seriously going to sit there and say they have not flagrantly exaggerated, sensationalised and lied throughout Trump's campaign and presidency? That they have not been absolutely biased and hostile to Trump right from the very beginning?

They deserve every criticism they recieve from Trump.

that he advocates violence against the media - as he did repeatedly during his election campaigns;

No he doesn't, what absolute drivel.

that he carries through racist policies;

Which of his policies are 'racist'? Because he actually enforces the law against illegal immigrants, and bans travel from nations known to have significant terrorist activity? How awful.

that he is happy in the company of dictators and appears to appreciate them more than democrats;

And yet in doing so has managed to make more progress towards peace in the Korean peninsular than any president before him. What a monster. How dare he not continue the with same old policies towards the North Koreans which achieved absolutely nothing in the past.

and that he was willing to win the election using secretive methods of propaganda under the control of foreign governments.

That's the nature of elections, it is and always will be a dirty business. But Hillary was squeeky clean right? She didn't have massive Arab money behind her, didn't use her power and influence to rig the Democratic Nomination against Bernie Sanders, didn't have the completely biased and bought off media machine backing her every move, right?

Whatever underhand tactics Trump may have managed to muster would have been a drop in the ocean compared to that which the opposition wielded. Whatever you think of him, you have to somewhat amire the audacity of what he achieved, he took the Citidel on at it's full might and actually won.

He is basically like Mussolini in the early days of his power in Italy. A few more years of Trump and we will be hearing about the need to suspend the constitution, abolish the media and other such fascist acts.

At what point has he made any attempt or indication that he wishes to abolish the media or suspend the constitution?

I could go on, but those are just to get us started.

Oh yes, I have no doubt you could go on and on about this fantasy you have created in your head.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 49

Original post by Wōden

No he doesn't, what absolute drivel.

Original post by Wōden

And yet in doing so has managed to make more progress towards peace in the Korean peninsular than any president before him. What a monster. How dare he not continue the with same old policies towards the North Koreans which achieved absolutely nothing in the past.

He has made no progress at all in NK so far, not even the much-trailed return of prisoners. Kim has expanded nuclear production and ignored US statements since the wildly over-hyped meeting.

Original post by Wōden

At what point has he made any attempt or indication that he wishes to abolish the media or suspend the constitution?

Give the poor lad a chance, he needs time to create a suitable crisis incident and declare a state of emergency. My money is on blowing up the congress - he likes telly and will have been pleased by the plot of Designated Survivor.

Original post by Wōden

Oh yes, I have no doubt you could go on and on about this fantasy you have created in your head.

Better than pretending poor old Hilary is still to blame for everything. :lol:

Reply 50

Original post by Alexty28

I agree with the Mussolini and Trump comparison you gave, however those actions by Mussolini were mainly carried out for his own personal gain and concealing power, and making Italy his personal dictatorship rather than a fascist one.

I did say "neo-fascist". It's a point along a spectrum of fascist-style behaviour. On a 1-10 score, where Hitler 1943 was the full 10.0, I'd have given Benito a 6.5 in his early days. I'd say Trump is a 4.5 currently, but he's working up for something bigger.

Reply 51

anarchism101

17

Original post by Wōden

The media are hardly an innocent party in all of this. Are you seriously going to sit there and say they have not flagrantly exaggerated, sensationalised and lied throughout Trump's campaign and presidency? That they have not been absolutely biased and hostile to Trump right from the very beginning?

On the whole, yep.

For a start, "the media" has become something of an abstraction that anyone can blame for anything in an often unfalsifiable way. People of all political persuasions making use of this trope tend to implicitly exclude media outlets they do actually agree with from "the media". In this case, Trump supporters tend for instance to implicitly exclude Fox from the "mainstream" media - even though Fox, as the most watched cable news outlet, is thus more mainstream than the outlets they are criticising.

But if we are indeed going to make general statements about Trump and "the media", then I'd say they have a considerable tendency to softball him and let him get away with stuff they'd hit a normal president over the head with for ages.

Part of this, to be fair to them, is that there's no easy answer to the challenge of how to cover scandals and controversies - that for any other presidential candidate would be campaign-defining - on a daily basis. Mitt Romney's "I like firing people" and "47 percent" comments were considered major gaffes that possibly cost him the election in 2012, but they'd fly well below the radar in a typical Trump speech. The media never have more than a few days to cover one crash before another new one has happened to distract their attention.

But part of it is just an adherence to typical media incentives and tropes. They bend over backwards to present a semblance of "balance" and normalcy rather than acknowledge that some issues don't really have two sides, and that some things aren't normal. Hence the massive attention given to Clinton's emails during the election because they didn't really have anything to "balance" Trump's endless larger scandals, so they blew a molehill into a mountain to compensate. It's natural for a reporter to pretend to take Trump's claims seriously than to admit that he's either i) pathologically lying or ii) delusionally detached from reality (or a bit of both).

This isn't particularly about policy. I suspect we'd be getting relatively similar policy, especially domestically, had say, Ted Cruz, won. Plus Trump seems relatively uninterested in any detailed policy, which seems to come largely from other people (e.g. the child separation stuff came more from Sessions and Miller than Trump himself). It's that Trump himself is incompetent and delusional to a degree unprecedented for a US President, at least in the modern age.

Reply 52

AspiringAccount

It's deomcracy di*kwad.

Reply 53

username4150124

OP

11

Original post by AspiringAccount

It's deomcracy di*kwad.

That’s not my point. My point is that it’s pointless. People were crying and protesting because he’s here, they weren’t sleeping. What was Trump doing when all of this was happening? He was drinking tea with the queen while being unbothered. Lol.

Reply 54

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I did say "neo-fascist". It's a point along a spectrum of fascist-style behaviour. On a 1-10 score, where Hitler 1943 was the full 10.0, I'd have given Benito a 6.5 in his early days. I'd say Trump is a 4.5 currently, but he's working up for something bigger.

Facism isn't just a something an individual is. It's wider movement and structuring of society. I have no doubt Trump would make a good fascist leader, but the fascist movement is just not there to do it. There is no strong labour movement fascists can win to their side. Trump does not have his own ultras etc. This stuff is too small.

Reply 55

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Facism isn't just a something an individual is. It's wider movement and structuring of society. I have no doubt Trump would make a good fascist leader, but the fascist movement is just not there to do it. There is no strong labour movement fascists can win to their side. Trump does not have his own ultras etc. This stuff is too small.

You can be a fascist in the absence of a movement, you would just be lonely. :teehee:

I don't really think Trump is an out and out Nazi - for one thing, he's obviously motivated personally by libertarian/wealth building and that's not so much an ideology as a smug manifestation of membership of the billionaire class. I suppose the 1930s analogy is more like the gentleman aristocrats of England and Germany who sidled up to Hitler and shmoozed with the fascisti. Like them, Trump is not averse to displaying public racism when he feels it makes him more popular.

The equivalent in the US of the brownshirts are the white middle aged race haters who voted him in.

Reply 56

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You can be a fascist in the absence of a movement, you would just be lonely. :teehee:

In the same way you can be a soclialist without a movement. It's kind of pointless.

Reply 57

CinnamonSmol

Original post by zhog

What racist and misogynistic policies would that be, then?

Muslim travel ban is a big one, his inciting of racist rhetoric, the fact that he labels all mexicans as rapists and is caging up immigrants and asylum seekers children in cages and allowing for them to be forcefully seperated from their families, his disgusting objectification of women, whilst some of these examples are not necessarily policies, it probably won't be long before he tries to implement policies that restrict women and POCs. Whilst protesting may not cause Trump to step down, its useful to show how other coountries are appalled by Trump and how he may be president but we wont support any of his views

Reply 58

AspiringAccount