Donald Trump. Leg End or Bell End?

[Tarbie]

Mate that big anti trump speech above full of fantasy shite and you say you aint alt left.
Perlease.

P.S Frags dont listen to 'Project Fear', we are thriving over here son, youll see when you come back for a holiday.

Ain't no fantasy in it mate. Go through every point I've raised if you like. There is substance in all of it.

And how can I be Left leaning, when I'm firmly against almost everything that comes out of Corbyn's mouth? Pains me to say it, but I agree with more of Theresa Mays politics than Corbyn's.

My point about bang smack in the middle, is that I favour politics that avoid extremes or either left or right. I'm also a firm believer in secular politics (one of my biggest bug bear in American politics is the influence of religion).

[Stanley]

In my opinion there is a sensible space bang smack in the middle where everyone can get on with their lives pretty happily, without fear of being persecuted.

Sounds a bit like Small Government, which I’ve always been an advocate of. Its the ideal marriage of classical liberalism and conservatism. In fact Thatcher was one of its biggest proponents.

[Jeems]

Just goes to show that you can spin any story 2 ways mate. Ain't gonna argue with you point by point........but you're wrong on the HIV/AIDS thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.dc057e21f1ed

Another example of people getting angry over an inflammatory headline, rather than looking at the hard facts.

Fact #1 - Trumps budget for HIV remains the same as it was under Obama (source in my previous post)

Fact #2 - “The Obama administration dismissed the George W. Bush administration appointees to PACHA in order to bring in new voices. All PACHA members are eligible to apply to serve on the new council that will be convened in 2018.”

"The administration is expected to pick a replacement Pacha panel. Those terminated were told they can re-apply if they choose".

Source: Your link

I would more than welcome you to refute my last post as it creates interesting debate and conversation. It'd be a boring world if everyone agreed with each other!

The other side if the coin; a nice guy is voted in to lead your country...

By nice guy, I assume you meant Obama...dont get me wrong, he took a great selfie and was great on talk shows but he was as ruthless as they come...26,000 bombs dropped in 2016 alone. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...6-obama-legacy

[Fraggy]

Jeems, I live in Canada, so I was referring to the nice guy that is Justin Trudeau.
Only thing of note that I am behind with Justin, is the legalization of marijuana

[Tarbie]

Another example of people getting angry over an inflammatory headline, rather than looking at the hard facts.

Fact #1 - Trumps budget for HIV remains the same as it was under Obama (source in my previous post)

Fact #2 - “The Obama administration dismissed the George W. Bush administration appointees to PACHA in order to bring in new voices. All PACHA members are eligible to apply to serve on the new council that will be convened in 2018.”

"The administration is expected to pick a replacement Pacha panel. Those terminated were told they can re-apply if they choose".

Source: Your link

I would more than welcome you to refute my last post as it creates interesting debate and conversation. It'd be a boring world if everyone agreed with each other!

To be honest mate, I'll refrain from going head to head with you for 2 reasons.

1.) You started your initial response to me by acknowledging that Trump had f*cked over a lot of people to get where he is. 2.) In the same couple of sentences, you brushed off the fact that I'm concerned that "the leader of the free world" is happy to ruin the lives of many innocent people for his own financial gain.

These 2 things alone tell me that there is little point debating this cos we're coming from very different angles.

[Jeems]

Tarbie, fair enough mate but imo every single powerful person has trampled over someone to get to where they are. Trump doesn't sugar coat things but in reality he's no different to any previous President.

[Tarbie]

Tarbie, fair enough mate but imo every single powerful person has trampled over someone to get to where they are. Trump doesn't sugar coat things but in reality he's no different to any previous President.

Not knocking him as a business man. If he wants to bury his ethics to make himself as rich and powerful as he possibly can, that's up to him. And that's business to an extent, big companies have been sh*tting on the little man for as long as man has been doing business.

All I'm saying is that the President of the USA should both know how to run an economy, and also protect the best interests of the people in the country (and not just the ones he favours).

[Hubble]

Sounds a bit like Small Government, which I’ve always been an advocate of. Its the ideal marriage of classical liberalism and conservatism. In fact Thatcher was one of its biggest proponents.

Actions speak louder than words Stan. She may have claimed to have been a proponent of small government, but the fact is she increased the role of government in so many matters, the reality is she was a proponent of big government.

Equally, she claimed to be a proponent of the free market and a follower of Von Hayek , whereas in reality she did the opposite. All about vested interests the old Tories, private law = privilege. They keep saying the same old spiel and people keep falling for it. But don't take my word for it, watch the excellent BBC documentary on Von Hayek and listen to what her own ministers say. Very revealing.

[Bluehoop]

As the overton window changes in cycles, the agenda still ploughs on relentlessly

A wonderful comment I read recently on the topic - can't recall the source though

Trump has defenestrated leftism out of the third-story Overton Window

[Hubble]

I have to say it's interesting being in this conversation coming from a leftist perspective, but agreeing with you lot!

I think the difference between us might be that I don't think capitalism is the be all and end all, and all that goes with that. I think you have to have an element - at the very least - of socialism. After all, it's propped up ####ing capitalism for long enough! Mind you, I guess that's another core issue - we have never had actual true free-market capitalism - despite the BS Thatcher came out with about it - it's always been about vested interests - privatised profits and socialised losses - that the real stitch up. And genuine Von Hayek economics has never had a sniff either - too scary for the so-called free marketeers like Thatcher. Why? Because they couldn't control it. In reality, Von Hayek's economic theory is far closer to anarchy than Conservatism.

And that's the strange thing. When you look at small government, you start to go beyond that to the logical conclusion of no government - and you realise it goes full circle - from right wing to anarchism. What seems to scare the bog standard leftist thinkers is also lack of control. They hate the idea of anarchy as much as the right. The irony is that anarchy is not lawlessness, far from it. It simply means no rule of state, be that government, monarchy or whatever. One thing morphs into another. That's why I think it's crazy to use the definitions 'left' and 'right' really - they just become cults (or religions) - they're not positions for the independent minded thinker to take.

[Itsonlyagame]

Talking of the loony left, I see F1 grid girls and darts walk on dolly birds are to be binned.
What the fu€k will be the point of watching cars drive round and round a track or gut laden tw@ts throwing arrows at a board without them.
I tell thee, the world is heading in a dangerous direction with all this PC sh!te.

[Kevin Mcleod]

Talking of the loony left, I see F1 grid girls and darts walk on dolly birds are to be binned.
What the fu€k will be the point of watching cars drive round and round a track or gut laden tw@ts throwing arrows at a board without them.
I tell thee, the world is heading in a dangerous direction with all this PC sh!te.

Couldnt even bring myself to post that.
Or the somalian princess steaming a coffee shop celebrating Winston Churchill.
Im off to Spain to let them have another immigrant im telling ya

[Stanley]

Actions speak louder than words Stan. She may have claimed to have been a proponent of small government, but the fact is she increased the role of government in so many matters, the reality is she was a proponent of big government.

Equally, she claimed to be a proponent of the free market and a follower of Von Hayek , whereas in reality she did the opposite. All about vested interests the old Tories, private law = privilege. They keep saying the same old spiel and people keep falling for it. But don't take my word for it, watch the excellent BBC documentary on Von Hayek and listen to what her own ministers say. Very revealing.

Yes I concede it was more in her rhetoric than actual policies. I resonate with the principles of Small Government but I think you're right about Thatcher not being a fair example of it.

[Hubble]

The memo's been released folks!

(And fair play Stan).

[Kevin Mcleod]

Could you let us know what it is about please Hubb, ive been waiting so bad but im in the pub now. FML