Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
Trump isn't a Republican. He just ran on their ticket.
I thought Trump promised an extra £350m a week to the NHS in the UK? What's happened to that?
S.L.F
You are delighted Republicans control the USA .
I have nil issue on whether Republicans or Democrats control (I don,t know enough) but I am genuinely concerned about Mr Trump.
You said {Trump won , fair & square} . I don,t agree , his speeches / threats/promises had little fair or square about them.
People let him off the hook by using the lame excuse , that it was mostly election chatter he was at .
I don,t buy that either , how many of us should tolerate , never mind vote for or even entertain someone who verbally was openly offensive.
What if he acts on his verbal threats ? He can rightly claim USA voted for his views ?
Doesn,t say much for Clinton or the state of USA that Trump succeeded .
I do put my faith in the Republican controlled Senate and Congress to rein in Mr Trump .
Maybe he will surprise us , but I don,t think hoping that the President of USA will be sensible is an appealing 4 year prospect !
So Catholics are responsible for electing Trump? The IT has an anti Catholic and pro abortion agenda. Do you think that many Catholics listen to the Catholic hierarchy? I doubt it. Ardent pro lifers, Catholic or otherwise, will have voted for Trump with an eye on Supreme Court appointments.A letter in this morning's IT points out that Catholics gave The Donald a whopping 60/37 lead over Clinton. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy had expressed strong preference for the groper over the anti lifer.
The Donald was always going to get the rednecks, the deplorables, the rust belt left behinds, the klansmen, but was he always going to get 60% of the Catholic vote?
Clinton won the national vote by a fairly comfortable 1% which is BTW within the margin of error of the polls taken close to the date. So perhaps the punditry should be targeted at the quirks of the electoral college system rather than attempting profound socio demographic analyses.
Nonetheless the size of The Donald's vote would merit such analysis even if he hadn't won. A letter in this morning's IT points out that Catholics gave The Donald a whopping 60/37 lead over Clinton. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy had expressed strong preference for the groper over the anti lifer.
There is no doubt that if this demographic had split 50/50 Clinton would have been the clear winner. The Donald was always going to get the rednecks, the deplorables, the rust belt left behinds, the klansmen, but was he always going to get 60% of the Catholic vote? Some of the WikiLeaks stuff revealed the antipathy of Clinton towards the Catholic church. Was this her own goal?
The Donald was always going to get the rednecks, the deplorables, the rust belt left behinds, the klansmen.
Brexit voters on the other hand deserve all the scorn you can muster.
This business of them forcing the Marxist/feminist/ lefty ideology down our necks is not something I think is a good thing by any means.
Some of the brexiteers saw the EU in much the way you outline, Daniel Hannan being a leading and very articulate example.
On the other hand some of the leavers saw the EU as the tool of corporate interests, pushing a neoliberal agenda, oppressing workers. Gisela Stuart the labour MP for example.
They can't both be right, they can't both implement their vision to shape the UK outside Europe.
In my opinion the EU does much to protect workers and citizens generally, and the neoliberal's are going to rip into Britain over the coming years. Oh well, if they free the economy and oppress the workers Ireland should benefit from that. And I must admit there is some part of me that thinks the imperial proletariat deserve everything they are going to get. I should try to think more generous thoughts.
I ain,t arguing with the obvious !The reason he won is because people want change.
Come on now , stop throwing Marxist etc about , please !
Since 1973 the EU has improved the lives of their people . Flawed and all as people seem to think , over 40 odd years it has been largely successful for its people . I am not sure there is any trading bloc that has done so well for so many people .
And a good part of that success was social , not just trading.
I agree. Most of the socially liberal legislation we have grew from the EU influence.Come on now , stop throwing Marxist etc about , please !
Since 1973 the EU has improved the lives of their people . Flawed and all as people seem to think , over 40 odd years it has been largely successful for its people . I am not sure there is any trading bloc that has done so well for so many people .
And a good part of that success was social , not just trading.
Dick Spring described CJH as a cancer... a chancer maybe but a cancer?I don't think The Donald has any principles, and that is a good thing. But I don't like the gangsters he his recruiting to his team. One guy has called Islam a cancer. I doubt if in the early days of the Third Reich even Goebbels would have described Judaism as a cancer.
Just for context, did he not call it a cancer in terms of it being an ideology rather than a religion?I don't think The Donald has any principles, and that is a good thing. But I don't like the gangsters he his recruiting to his team. One guy has called Islam a cancer. I doubt if in the early days of the Third Reich even Goebbels would have described Judaism as a cancer.
What's the difference?Just for context, did he not call it a cancer in terms of it being an ideology rather than a religion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?